please lead me through the Gate

[well]

Hi!

Experience happens and the “I” steps in to take possession.

Like: 'I am in my flat' is the thought connected to the fact that this body finds itself in these coordinates?

Can you see how this only happens in thought?

Yes, it is happening thoughtwise.

Can there ever really be any identification with an appearance, or possession of an appearance except in thought?

There is much to say about this. At first: appearance itself doesn't exist. There is only sensation/noticing. Sensation/noticing cannot be possessed, because there is nothing that could possess it. If the idea comes up that the noticer could possess sensation/noticing, this is not possible, because it is identical with sensation/noticing, it is not a "third person". So, with this in mind there is 'identification with appearance' naturally.

Go through your list of “possessions.” (My car, my dog,….etc.) Go through your list of “identifications.” (My political party, my educational accomplishments). Does this occur anywhere except in thought? Don’t accept this on face value. Really look and see.

It occurs in thought as the bundle that forms 'illusory Well'. I don't see it anywhere else.

Some good looking but we have a lot of “me’s” that need sorting out. The labels “I”, “my”, “me,” are linguistic conventions. Almost every language uses a subject-object construction and pronouns. So we can’t escape it in language. The trick is to see through the illusion that these labels refer to any object in reality. Is there any “me” except the illusory me? Look and see.

“I am flat,”
“things and me are one.”
“A cup is me.”
“The noticing sensations is me.”

Who is the “I” and “me” in these sentences? Is there a big expanded me and a little illusory me? Or is there only life happening? Look very carefully in DE and see if this is the case. Discuss what you see.

Let’s try getting rid of the noun “me” all together. Only verbs. Example: Instead of “I am flat,” becomes “flatness is happening.” Continue with the rest. Is there any me at all, big or little? Or only life happening? Be very clear on this seeing.

Sorry, but that goes a bit far. I'm not here for mind sports or learning new-speak. In the moment of direct experience I just put down what occurs, without trying to be 'advaitical correct'.

The main peg, holding up the whole tent, the whole illusion is “me,” that to which life happens. And without the “me” what is going on?

Life happens, but not to someone.

OK, I get that you try to have me give up the idea of an 'I'. Not only give up, but in order to be able to do this, at first notice that 'I' is only a thought. You know, there is no interest here to identify with a separate entity. Just noticing is very fine with so-called 'me'. Nevertheless, it is seen unseful here (first class advaita speak, isn't it?) to unmask 'I' as a thought. 'I' is under observation now. The 'I' thought is only useful in contrast to other persons, for example you or he/she/it. As there is no such thing as another person in real life, this is already a proof that it is totally meaningless and superfluous. As long as noticing of sensations takes place, there is no need for an 'I'. As soon as illusory thoughts about past or future are believed, an 'I' is needed which can be blamed of being responsible for this past/future-thing, including more topics like plans, fears, possessions and so on. In this way, the 'I' is not so much a thought, more the field in which thoughts can lead their imaginary lives. 'I' is the believer of thoughts. No thoughts: no 'I'. No thoughts believed: no 'I'. Thoughts believed: 'I'.

Curious for your answer!

[Lib]

Hi Well, Thank you for you honest answers and feedback. It is always welcome.

Can there ever really be any identification with an appearance, or possession of an appearance except in thought?

there is only sensation/noticing. Sensation/noticing cannot be possessed, because there is nothing that could possess it.

This part is clear and obviously done through your direct experience of looking.

If the idea comes up that the noticer could possess sensation/noticing, this is not possible, because it is identical with sensation/noticing, it is not a "third person". So, with this in mind there is 'identification with appearance' naturally.

I’m not sure I’m understand what you meant by your last sentence. I may be misunderstanding so clarification is needed. It sounds like you are saying that possession is not possible, but identification is when you say “there is identification with appearance.” Could you clarify please?

Let’s try getting rid of the noun “me” all together. Only verbs. Example: Instead of “I am flat,” becomes “flatness is happening.” Continue with the rest. Is there any me at all, big or little? Or only life happening? Be very clear on this seeing.

Sorry, but that goes a bit far. I'm not here for mind sports or learning new-speak. In the moment of direct experience I just put down what occurs, without trying to be 'advaitical correct’.

