The real seeing

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
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Fri May 31, 2019 1:27 am

Hi Bella,

You did a very nice looking.

How do you feel about this investigation so far?
Is there anything you would like to look at more closely or maybe something we haven’t covered yet?

Would you like to go a bit further and investigating how the ‘outside’ world is created?

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Fri May 31, 2019 8:09 am

Hi Vivien,

This inquiry has been very helpful so far. I am really enjoying it. You have been great!

When we were investigating the centre of experience, I already saw how the outside world is created. That was one of the highlights of our conversation. It is one thing to intellectually understand something. It is another to see it for yourself.

For seeing that the self is non-existent I now know that it had been seen properly. Although covering all those areas filled in a lot of what wasn’t really clear to me about how it worked, or where and how it affected my experience. The doubt has gone, although I can’t say when that happened. My seeing has no doubt deepened.

Another highlight was when I saw there is no wanting and how that urge dropped away.
In fact this is the area I am interested in now to investigate. Because irritation is painful. It feels unconnected. And it affects people around me in a negative way. I would prevent that, if I could. If you can guide me in that inquiry, it would be great. But I understand it is another inquiry.
Otherwise I am really greatful for your efforts and time.

Perhaps I can help others also to see through selfillusion. Maybe a next step can be becoming a guide myself. Please let me know the possiblities.

Bella

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Fri May 31, 2019 11:56 pm

Hi Bella,
The doubt has gone, although I can’t say when that happened. My seeing has no doubt deepened.
That’s great :)
In fact this is the area I am interested in now to investigate. Because irritation is painful. It feels unconnected. And it affects people around me in a negative way. I would prevent that, if I could. If you can guide me in that inquiry, it would be great.
Could you please say a bit more about this? You would like to look at irritation?
Perhaps I can help others also to see through selfillusion. Maybe a next step can be becoming a guide myself. Please let me know the possiblities.
Yes, you can be a guide, it would be appreciated :)

At the end of our conversation, I will give some questions. Other guides will read it to see if we covered everything. They might or might not have further questions.

After, your username will turn blue, indicating that seeing through the self has happened.

You will be asked to join certain FB group. If you would like to guide, you can join the guides’ group too, and you will find further information there.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:51 pm

Hi Vivien,

I meant to ask whether you could guide me to see through the illusion of desire & ill will. Those are the next fetters by which we are bound to suffering.
But I know LU does only do self-illusion.

I’m confident that we covered all areas. I can’t think of any other. Do you think there are areas worthwhile looking into also? If yes, lets do them. If no, I’m happy to go to the questions.

Bella

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:47 pm

Hi Bella,

LU guides through the illusion of the self and related topics only what we covered all.

Can you answer the following questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience.
Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:37 am

Hi Vivien,

I come back to you later today. There is a migraine attack. Just to let you know about the dalay.

Bella

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:12 pm

Hi Vivien,

Here are my answers.
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? 
Was there ever? 
No. The self we seem to experience is an illusion. So there no is seperate entity called ‘self’, nor a seperate entity called ‘no-self’ nor any entity at all. It can’t be found when looked for. It is not there and never has been.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. 
Describe it fully as you see it now. 
The illusion starts when sensations and/or thoughts welded together are misinterpreted.
Sometimes there is a thought with the content “I”. When the content is believed as real, than the self is seen as a seperate entity.
Sometimes the forming of “the self” is noticed, but it seems to be noticed by a noticer/looker. As if the looker is someting/someone else. But the looker is also a sensation, in this case labelled as looker.
Sometimes sensations in the “body” are noticed after they are welded with other sensations and/or thoughts and than misinterpreted as “me” or “mine”. But when carefully looked into, those sensations are only sensations and those thoughts are only thoughts (with content). There is nothing else there.
3) How does it feel to see this? 
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days. 
I started this dialogue having already seen through the self illusion. I was only doubting I had really seen all aspects. Turned out I had seen through properly and also missed out aspects. Those aspects are now seen and understood. This supports the former seeing.
So now the recognising of the forming of the self or the sense of self is more clear.
Although I can’t pinpoint a moment that a shift occurred, I feel a bit lighter than before. But actually it is difficult to see what the difference is. Having looked and knowing I saw it for myself was very affirming.
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look? 
I’m not sure what you mean here. During this inquiry there were several moments that there was more clarity. The most outspoken was when I clearly saw that, in case of welded feelings and thoughts, I could focus on one or the other (forminstance sensations), ignoring the rest (thoughts) and than staying with the sensation, there was nothing else present in that moment. There was only the sensation. There were of course also the ignored thoughts, but before I ignored them, they were clearly seen as thought, not as the self. So I could look for a self and clearly noticing its absense. Not only that. I could also notice that the welded sensations (and thoughts) were misinterpreted as being “me”.
5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.
Decision: this looks like there is someone looking at a lot of informations and then making a choice which direction to go. Clearly this is dualistic. A decision is a word, a label, a thoughtcontent. In fact there is first a sensation that is labelled “direction” or something like that. Than there is a thought with content “decision” and another thought “my decision”. For a long time already this is how I make my concious decisions: I assemble a lot of information that is of importance. The decision than makes itself. There is no ”I” making it.

