Direct Pointing Request

[johnr]

My name is John, and I'm in need of some direct pointing. I'm about halfway through the Gateless Gatecrashers ebook, and have a good intellectual understanding of the separation belief, but don't feel that I'm going to be able to release the belief without the assistance of a guide. I've dabbled a little bit in a lot of things, but have never gone "all in" to any spiritual practice as most ended up feeling inauthentic. I was not referred to this site, but stumbled upon it as a result of researching another practice that didn't feel right to me. The transparency here is unlike anything I have ever witnessed. I've explored enough to know this is where I go all in. Please guide me.

[Alexw]

Hi John,

My name is Alex and I would be happy to guide you.

If you would like to get into this, then please let me know how you experience this I/me. How do you define yourself?
What is this I that is having this belief of separation?

What do you expect to change once you find what you are looking for?

Regards,
Alex

[johnr]

My name is Alex and I would be happy to guide you.

Thank you, Alex. Pleased to meet you.

If you would like to get into this, then please let me know how you experience this I/me. How do you define yourself?

My experience of I/me occurs in my head through stories attached to events real and imagined. I/me fabricates meaning regarding what has happened in the past, and I/me ruminates obsessively about things that may happen in the future. I/me creates elaborate imaginary dramas, whines about injustice or unfairness, and even has arguments with itself.

Self definition varies with mood. "I am the creator of all of my circumstances, good or bad" pretty accurately defines the belief about I/me that I've had for most of my adult life.

What is this I that is having this belief of separation?

The I itself is a belief that is a fiction. There is no navigator at the helm. I have contemplated that and intellectually get it, but remain stuck there. I have looked with my eyes and asked who is looking. I experience the void behind the eyes and understand there is no looker, and even feel a shift, but have thus far been unable to fully release the I-ness.

What do you expect to change once you find what you are looking for?

To experience what is real as real, and what is not as not. Whatever changes as a result of that is simply what is.

Thank you again, for this work you are doing.

[Alexw]

OK, great!

Before we go into further detail: If you haven't already seen it, there is introductory info, the disclaimer and a short video too at: http://www.liberationunleashed.com/
Please confirm that you have seen it and agree with it.

A few ground rules:
1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. Answer only from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Longwinded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.
4. 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.
5. Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

My experience of I/me occurs in my head through stories attached to events real and imagined.

This experience that you are talking about... is this really an experience or is it simply a thought that states "I experience myself like that"?
When you look at this experience, what do you find? How do you experience yourself or the world? Isn't it simply through the 5 senses plus thought? If you agree with that, then look again how you experience I/me. Is there any direct experience of a separate I/me at all? If so, this would imply that you can either see it, hear it, smell it, taste or touch/feel it, wouldn't it? Or can you always only think about it?

How do you know that the experience occurs "in your head"?
Sit down, close your eyes and relax. Now please describe the direct experience of "in my head", or even just "my head". What makes it a head and where is the owner of this head?

Self definition varies with mood. "I am the creator of all of my circumstances, good or bad" pretty accurately defines the belief about I/me that I've had for most of my adult life.

Yes, very true. This is a belief, nothing more. What is it that has different moods? Is it your body? Or is a good or bad mood always only defined by thoughts about an entity that is in a certain state? Where does the "I" in "I am in a bad mood" point to?

I have looked with my eyes and asked who is looking.

Don't ask who is looking, but look at who is asking the question... who is the "asker"? Is there one that is separate from the question?

I experience the void behind the eyes and understand there is no looker, and even feel a shift, but have thus far been unable to fully release the I-ness.

OK, so there is no separate looker, right. But looking still happens... If there is no looker can there be an object that is being looked at? Can you find a border between the looking and the thing that is being looked at? (you can try this with any of the 5 senses... see if you find any borders with any of them...)

What would it mean to get rid of this I-ness? What is it exactly that should be dropped? You mentioned that this separate "I" is fiction, a concept, a thought story... How do you drop a story?