It is a matter of clarification. Since language is constructed to serve an illusory, subjective “I” confusion can occur. Sometimes a client is using the pronoun construct in order to communicate. And other times it may mean something wasn’t clearly seen through. So another exercise may be added for confirmation and for clarity. It can seem repetitive and over the top. I’m very comfortable with where you are, after reading your responses, Well.

The main peg, holding up the whole tent, the whole illusion is “me,” that to which life happens. And without the “me” what is going on?

Life happens, but not to someone.

Perfect!

OK, I get that you try to have me give up the idea of an 'I'. Not only give up, but in order to be able to do this, at first notice that 'I' is only a thought. You know, there is no interest here to identify with a separate entity. Just noticing is very fine with so-called 'me'. Nevertheless, it is seen unseful here (first class advaita speak, isn't it?) to unmask 'I' as a thought. 'I' is under observation now. The 'I' thought is only useful in contrast to other persons, for example you or he/she/it. As there is no such thing as another person in real life, this is already a proof that it is totally meaningless and superfluous. As long as noticing of sensations takes place, there is no need for an 'I'. As soon as illusory thoughts about past or future are believed, an 'I' is needed which can be blamed of being responsible for this past/future-thing, including more topics like plans, fears, possessions and so on. In this way, the 'I' is not so much a thought, more the field in which thoughts can lead their imaginary lives. 'I' is the believer of thoughts. No thoughts: no 'I'. No thoughts believed: no 'I'. Thoughts believed: 'I'.
Curious for your answer!

Excellent. And I thoroughly enjoyed reading your expose. I won’t scold you for all that good “thought.” :) I would say that you are seeing things clearly! Alas, no comments on details either as that would detract us from our focus. So if you can put up with a little more “tweaking” we will keep marching on. A few questions and then some really good relaxing time at a park or busy cafe where you can confirm these good observations.

Yes, you are right. We are looking everywhere that the illusory self may be lurking so that it won’t rear it’s little nonexistent head when you least expect it.

One thing that is a real sticking point for a lot of people is the idea of a self as a choice-maker.

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process, a decision is apparently made. But can you pinpoint the actually moment of choice and find the actually entity that appears to be making that choice? In DE, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser actually be found?

Easy session!

Lib

[well]

Hi Lib,

thank you so much for your kind answer and for your understanding and encouraging words! I'm totally ready for some more tweaking :).

Sometimes a client is using the pronoun construct in order to communicate. And other times it may mean something wasn’t clearly seen through.

I appreciate your care about this!

If the idea comes up that the noticer could possess sensation/noticing, this is not possible, because it is identical with sensation/noticing, it is not a "third person". So, with this in mind there is 'identification with appearance' naturally.

I’m not sure I’m understand what you meant by your last sentence. I may be misunderstanding so clarification is needed. It sounds like you are saying that possession is not possible, but identification is when you say “there is identification with appearance.” Could you clarify please?

Yes, you're right, even when I wrote this I noticed that it was not clear. Thanks for coming back to it.

Can there ever really be any identification with an appearance

'Appearance' I take for 'sensations/noticing' - is this right? And 'identification' I took like 'being the same as', and as the noticed, the noticing and the noticer are the same, it is 'identical', so 'I' (in the meaning of a noticer) am somehow 'identified' with appearance. That's what I wanted to express. Identification in the way of 'I am worth half a million' is only possible in thought, but identification with sensation/noticing is what is, at this point, understood to be this peaceful and free way of living in the present moment. Am I on the right track with this?

One thing that is a real sticking point for a lot of people is the idea of a self as a choice-maker.

At present it feels like the only thing that comes near to a choice is watching dropping. Watching how compulsive thinking is dropping. Watching the habit of placing the reins in the hands of an 'I' dropping.

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process, a decision is apparently made. But can you pinpoint the actually moment of choice and find the actually entity that appears to be making that choice? In DE, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser actually be found?

The thing found when doing this exercise is a sensation of decision, or better: impulse, in the moment of the arm's movement. The decision/impulse feels like it is situated in the arm itself, not outwardly (for exaple in a brain or so). There is no 'chain of command'. There is a joyful answering of life to itself. Life seizing the opportunity of arm movements.

All this comes clear in DE, and it is great to experience the power of DE during these sessions. It is like a swimming course or so, you get confident with a new element - which was never really new, but you didn't use it consciously. Very great gift to rely on. A powerful alternative to silly thinking.

A few questions and then some really good relaxing time at a park or busy cafe where you can confirm these good observations.

There is the feeling of 'silence in the head'. I took vacation at work for the reason of not feeling like doing intellectual work at present. This, too, was not a real choice, it felt like it just wouldn't work.

'I'-less speach can be an invitation to be in the DE mode instead of thinking mode. This becomes obvious in DE, too. Each 'I', 'my' uttered provokes the illusory world of thought. It is life seizing the opportunity of separating from itself. Great, wonderful life! So creative, full, loving, inexhaustible!

Looking forward to more tweaks and blessings
Well

[Lib]

Can there ever really be any identification with an appearance

'Appearance' I take for 'sensations/noticing' - is this right? And 'identification' I took like 'being the same as', and as the noticed, the noticing and the noticer are the same, it is 'identical', so 'I' (in the meaning of a noticer) am somehow 'identified' with appearance. That's what I wanted to express. Identification in the way of 'I am worth half a million' is only possible in thought, but identification with sensation/noticing is what is, at this point, understood to be this peaceful and free way of living in the present moment. Am I on the right track with this?

I see how you meant it. You are correct, noticing/sensation is the “same as” freedom in your description. That is the definition of identity. However, “Identifying” always assumes that there is a self who identifies. Just like “possessing” always assumes there is an self that can possess something.

So a bit of language confusion and some movement into thought to explain so let’s be very strict now about only direct experience. And no skipping of exercises or questions even if they may not be interesting. You have an intellectual understanding but that is not enough. So…getting tough. Grrr. Some of what we will do may seem repetitive but it all needs to be crystal clear in your actual experience.

Make a list of all of the things that would be part of the character of Well’s “identity.” I am a girl, I am a German, etc. In DE can you find a self or an entity that is a “girl” or a “German,” etc. Can identification ever occur anywhere but thought? Does this “I” ever appear anywhere but in thought?

One thing that is a real sticking point for a lot of people is the idea of a self as a choice-maker.

At present it feels like the only thing that comes near to a choice is watching dropping. Watching how compulsive thinking is dropping. Watching the habit of placing the reins in the hands of an 'I' dropping.

Look and see. Is there an entity, a self, that can choose to watch the dropping of thinking? Or is the watching occurring automatically?

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process, a decision is apparently made. But can you pinpoint the actually moment of choice and find the actually entity that appears to be making that choice? In DE, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser actually be found?

The thing found when doing this exercise is a sensation of decision, or better: impulse, in the moment of the arm's movement. The decision/impulse feels like it is situated in the arm itself, not outwardly (for exaple in a brain or so). There is no 'chain of command'. There is a joyful answering of life to itself. Life seizing the opportunity of arm movements.

Good descriptive looking but don’t forget to answer the questions. :)
Can you find an entity that is making a choice? Is there a chooser in this exercise? Is this “impulse” happening automatically? Can you find a chooser anywhere in DE?

All this comes clear in DE, and it is great to experience the power of DE during these sessions. It is like a swimming course or so, you get confident with a new element - which was never really new, but you didn't use it consciously. Very great gift to rely on.

Let’s look at direct experience itself. Is DE any different from what is happening right now? Is there anything outside of this DE? Confirm this. Is direct experience always there? It is the same as noticing? Or different?

A powerful alternative to silly thinking.

Our goal is not to find alternatives to what arises in thinking. It is about allowing everything to arise without resistance. Allowing even “silly thinking” to be what it is, as is. What if all thought continues to arise? Are there any thoughts that for you would be a problem? If so, describe.

Well, let’s do a little review here. Answer only in DE. You have seen there is life arising, and noticing of that. Are thoughts, feelings and emotions the same? What is thought? What is a feeling? Is thought real? What are appearances? What in your own words is ‘self’? What is the body? Look right now, DE, can an experiencer be found? What is happening? What is life? Does anything exist outside of this moment of looking? Can you find anything that is not on automatic?

Remember, there are no wrong answers, no “poor students.” Only corrections in movement. Like playing the game of hot and cold. (Do you have this children’s game?) You are “hotter” or “colder” in your moving towards the hidden object. That is all we are doing.

