Looking for a guide

[Alexw]

I had always thought that we are Awareness (timeless, always NOW), looking out at the physical world (where time exists, always changing). That's why Awareness never changes, but everything else does. But somehow, I have a feeling you're about to shatter this concept to smithereens.

How do you know that there is a physical world out there where time exists? This is pure thought story - very politically correct, but absolutely not in line with direct experience, is it?
What makes this experience into a physical world? Nothing else but the visual perception of "objects" combined with the tactile sensation that you receive when touching them, right? These sensations are combined in thought to form a solid, physical object... When you are asleep, dreaming, do objects look and feel solid? Are they?

Now, when you look at the world, your room or the cup on the desk... is it "out there"? If so, where is inside? Where exactly is the border between inside and outside? Don't look at what thought says about seeing the world, simply look at the isolated experience of seeing. What is there? Look, really look, and note what you see...
Is there a border between the awareness of seeing and seeing itself? Are you "in there" seeing something that is out there?

Now touch an object with your hand. Focus on the sensation of touch only. What is there? Anything else but a certain sensation of pressure?
Is there a border between the awareness of the sensation and the sensation itself? Are "you" in there feeling something that is out there?

simply THIS! It's like driving by a huge fence and every so often there's a break in the fence and you can see a glimpse of eternity. And the fence that hides this eternity is thoughts.

Nice description!
So, what do you think can be done to knock this fence over?

[Esteban]

Alex, I'm so sorry, I never got the email alert about your latest post! I've been checking and checking my email; from now on, I will check online.

Esteban wrote:
I had always thought that we are Awareness (timeless, always NOW), looking out at the physical world (where time exists, always changing). That's why Awareness never changes, but everything else does. But somehow, I have a feeling you're about to shatter this concept to smithereens.

A: How do you know that there is a physical world out there where time exists? This is pure thought story - very politically correct, but absolutely not in line with direct experience, is it? What makes this experience into a physical world? Nothing else but the visual perception of "objects" combined with the tactile sensation that you receive when touching them, right? These sensations are combined in thought to form a solid, physical object...

E: I think I just blew a circuit -- or two :/ Doesn't an object have to exist in order for me to see it and receive a tactile sensation from touching it?! I perceive objects visually because they are there, isn't that so? Other people also perceive them, which lends a reassuring validity to my perception. If they didn't perceive them, I would seriously start to wonder whether I was crazy (or perhaps they are). Furthermore, these objects have physical properties, such as size, weight, texture, etc. (this is reminding me of our discussion of sound and sound waves). I can understand if what you're saying is to focus only on what's here right now -- visual perception of object, tactile sensation -- without getting entangled in mental concepts, such as "the physical world," but I cannot understand how "sensations are combined in thought to form a solid, physical object."

A: When you are asleep, dreaming, do objects look and feel solid? Are they?

E: So you're saying this is a dream? I've heard that many a time from you non duality types lol. Actually, I agree. But, OK, if it is a dream, there is only one dreamer, which would explain why "everybody" seems to agree on certain things.

A: Now, when you look at the world, your room or the cup on the desk... is it "out there"? If so, where is inside? Where exactly is the border between inside and outside? Don't look at what thought says about seeing the world, simply look at the isolated experience of seeing. What is there? Look, really look, and note what you see...
Is there a border between the awareness of seeing and seeing itself? Are you "in there" seeing something that is out there?

E: Picture a young girl with a doll house. She's put her little dolls inside the house, maybe sitting in chairs. Then, she peers inside through a window, sees the dolls, the furniture, etc., and makes up a story, possibly a conversation between the dolls. She might even voice this conversation aloud, playing the roles of all the dolls. Now, imagine that our young girl is not a physical being at all. Instead of peering through the windows, she can peer through all the dolls' eyes, putting herself right inside the dollhouse, observing the scene from as many vantage points as there are dolls. Instead of voicing the dolls' conversation from outside the house, she speaks through every doll. Each doll believes it is the one seeing and speaking, but it's all done by the young girl, whose name, presumably, is Awareness. So, to me, "inside" is Awareness, and "outside" is what Awareness sees, except it's really the other way around: Awareness is "outside," looking "in." Which brings me right back to where I started: "Awareness (timeless, always NOW), looking out at the physical world (where time exists, always changing)." Except, upon further reflection, I would now say "looking in." If this is wrong, how would you modify my analogy to make it more in line with reality? Also, if this is all a dream, and there is no separation between the perceiver and the perceived, then isn't Awareness itself just part of the dream?