[johnr]

Before we go into further detail: If you haven't already seen it, there is introductory info, the disclaimer and a short video too at: http://www.liberationunleashed.com/
Please confirm that you have seen it and agree with it.

A few ground rules:
1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. Answer only from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Longwinded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.
4. 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.
5. Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

Got it. Agreed. Though I didn't find a video.

This experience that you are talking about... is this really an experience or is it simply a thought that states "I experience myself like that"?

It is a thought, an evalution, a judgement. Something that is fabricated.

When you look at this experience, what do you find? How do you experience yourself or the world? Isn't it simply through the 5 senses plus thought? If you agree with that, then look again how you experience I/me. Is there any direct experience of a separate I/me at all? If so, this would imply that you can either see it, hear it, smell it, taste or touch/feel it, wouldn't it? Or can you always only think about it?

No direct experience of a separate I/me. There is nothing there.

How do you know that the experience occurs "in your head"?
Sit down, close your eyes and relax. Now please describe the direct experience of "in my head", or even just "my head". What makes it a head and where is the owner of this head?

Thought is not direct experience. Real experience does not occur in my head. There is a physical head with a physical skull, skin, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, and brain. And the components of the head perform functions, such as sensory ones. But there is no owner. The head, the senses, need no owner and function without one. They just are.

What is it that has different moods? Is it your body? Or is a good or bad mood always only defined by thoughts about an entity that is in a certain state? Where does the "I" in "I am in a bad mood" point to?

Moods are thoughts triggered by thoughts. They are interpretations. They are stories attached to thoughts. If a tire on my car goes flat, my thoughts about the flat tire may trigger a bad mood, but it is all just a tangled wad of thought triggering thought triggering thought. It may even result in physiological affects such as headache, flush face, or nausea. But it is all a result of attaching nonexistent meaning to the flat tire. It's all about "me," and how the flat tire might make "me" late or cause "me" to have to change the tire in the rain, but there is no me. There is only a flat tire that can be changed or not changed.

Don't ask who is looking, but look at who is asking the question... who is the "asker"? Is there one that is separate from the question?

An asker suggests a self, but there is no self. Mini-shift there. Going to spend some more time with that one.

OK, so there is no separate looker, right. But looking still happens... If there is no looker can there be an object that is being looked at? Can you find a border between the looking and the thing that is being looked at? (you can try this with any of the 5 senses... see if you find any borders with any of them...)

There are physical eyes looking at physical objects. No border, but space, distance between the eyes and the object of the looking. Ears hearing sounds generated by physical objects. Time elapses between the sound being generated and that sound reaching the ear. Objects produce aromas that are smelled. The aroma must travel from the object to the nose. No borders, but time and distance.

What would it mean to get rid of this I-ness? What is it exactly that should be dropped? You mentioned that this separate "I" is fiction, a concept, a thought story... How do you drop a story?

It can't be dropped. There is buying into belief, and there is not attaching stuff to thoughts that make it belief. There is looking at thought and recognizing it as a no-thing. It is not dropping.

(on a side note: had a thought about spiritual practice this morning, then immediately got that spiritual is nothing more than a label.)

[johnr]

I spent some time with taste during the drive in to work this morning. Taste is instantaneous. Tongue touches object and tasting happens. No border, no distance, no delay, no taster.

[Alexw]

Great observations!

Thought is not direct experience. Real experience does not occur in my head.

Yes and no. There is direct experience of thought, isn't there, otherwise you could not even experience any thought... But: What happens is that we only see the concepts and labels that describe the experience instead of the "real" experience. This is where things can go wrong. You think you know exactly how something looks like, smells or tastes, but when you actually see or taste it then this will be much more intense and real, won't it? And sometimes things exists as concepts only - they never have an underlying representation in direct experience... Santa Clause might be one example... What about the separate "I/me"?

An asker suggests a self, but there is no self.

But you still know the question... what knows? Is the knowing of the question separate from the question?
When you read this sentence you know it, don't you? Is there an entity that knows? Can reading the sentence and the knowing of it be separated?

I spent some time with taste during the drive in to work this morning. Taste is instantaneous. Tongue touches object and tasting happens. No border, no distance, no delay, no taster.

Yes. No border. Same as with thoughts, isn't it? No taster, but still you know/notice the taste... what knows the taste? No thinker, but still you know the thought...

There are physical eyes looking at physical objects. No border, but space, distance between the eyes and the object of the looking. Ears hearing sounds generated by physical objects. Time elapses between the sound being generated and that sound reaching the ear. Objects produce aromas that are smelled. The aroma must travel from the object to the nose. No borders, but time and distance.

This is not direct experience, but rather thought about it. Can you really directly experience eyes, objects, distance, space and time?
How do you experience time or distance? Do any of the senses include information about time/distance or is this always an afterthought? Can you find any descriptive properties in pure sense perception at all? Does pure looking at a car passing by reveal the distance to the car or the time it took it to get from A to B?

[johnr]

Yes and no. There is direct experience of thought, isn't there, otherwise you could not even experience any thought... But: What happens is that we only see the concepts and labels that describe the experience instead of the "real" experience. This is where things can go wrong. You think you know exactly how something looks like, smells or tastes, but when you actually see or taste it then this will be much more intense and real, won't it? And sometimes things exists as concepts only - they never have an underlying representation in direct experience... Santa Clause might be one example... What about the separate "I/me"?

Yesterday afternoon I caught a glimpse of a portion of my face in the rearview mirror, and it startled me. It startled me because I saw for a brief moment with clarity and objectivity. There were no layers of stuff added, expectations, that clouded the seeing. The seeing was extremely vivid, but only for a moment as I was unable to maintain it. Trying to maintain it of course involved thinking, and the thinking interrupted the seeing.

Yes, I/me is a fictional construct as is Santa Clause. Intellectually, I get that. However the defenses of the I/me belief are much more difficult to penetrate.

But you still know the question... what knows? Is the knowing of the question separate from the question?

When you read this sentence you know it, don't you? Is there an entity that knows? Can reading the sentence and the knowing of it be separated?

Knowing is knowing. There is no knower to know. Knowing just is. I'm beginning to get the unity of object and experience. Isness. There is no intermediary.

There are physical eyes looking at physical objects. No border, but space, distance between the eyes and the object of the looking. Ears hearing sounds generated by physical objects. Time elapses between the sound being generated and that sound reaching the ear. Objects produce aromas that are smelled. The aroma must travel from the object to the nose. No borders, but time and distance.

This is not direct experience, but rather thought about it. Can you really directly experience eyes, objects, distance, space and time?

How do you experience time or distance? Do any of the senses include information about time/distance or is this always an afterthought? Can you find any descriptive properties in pure sense perception at all? Does pure looking at a car passing by reveal the distance to the car or the time it took it to get from A to B?

Yes, yes, I'm getting it now. As above. Isness. Time and distance are mental constructs. Things we make up to analyze. Distractions. Playthings to occupy the mind.

[Alexw]

Yes, I/me is a fictional construct as is Santa Clause. Intellectually, I get that. However the defenses of the I/me belief are much more difficult to penetrate.

Yes, the separate I/me is only a belief based on many years of conditioning and identification. How to penetrate these defences... simply by seeing that they are only beliefs and conceptual stories. Every time they show up, see them for what they are and the defence system will become weaker and weaker... a great way to support this is to try to remain consciously present. Try not to get caught up into thought too much. Can you find this separate I/me in this current moment?

Knowing is knowing. There is no knower to know. Knowing just is. I'm beginning to get the unity of object and experience. Isness. There is no intermediary.