Intention: more or less the same as decision. Only the labels and thoughtcontents differ. There is a sense of direction, which is a sensation with the label “direction”. It is one of the pieces of information that are available. They wil be considered in any decisionmaking. Or: they are part of the decisionmaking, as is everything else available. If I say “my intention”, that means that there is a sensation with label “direction” or “intention” and welded with thoughts with that content. It is recognised and labelled as such. An intention is not a thing in itself, nor is a special sensation or thought. It is just another combination of sensations and thoughts welded together. It was my intention to send this e-mail yesterday, but I got sick. Here “intention” refers to something, a matter of speaking. Obviously it wasn’t send yesterday after all.

Free will: Nice words. A label that points to an idea that there is a chooser, or decisionmaker that is independent of the circumstances. Nothing can be further from the truth. In reality only sensations arise, in dependance on conditions. The label “free will” is easily appearing and easily believed. But free will doesn’t exist. If “I” would have a “free will”, than “I” could do anything. But that is clearly not the case. If I decide to ignore my thoughts and than do it, is this free will? It looks like it, because the proces of thinking about etc. is a welded situation that is misinterpreted as free will. Free will is in that example the endproduct of a proces, not an entity in itself and also not a true presentation of what happened.

Choice: also non-existant. For instance. When I think I choose to take a coffee, it is a thought with that content. The choice had already been made. This is known because the body is already moving towards the kitchen while the thought had not yet appeared. Another example. One time I was concentrated on a conversation I had. The phone rang. My body turned. Only than I noticed the phone was ringing and remembered having heard it already before noticing that I did notice. So the choice to turn my body was already made before the the sound was acknowledged. The choice was obviously not made by “me”, but it was made (so to speak). Choice is also a label for a sensation. Sometimes followed by a thought with content “choice”. But in fact it is only a sensation labelled “choice”. And certainly not “I” making a choice.

Control: another label. I call something “control” that in fact is the endresult of a proces of sensations and thoughts about those sensations and thoughts with a content that is believed, or misinterpreted as “control”. Control doesn’t exist. It only seems that way. In fact there are only sensations with labels and thoughts with content coming into being upon conditions.
If I want to control something, it is first an idea. An expectation towards the future. Than there is a proces of looking/checking. So, attention is given. Because of this it seems that there is such a thing as “control”, but in fact it are all different sensations and thoughts, together mistaken for “control”. The original idea of control is than believed. But it doesn’t exist.
Another example: I can’t choose not to have migraine. When an attact manifests, it does. The pain is experienced. A sensation labelled “painful”. There is the need to rest, go to bed and sleep. Than that is done. When during the night I wake up, and there is still a painful feeling, than the thought comes “there is still a painful feeling”. Nothing more. There is nothing else that can be done. There is pain, but there is no suffering. There is no-one to suffer.