Good looking...

Lib

[Lib]

I want to correct one of my questions which may be confusing as it is written. The questions should read: Are thoughts, feelings and emotions the same thing, or are they different from each other? If so, describe.

[well]

Dear Lib,

I tried to work on your questions yesterday but gave up soon. I want to thank you from my heart for what you did for me, very kindly and patiently, spending many hours on helping a perfect stranger! May you always be helped in any fix you might ever get stuck (hopefully none!) in life.

What you helped me experience on Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:06 am is very precious to me, and I feel no need to go further, even if you can see that there is more to discover.

Thank you so much, I wish you all the best!
Well

[Lib]

Well, do you feel like you have seen through the illusion of self?

[Lib]

Well,
If you would like, you could answer some final questions and if everything is clear come join others
who are on an "aftercare' Facebook group. Would you like to do that?

[well]

Hi Lib,

thanks for asking!

Well, do you feel like you have seen through the illusion of self?

Answer: I don't know and I don't care! Everything is fine for me at present (I could become advaitical and add: and present is all that is ... ;) ... I don't know if you like this kind of jokes, and I don't want to get on your nerves!)
To elaborate: I know that there are moments where I am in DE, then I see through the illusion of self, and there are more (=mostly), when I don't.

Well,
If you would like, you could answer some final questions and if everything is clear come join others
who are on an "aftercare' Facebook group. Would you like to do that?

OK, why not? Why turn down such a friendly offer?

Cheers,
Well

[Lib]

Ha, no I appreciate your sense of (advaita) humor.

Seeing through the sense of self really is more that the subtle barriers of thought that separate you from others drop away. It is a very natural, ordinary experience. The shift can be very subtle. So it is good to check it out. A couple of the other guides will check out your responses. Sometimes they ask for clarification.

Remember, always from direct experience.

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) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

Please give specific examples from your recent experience.

6) Anything to add?

[well]

Hi Lib & Co.!

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

Difficult! I know that the answer should be 'no', but can I give that answer? The easiest way of getting to a 'no' seems to be the word 'entity'. There is often a thought or a feeling of 'I', but no entity to be pinned down anywhere. And there has never been such an entity in any way, shape or form.

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 of separate self could also be labeled 'ignorance of one-ness'. It starts during our first living years. It is developed through communication with relating persons, who tell us who we alledgedly are. Insofar it also is on thought level, because it consist of ideas. It is also imprinted in body sensations like tensions that arise from the difference between the truth (oneness) and what others tell us (separateness). The illusion of separate self penetrates all aspects of life, sometimnes more, sometimes less. It is connected with fears, suffering, greed, controlling, indulging and so on. Often it is not there, but that lack of separateness is not noticed, because it is on the one hand natural and on the other hand doesn't hurt! So we are often in oneness without noticing it. At a deep level, oneness is never not 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.

It feels like always.

I knew and had experienced most of it before the dialogue. This was a very welcome reminder of it. Additionally I was surprised of the technique and effects of intentional direct experience, see for example my experience on Jun 30. I value its advantages in contrary to thought, which only shifts ideas from one corner to the other, but doesn't bring new insights. If there are insights during thinking, I believe that they came 'accidentally' via some accompanying DE!

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

It was the notion that the noticed, the noticing and the noticer are the same, and that they are/I am completely separate from illusory self/thought, which do not exist.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

They are all illusions. They are what makes up the feeling of a separate self. Life makes things happen, in an inexplicable way. No one knows how it works (as far as I know). The illusory self doesn't exist but thinks it is responsible for the functioning of its life. Me as the noticing/noticed/noticer is life, responsible for living.

Please give specific examples from your recent experience.

No, this is boring. It is obvious. What kind of examples do you want, anyway? Ok, I'll give you one: my free will is not to answer this question, and I decide not to do so, and now you have the result - a neat little experience that shows that life goes its own way without waiting for the decisions of illusory self!

6) Anything to add?

I really like that high energy state of living on direct experience, presence, feeedom, peace. In earlyer days I had the desire to keep that as a continuous thing, to stay forever in it. Now I have so often plunged in and out - there is no more much hope or illusion to achieve that. I try to get through daily life with as much awareness as possible, no more ambition left. If one day it should turn out to be permanent, I wouldn't complain, of course.