A: Now touch an object with your hand. Focus on the sensation of touch only. What is there? Anything else but a certain sensation of pressure?

E: Gotta admit, you're right:) Nothing but a certain sensation of pressure (I would also add sensations of texture and temperature).

A: Is there a border between the awareness of the sensation and the sensation itself? Are "you" in there feeling something that is out there?

E: Ay, caramba, here we go again! I'm thinking of Awareness using this body to feel the sensation of touch, using these ears to hear music, etc. To me, that feels like being out there, feeling something that is in here.

Esteban wrote:
simply THIS! It's like driving by a huge fence and every so often there's a break in the fence and you can see a glimpse of eternity. And the fence that hides this eternity is thoughts.

A: Nice description! So, what do you think can be done to knock this fence over?

E: Just ignore it. Stop putting effort into its maintenance and it will fall on its own.

[Alexw]

So, to me, "inside" is Awareness, and "outside" is what Awareness sees, except it's really the other way around: Awareness is "outside," looking "in." Which brings me right back to where I started: "Awareness (timeless, always NOW), looking out at the physical world (where time exists, always changing)." Except, upon further reflection, I would now say "looking in." If this is wrong, how would you modify my analogy to make it more in line with reality? Also, if this is all a dream, and there is no separation between the perceiver and the perceived, then isn't Awareness itself just part of the dream?

Nice story :-) Very creative and pretty close... BUT: You are still constructing this story with awareness being a separate entity... Why? When you look at the pure sensation of seeing - where is the separation between the seeing and the seen? When you look at the pure sensation of touch - where is the separation between the sensation and the object being touched?
Lets assume, there is no border between the seeing and the seen... What separates awareness from the objects it is aware of? Anything?
So, how can awareness be either inside or outside of something?
What if there is no separate entity "dollhouse" and also no separate entities "dolls", but ONLY awareness? What is the only thing that says that THIS consists of many separate parts?
Is awareness part of the dream? If so, what are the other parts? Can you find any that are separate from awareness?

Ay, caramba, here we go again! I'm thinking of Awareness using this body to feel the sensation of touch, using these ears to hear music, etc. To me, that feels like being out there, feeling something that is in here.

Yes, you are THINKING about awareness to be like that. You conceptualise it and give it properties - and you imagine awareness to be able to do something (e.g. use a body). Saying that "awareness is out there" looking in at the game of life is a nice story, but can this be verified in any way (besides thought saying that this might be so)? Have you ever found this entity "awareness" that is looking in?
Keep it simple! Look at this current experience, this moment. Do any of your senses tell you that there is something here or there, inside or outside? Or is this again only a thought? A thought that is also saying that there is a separate awareness, doing all this experiencing..?
Do you see what is happening? You seem to see that this separate "I/me" is only a thought, but you are constructing a new entity that you can identify with - this time its awareness...

[Esteban]

Esteban wrote:
So, to me, "inside" is Awareness, and "outside" is what Awareness sees, except it's really the other way around: Awareness is "outside," looking "in." Which brings me right back to where I started: "Awareness (timeless, always NOW), looking out at the physical world (where time exists, always changing)." Except, upon further reflection, I would now say "looking in." If this is wrong, how would you modify my analogy to make it more in line with reality? Also, if this is all a dream, and there is no separation between the perceiver and the perceived, then isn't Awareness itself just part of the dream?