True, there is no intermediary. Just isn-ess, presence, this... the only "thing" that takes "you" away from it are thoughts, right? But have a closer look at thoughts. Are they in any way special? Do thoughts know anything? Do thoughts decide anything? Or are they more like a running commentary, commenting on events after the fact?
Have a go at this simple exercise: Think about a number between 1 and 10. See how the number appears... was there a thinker/controller/chooser to decide which number should arise? Try this a few times and then do the same but not just think about a number but also indicate it with your fingers... Does a thought control the movement of the fingers?

Tell me, when removing self referential I/me thoughts, what is the difference between a thought and a sound?

[johnr]

Yes, the separate I/me is only a belief based on many years of conditioning and identification. How to penetrate these defences... simply by seeing that they are only beliefs and conceptual stories. Every time they show up, see them for what they are and the defence system will become weaker and weaker... a great way to support this is to try to remain consciously present. Try not to get caught up into thought too much. Can you find this separate I/me in this current moment?

Yes, in the moment, where is I? Where are the thoughts of I? Not there.

True, there is no intermediary. Just isn-ess, presence, this... the only "thing" that takes "you" away from it are thoughts, right? But have a closer look at thoughts. Are they in any way special? Do thoughts know anything? Do thoughts decide anything? Or are they more like a running commentary, commenting on events after the fact?

Thoughts. Incessant yammering like Jar Jar Binks. Jabber jabber jabber. Knowing, no. Distracting, yes.

Have a go at this simple exercise: Think about a number between 1 and 10. See how the number appears... was there a thinker/controller/chooser to decide which number should arise? Try this a few times and then do the same but not just think about a number but also indicate it with your fingers... Does a thought control the movement of the fingers?

Surprisingly, no, the fingers just extend without thinking an instruction to do so.

Tell me, when removing self referential I/me thoughts, what is the difference between a thought and a sound?

Thoughts arise spontaneously. They just happen. Sound is generated by objects.

[Alexw]

Thoughts arise spontaneously. They just happen. Sound is generated by objects.

Yes thoughts just happen.
Sound is generated by objects... what exactly is direct experience of objects?
When you hear the sound of a bird, but not the bird, is the information "this is a bird" a property of the sound? Or is "this is a bird" only a thought about an experience?
When you put a cup on the desk in front of you... what is direct experience of cup? Not thought about this visual experience, but only the experience - what is there if you remove/ignore the thought-label "cup"? Please describe this simple experience.

[johnr]

Sound is generated by objects... what exactly is direct experience of objects?
When you hear the sound of a bird, but not the bird, is the information "this is a bird" a property of the sound? Or is "this is a bird" only a thought about an experience?

The sound is experienced, but the recognition of the source of the sound is a thought. If the sound were unfamiliar, there would be no recognition, but speculative thoughts about what the source might be.

When you put a cup on the desk in front of you... what is direct experience of cup? Not thought about this visual experience, but only the experience - what is there if you remove/ignore the thought-label "cup"? Please describe this simple experience.

Without the label, or thoughts about the features of the cup, it is simply an undefined object.

[Alexw]

Without the label, or thoughts about the features of the cup, it is simply an undefined object.

When you look at things from the point of view of a subject that is separate from objects out there - as we have learned to do since early childhood - then yes, sure, it is an undefined object. But, is this also what direct experience reveals?

When does something become an object... is space an object? Or maybe air, or steam or a cloud? Or maybe a drop of water..? Doesn't it only depend on your concepts that define something as an object that is separate from other objects?

What is required before the process of conceptualisation can label a part of this experience as an object? You need visual perception, right? So... what exactly do you perceive visually?
Do you perceive an object as such or do you ever only perceive colours?

Can you separate the color from the seeing or are they one and the same?
Is there an entity "seer" that is separate from the seeing/color? Is there an object out there that is separate from the seeing/color?

How about the other senses? Isn't this the same for hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/feeling?

[johnr]

Alex, I watched American Sniper today and it dredged up more stuff than I anticipated. I'm going to let that stuff dissipate for a day before I get back to our work.

Thank you.

John

[Alexw]

OK, thanks for letting me know.