Thanks for your care, everybody!
Well

[Lib]

Hi Well,

Looks good, but If you could please answer again, this time in direct experience rather than as an insight. We have looked many places to see if a separate self could be found. Do you feel that you have seen through the illusion that you are or have a separate self? Is there any doubt about this?


Lib

[well]

Yes, Lib, I'm up to some more direct experience, thanks for the opportunity!

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



Difficult! I know that the answer should be 'no', but can I give that answer? The easiest way of getting to a 'no' seems to be the word 'entity'. There is often a thought or a feeling of 'I', but no entity to be pinned down anywhere. And there has never been such an entity in any way, shape or form.

There is no separate entity 'self', there is looking and hearing and thinking and feeling and so on. It feels like these are where labels of self are docking. This becomes noticeable when someone speaks to me (like here, reading questions) it is so easy to get the separate self identification going and giving information about the 'me' instead of about what's happening. It's good to see that now. seeing this makes it easier to not respond automatically on the 'me' level, but on the DE level - which is where life takes place.

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.

This had only been answered as an insight, so it needs a DE answering:
Seperate self is the idea that there is a possibility of influence upon life that comes from outside life. As if life were an object and separate self the subject. And it is called 'I', 'me', 'my'. (Even inside life, there is no way of influencing, because life is its own influence.) Separate self starts in the very moment where this occurs (before that, it doesn't exist even as an illusion). Separate self is not a continuum, it can be disrupted/abolished by DE.

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.

The first answer given to this question is no longer valid, it has changed:
It feels good to see this. It makes life easier not to be in control. And it makes it more fun, more various, as there are not the ever same reactions patterns at work. (Often they are, but increasingly not.) Another difference is the exposition of separate self as something being noticed instead of something being secretly in 'fake control'. Fake control eats lots of energy.

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

Additionally to what was said before, it was the seeing that between sensation and perception there is no space for a self to be as an intermediator.

and that they are/I am completely separate from illusory self/thought, which do not exist.

Moreover, this part of the last answer isn't right. It should go: and they're all that is.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

... Me as the noticing/noticed/noticer is life, responsible for living.

... leave away the 'me as'

Please give specific examples from your recent experience.

The recent and past experience is that they are not real, they are only a waste of energy, a flattering for non-existing separate self - that what keeps the illusion alive.

6) Anything to add?

It was nice having a second go on this, confirmative. Keeping in touch with the aftercare group would be nice!
You see how carefully the 'I/me/my' has been avoided? (Passive voice being very helpful!) ;) It's also a kind of keeping consciousness awake, comparable to the use of masculine/feminine pronouns in speech. Wearing out old patterns.

Thank you again ...
Well

[Lib]

There is no separate entity 'self', there is looking and hearing and thinking and feeling and so on. It feels like these are where labels of self are docking. This becomes noticeable when someone speaks to me (like here, reading questions) it is so easy to get the separate self identification going and giving information about the 'me' instead of about what's happening. It's good to see that now. seeing this makes it easier to not respond automatically on the 'me' level, but on the DE level - which is where life takes place.

The automatic responses will continue. There is a strong momentum there. All that is necessary is to continue to check to see if what is “spilling out,” is really true in your own experience.

It was nice having a second go on this, confirmative. Keeping in touch with the aftercare group would be nice!
You see how carefully the 'I/me/my' has been avoided? (Passive voice being very helpful!) ;) It's also a kind of keeping consciousness awake, comparable to the use of masculine/feminine pronouns in speech. Wearing out old patterns.

Well, I very much appreciate your taking the extra time to respond carefully to each question. This will be very helpful for the guides. We would love to have you join in with LU.

Just two reminders. What is seen in this process is what you ARE, as “noticing,” and what you are NOT, a separate self. To help clarify continue to rest often in what you are - clear, thoughtless noticing and continue to rely on DE to confirm and stabilize what you are not, a separate entity.

I'll now ask the guides to have a look at this thread and will let you know as soon as I can whether they have any more questions to clarify anything, as they often do. It can take a day or two, or it can be quicker. No worries. I have really enjoyed working with you.

Hugs

Lib

[well]

Hugging you back!

:)))