All these words are labels that are formed because of habit and because of the right circumstances for them to be formed are there. They appear in a certain way and are then labelled or recognised as control, choice, etc. If that appearing is not recognised for what is actually is, sensations and thoughts, than this can be misinterpreted.
Am I leaving this train or not? I control my journey. Ha ha. Nothing of the kind.
Things happen because the conditions for those happenings are there. They don’t happen by themselves. If there is no train available to travel to Amsterdam, than I can’t get there by train. I can travel to Amsterdam by train, because there is a train available. I can’t get to Amsterdam without the train being available. Me getting to Amsterdam won’t happen by itself, without a train. I can’t make the train being available. It is, or it is not. When other circumstances are there, other things will happen. (I might get home after all, ha ha).
b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.
As “I” don’t exist, ”I” am not responsible for anything. Responsebility is also a label and an idea, a concept. Actions have consequences. Those consequences are experienced. For example. I closed the door while not having the keys. The consequence is that I can’t enter the house. That has other consequences. A flow of events now is sparked of, that otherwise wouldn’t have, because the causes for it would be absent. So there is always a connection with something else. Nothing stands alone.
Another example. The fridge was empty. Am I responsible for filling it? The noticing of the empty fridge sparked of a thought “I want to eat something” and “my housemates want to eat something too”. Then the activity “shopping” happened. Was it “my” responsebility? No. Previous conditioning sparked of certain activity.
So responsebility is not only a word, a concept. It is an endpoint of a proces where previous conditioning provides the conditions for certain actions to happen. That is the reason they happen, not because there is an “I” being responsible or an “I” that does the choosing.
6) Anything to add?
I feel grateful. Thanks a lot for your time and patience.

Bella

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:54 pm

Hi Bella,

Thank you for your detailed responses. I am going to get other guides to have a look at the thread to ensure that I have covered everything and that my pointing has been clear. This may take a day or two. Sometimes, not always, the other guides may have further questions which I will bring to you.

If there are no further questions, I will let you know and you will then be invited to the LU FB groups.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:24 am

Hi Bella,

One of the guides has some further questions.
For a long time already this is how I make my concious decisions: I assemble a lot of information that is of importance. The decision than makes itself. There is no ”I” making it.
What exactly is it that is "assembling a lot of information that is of importance", so that a decision can make itself?
All these words are labels that are formed because of habit and because of the right circumstances for them to be formed are there. They appear in a certain way and are then labelled or recognised as control, choice, etc. If that appearing is not recognised for what is actually is, sensations and thoughts, than this can be misinterpreted.
What is it that is "misinterpreting sensations and thoughts?
Intention: more or less the same as decision. Only the labels and thoughtcontents differ. There is a sense of direction, which is a sensation with the label “direction”. It is one of the pieces of information that are available. They wil be considered in any decisionmaking. Or: they are part of the decisionmaking, as is everything else available.
“They will be considered in any decision making” – What is it exactly that is doing the considering?
What is making the decision?
Control: another label. I call something “control” that in fact is the endresult of a proces of sensations and thoughts about those sensations and thoughts with a content that is believed, or misinterpreted as “control”.
What is it that misinterpreting thoughts and sensations?
What is believing the content of thoughts?
All these words are labels that are formed because of habit and because of the right circumstances for them to be formed are there. They appear in a certain way and are then labelled or recognised as control, choice, etc. If that appearing is not recognised for what is actually is, sensations and thoughts, than this can be misinterpreted.
What is it that could or could not recognize appearings for what it actually is?
One time I was concentrated on a conversation I had. The phone rang. My body turned. Only than I noticed the phone was ringing and remembered having heard it already before noticing that I did notice.
“before noticing that I did notice” – what is it that is noticing or not?