A: Nice story :-) Very creative and pretty close... BUT: You are still constructing this story with awareness being a separate entity... Why? When you look at the pure sensation of seeing - where is the separation between the seeing and the seen? When you look at the pure sensation of touch - where is the separation between the sensation and the object being touched? Lets assume, there is no border between the seeing and the seen... What separates awareness from the objects it is aware of? Anything? So, how can awareness be either inside or outside of something?

E: I think that the transitory nature of experience makes me inclined to regard awareness as a separate entity. For instance, right now, I'm holding my iPad in one hand and typing with the other. So, right now, there is no separation between the sensation of touch and the iPad being touched. Eventually, however, I'll put the iPad down -- it might even be out of my sight -- and I might pick up another object, such as a pitcher of water. At that point, it's as if awareness has "divorced" the iPad and "married" the pitcher.

What if there is no separate entity "dollhouse" and also no separate entities "dolls", but ONLY awareness? What is the only thing that says that THIS consists of many separate parts?

E: I'm pretty sure you want me to say "thought," but, as I see it, things are both separate and together. A human body has different parts, which serve different functions, but it's also just one body. You can take a vase of flowers, some apples, and a table and arrange them into one aesthetically pleasing composition. It's also a good thing if one can tell the difference between a kitten and a scorpion. So, I can understand a statement such as "awareness takes many forms," but I cannot comprehend the statement "there are no separate entities; there is only awareness."

A: Is awareness part of the dream? If so, what are the other parts? Can you find any that are separate from awareness?

E: OK then, if life is a dream, and there is nothing but awareness in this dream, is awareness a dream?

Esteban wrote:
Ay, caramba, here we go again! I'm thinking of Awareness using this body to feel the sensation of touch, using these ears to hear music, etc. To me, that feels like being out there, feeling something that is in here.

A: Yes, you are THINKING about awareness to be like that. You conceptualise it and give it properties - and you imagine awareness to be able to do something (e.g. use a body). Saying that "awareness is out there" looking in at the game of life is a nice story, but can this be verified in any way (besides thought saying that this might be so)? Have you ever found this entity "awareness" that is looking in?

E: Well, obviously, I can't find awareness physically, but I am aware of awareness; I know that awareness exists.

A: Keep it simple!

E: Yes! I think the hell out of everything. And you're asking me questions that really make me think. I'd say I'm spending an average of 3 to 4 hours per post. But, is all this thinking just taking me farther away from seeing? I'm not saying this inquiry is not a good thing; I'm just wondering if maybe I don't know how to get the most out of what's being so kindly offered.

A: Look at this current experience, this moment. Do any of your senses tell you that there is something here or there, inside or outside?

E: I'm getting really frustrated at my failure to understand. You're asking me what my senses tell me. I would say my sense of vision tells me that there is a table here, next to my bed, and a chair over there, across the room. My sense of hearing can also relay information about the location of sounds. All my senses are able to discriminate between things: the here and there, the rough and the smooth, the bitter and the sweet. This discrimination helps ensure my survival (or at least, the survival of the body).

A: Or is this again only a thought? A thought that is also saying that there is a separate awareness, doing all this experiencing..?

E: I don't see how these things are the same thought.

A: Do you see what is happening? You seem to see that this separate "I/me" is only a thought, but you are constructing a new entity that you can identify with - this time its awareness...

E: I do see that the notion of a separate self is just a thought; I also know that I exist. If awareness is all there is, then I am awareness.

[Alexw]

Does your sense of vision really tell you that "there is a table over there"?
How would seeing be able to do that? Does "seeing" know what a table is? Or what "over there" means?
Are senses able to judge or identify with what is being sensed?

You are asking the question "Who or what am I?", but maybe rather ask "Who or what is asking the question "Who am I?"?"
Can you find the questioner? Is the questioner any different to the question? Do any of them exist as separate entities?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Esteban]

A: Does your sense of vision really tell you that "there is a table over there"?
How would seeing be able to do that? Does "seeing" know what a table is? Or what "over there" means? Are senses able to judge or identify with what is being sensed?

E: No, the senses provide the raw data; the mind interprets it. You seem to be implying that direct experience is a state of complete unknowingness.

A: You are asking the question "Who or what am I?", but maybe rather ask "Who or what is asking the question "Who am I?"?" Can you find the questioner? Is the questioner any different to the question? Do any of them exist as separate entities?

E: There's just the question, which is a thought, which the mind links to other thoughts, memories, and images that it identifies as "I."

[Alexw]

No, the senses provide the raw data; the mind interprets it. You seem to be implying that direct experience is a state of complete unknowingness.

There is seeing and thought says "I see X", right?
Is thought able to see or is thought only adding the conceptual layer to the "raw data" which obviously is void of concepts?
In your direct experience, is there an "I/me" that sees or is there only the function of "seeing"?

There's just the question, which is a thought, which the mind links to other thoughts, memories, and images that it identifies as "I."

So there is the question but no one that is asking the question, right?
This implies that there is no entity thinker... if there is no thinker, does the thought belong to "you"? Do memories belong to "you"?

Still, the thought is known, isn't it? Is there a dividing line between the thought that arises and the knowing of it?
Is there a border between the thought and awareness of the thought?

If a thought arises and there are no concepts like "I/me/mine" attached, is there any difference between a thought and a sound that arises?

[Esteban]

Esteban wrote:
No, the senses provide the raw data; the mind interprets it. You seem to be implying that direct experience is a state of complete unknowingness.

A: There is seeing and thought says "I see X", right?

E: Right, thought creates a duality.

A: Is thought able to see or is thought only adding the conceptual layer to the "raw data" which obviously is void of concepts?

E: The latter.

A: In your direct experience, is there an "I/me" that sees or is there only the function of "seeing"?

E: There's only seeing, no doubt about it.

Esteban wrote:
There's just the question, which is a thought, which the mind links to other thoughts, memories, and images that it identifies as "I."

A: So there is the question but no one that is asking the question, right?

E: Right.

A: This implies that there is no entity thinker... if there is no thinker, does the thought belong to "you"? Do memories belong to "you"?

E: No, they don't. I have a harder time accepting that memories don't belong to me. Yes, memories are thoughts, and thoughts don't belong to me, but then why do all "my" memories revolve around this body?

A: Still, the thought is known, isn't it? Is there a dividing line between the thought that arises and the knowing of it? Is there a border between the thought and awareness of the thought?

E: No, no boundary.

A: If a thought arises and there are no concepts like "I/me/mine" attached, is there any difference between a thought and a sound that arises?

E: Wow. I've divided reality into "what is mine" and "what is not mine," but none of it is mine, because there's no separate "me" and everything just happens. And yet, everything is mine, because, if there is no me -- no little walled fort to keep Everything out, then all there is and has ever been is Everything, which is inseparable from the Awareness of Everything, which means all is one and I am THAT.

[Alexw]

Yes! Beautiful!
How does that make you feel?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Esteban]

After reading your post, like I can't wipe this stupid grin off of my face:) And very, very grateful to you, Alex, and to LU. But I'm still having some "I" moments and reactions. Still, what has been seen, has been seen. Now let's get a pizza!

[Alexw]

Yeah - pizza time!

Please have a look at these questions - they are meant to sum up what we have been looking at so far and might be useful for further inquiry. They are also sort of a standard procedure at LU before we add you to the LU Facebook groups, which you may join if you like.

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 examples from recent experience.

6) Anything to add?

[Esteban]

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

No, there were only thoughts with feelings attached to them.

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 self is like a flower in a painting that imagines itself to be separate from the rest of the painting. The illusion starts very early in childhood, with the acquisition of language, which labels objects, including the child, thereby fostering the illusion of separation. A particularly powerful label is the word "I." With language, comes thought, and the building of the wall begins.

I remember being 3 years old and having a feeling of innate wisdom and largeness that seemed to say "this is what you were before you were born." I had a tremendous, unfettered curiosity about the world around me. I asked questions all the time, about everything. By asking questions about letters and their sounds, I taught myself to read. When I began reading a newspaper aloud one day, my parents were floored. I was showered with praise. Unfortunately, this turned my attention inward: I thought I must be pretty great if these adults are so impressed with me. I began using my abilities to garner more and more praise. This increased my feeling of separation and also made me very self-conscious and uncomfortable with myself, even as I reveled in my glory. When I began going to school, my teachers loved me, but the other boys didn't like me much. I was mercilessly taunted and bullied for years. I felt that I was both better and worse than everybody else. I was lonely, sad, and miserable. I retreated more and more into myself and built a formidable wall out of thoughts -- thoughts of superiority, of inferiority, of this thing called "me," separate from everything else.

As I see it now, it was all just an illusion generated by thought. Everything just happens: thoughts, feelings, the words we speak, artistic creations, bodily sensations and functions -- so what need could there be for an "I" in any of this? Why is an "I" needed for thought anymore than an "I" is needed for a wave to reach the shore or a leaf to drop from a tree?

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 peaceful, quiet, still, and joyous. Everything seems alive. There are moments when the seeing is clearer than others; still, the bell can't be un-rung. Sometimes I find myself being "me" again, but those moments don't last long. Other times, the "me" is doing its thing, but I don't identify with it. Everything just happens, so I just let it be.

When I came to LU, I was already close to seeing. For the past month or so, I had changed from a person whose mind ran overtime at full speed, to one with a much quieter mind. The reason for that newfound quietude is that I had clearly seen the futility and banality of thoughts that mostly revolved around this "me" character. Still, I felt that I needed a dialogue tailored to my individual questions in order to finally crash the Gate. In a way, I'm not surprised that the seeing happened so quickly, but, in a way, I am.

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

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question. If you're asking what made me want this seeing, I can only say that I have wanted it from a very early age. I just never fully bought into the notion that I was just a body that lives and dies. I wanted to know who or what I really was. Unfortunately, growing up in midwest, USA in the 60s and 70s, there were no "gurus" next door that I could talk with, and no Internet to help me find one. If you're asking me what brought about the "Aha!" moment, it was Alex's beautiful question: "If a thought arises and there are no concepts like "I/me/mine" attached, is there any difference between a thought and a sound that arises?" My initial reaction was "Huh?," followed about two seconds later by "Ooooh!"

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

They're all just thoughts, illusions. I have no idea what makes things happen -- they just do. Nobody is responsible for anything, because a) things just happen, and b) there's no one to be responsible for anything, anyway. In my recent experience: I woke up today with the intention (thought) to answer these questions right away; however, I ended up just lying in bed with the seeing, then I listened to some music. Choice and decision are basically the same thing, and that is thought. I finally decided/chose to start working on the questions about two hours ago. Why did I decide/choose this when I did, and not 5 minutes sooner, or an hour later? I don't know; it just happened. I "made" my decision/choice after having to decide/choose between getting to work on the questions, and listening to music again. A decision/choice came: get to work on the questions. Somehow, the hand reached for the iPad, and here we are. As for "free will" and control," I gave up on those at least 20 years ago, so I honestly don't have any recent experiences to relate.

6) Anything to add?

I am overflowing with gratitude to LU and especially Alex, who knew exactly how to back me up against the Gate, then made me crash through it. Also, I would be remiss if I failed to mention my friend, Graham Ellis, writer of deviant (his word, not mine), humorous, and lethal little books on non duality. He seriously damaged the foundations of my little walled fort, so that I only needed a few expertly placed whacks from Alex to bring it all down. Much love to you all.

[Alexw]

Thank you for the answers. It was a pleasure having this conversation with you.

There is one more question from another guide about "The illusion of self is like a flower in a painting that imagines itself to be separate from the rest of the painting."

Does that mean there is also an "I" that can be observed yet is actually part of a greater whole? Where is this "I"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Esteban]

Hmm, I'm not sure how my statement implies that. Anyway, I would say there is no "I" anywhere, there is only being.

[Alexw]

Thank you!

One more regarding that:
"But I'm still having some "I" moments and reactions"
"Sometimes I find myself being "me" again"

What exactly do you mean by those two phrases?