I would like to ask you to answer Q5 again .
5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:39 am

Hi Vivien,

Here is the result of my pondering.
What exactly is it that is "assembling a lot of information that is of importance", so that a decision can make itself?
It is a description how it worked out the past years. So the behaviour around decisionmaking is changed from “I make the decision” to “the decision is being made”.
There is no I making any decision. What appears to be a decision is in fact the outcome of many processes.
What is it that is "misinterpreting sensations and thoughts?
Good question. I would say this is when the illusion “I” works. In my experience, this is not always immediately seen.
“They will be considered in any decision making” – What is it exactly that is doing the considering?
What is making the decision?
The way I see it (as a description), there are a lot of processes happening. The outcome of these processes is what is experienced. The content of those processes is what is available (whatever that is). In this way “they are considered”. There is no-one doing considering. It is part of the proces, or a way to describe the proces.
So the decision is the outcome of that proces. Although “decision” as such doesn’t exist.
What is it that misinterpreting thoughts and sensations?
What is believing the content of thoughts?
The same answer as before. It is my experience that the I-illusion is not always immediately seen through and therefore this misinterpretation happens until recognised as such.
What is it that could or could not recognize appearings for what it actually is?
Same answer again. The I-illusion at work, not yet recognised.
“before noticing that I did notice” – what is it that is noticing or not?
At first, the sound was noticed, but its awarenesslevel was very low. It didn’t prompt action. Later in time there was a thoughtcontent “sound is heard” and “I heard it”. At that point the phone still rang and that sound came with a higher level of awareness. It prompted other actions. (This description is I-based. How else can I describe it?).
I see this as proof that there is no “I” doing the hearing, that the “I” appears (comes into being) after the noticing, as a thoughtcontent. There is hearingawareness or not. The “becoming aware of the noticing” is the endresult of a proces. The seeming higher level of awareness, is also an endresult, no thing in itself. It is a new event.
I would like to ask you to answer Q5 again .
5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.
Different approach?
Decision will I move or not? How is it “made”? A decision is a label for the outcome of a proces. There is a thoughtcontent like “I am going to move”. But in fact that thoughtcontent is not the decision you think it to be. The “decision” is already made and the thoughtcontent “I am going to move” follows that as a confirmation. There is no I making the decision and after that it is carried out. In fact there also is “no decision made”. There is a sensation labelled “moving” and after that there is a thoughtcontent “I am going to move”. This thought is labelled as “decision”.

Intention to do the washing up. There is a thoughtcontent “I am going to do the washing up later”. So this is a future thought with label “intention”. (There may or not be a sensation involved as well). Now this thought (in fact another thought with the same content) at one point may come up again, or not. When it does, it may be followed by actually doing the washing up or not. What does the intention have to do with the action? In reality nothing. A thought is a thought, nothing else. An action is a series of sensations welded together, labelled as “action”.
The washing up might happen without a “former” thought/intention.

Free will, the freedom to choose one, not the other? What is exactly meant by free will? Is it choice? They are all labels for sensations and thoughts welded together. There are circumstances. Upon those, other circumstances arise etc. Thoughtcontents “I choose/am in control” can appear.
There is no entity or power or whatever present to “make things happen”. There are no “things”. Experience happens and is explained in thoughtcontent. The thoughtcontent can be “I did that”. But in fact there are only thoughts about “free will”.

What makes things happen? There are no things. But there is experience. Thoughtcontent seems to explain experience. But in fact there are only sensations and thoughts. They seem connected and than explained in a certain way. Like “I am” or “control”.

Or maybe I must say: I have no idea why things happen. They happen or not. Seeming explanation is thoughtcontent. There is no time. So everything experienced is in fact no-experience. Nothing is and everything is. There is no difference. “Nothing is” is time-thinking; “everything is” is acknowledging no-time. In no-time, everything is, so there can’t be a subject and an object. No-time is non-duality, no separation.

Bella

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:48 am

Hi Bella,

Thank you for replying to the questions again. There are no further questions for you. It has been a pleasure to explore the concept of the separate self with you and point the way.

Keep an eye out for an email notification notifying you of a PM (private message) from the forum inviting you to join our aftercare groups on Facebook. If you don't receive an email notification, you can access your PM's from the forum once you have logged in. The PM also details other resources available to you. Your username will change from green to blue which indicates that you have had the realisation of there being no separate self. Also, this thread will be moved to the Archive section of the forum.

You can contact me at any time if you have any questions etc, via the forums PM system, or via Facebook if you decide to join our groups there.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests