Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

What brings you to Liberation Unleashed?
The hope of liberation, the desire to know the truth

What is your background in terms of seeking and inquiry?
A passion to know what’s behind it all since childhood, a lot of reading and contemplation over the years, more meditation in the past year or so but not much to show for any of it beyond an intellectual and intuitive understanding of non-duality (there have been some faint glimpses here and there). Also, a special interest in direct methods as I have a strong preference to evidence over faith.

What do you expect of the conversation on this forum?
Hopefully the realisation of no “I", but after so many years, I have my doubts of this transformation occurring anytime soon. Still, having seen some of the generosity and wisdom in the forum and among the guides gives some hope that the event of this seeing can at least be made closer by conversing with someone who has realised this truth. One thing I do know is that if I ever “get it”, I’d dedicate much of my time to help others who wish to see.

[Alexw]

Hi,

Great to have you here!
My name is Alex and I am happy to discuss this with you. By the way, do you want me to call you placebo8 or is there a name that would work better..?

One thing I do know is that if I ever “get it”, I’d dedicate much of my time to help others who wish to see.

Sounds good!
When you look at this I that should "get it", what is it made of? How do you define yourself? Is it your body, your mind or a combination of it? When you sit down and look, hear, smell, taste, feel and think... where is this I/self that would be the one getting it? Let me know what you find.

Regards
Alex

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for responding. As for the nickname - guess it was silly choosing placebo8, my name is Amnon, so that will work fine :)

When you look at this I that should "get it", what is it made of? How do you define yourself? Is it your body, your mind or a combination of it? When you sit down and look, hear, smell, taste, feel and think... where is this I/self that would be the one getting it?

There is no concrete 'I' that can be pointed to when trying to observe it during various experiences. However that does not make it feel any less concrete than experiences that represent something real. This becomes more evident for example in the face of physical discomfort which can trigger emotional discomfort. In this situation it's easier to pinpoint this "I" as a strong identification with the emotion of wanting to avoid further discomfort. The identification with the thought of "this is not ok" and the story around it. I have no idea what it is that is doing the identification nor the nature of what it is identifying with but the bottom line is a an experience in which this "I" feels just as real as the event that is happening and at which point it is very difficult to rationalise away the "I" story. In fact, I suspect that rationalising only serves to fuel it, but again this understanding is of no use in shaking the feeling of a suffering "I".

Once when meditating while feeling lousy there was quick insight that it was not that I was in discomfort but that discomfort is just one more thing that is within me and it can be contained with no problem just like any other experience. I think it was on the right track but the realisation was short lived.

Best regards,
Amnon

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

There is no concrete 'I' that can be pointed to when trying to observe it during various experiences. However that does not make it feel any less concrete than experiences that represent something real.

Yes, true, there is no concrete, fixed I that can be found which is present in various experiences - well seen!
So, what makes it "feel concrete"? Is it the sensual experience itself? Lets have a look at how you experience really anything. You use your five senses - you look, hear, taste, smell and touch - right? And then you also think about all of that...
Sit down and close your eyes. Locate this feeling that feels most like your self. Lets say, it is a certain kind of pressure or tingling being the eyes or in your chest... Now focus on this physical sensation only. Don't worry about what thought might say about it. Does the physical sensation alone contain the information "this feels like my self!" ?
Does the physical sense of self remain in a specific location throughout your day? Or does it shift depending on your focus of attention? When you read this text, when you think about my questions, your sense of self might be behind your eyes... when you do something physical it might shift to your abdomen or your breathing... try to observe this for a while and see what you find...
Ponder that: Does a shifting, physical sense of self define a true self? Or is there always something else present that declares that this specific sensation is "me"..? What is it that tells you?

The identification with the thought of "this is not ok" and the story around it.

Is this identification any more than simply another thought saying "I don't like these feelings. I am feeling bad!"
If this thought would not be present, would "you" feel bad?

The identification with the thought of "this is not ok" and the story around it. I have no idea what it is that is doing the identification nor the nature of what it is identifying with but the bottom line is a an experience in which this "I" feels just as real as the event that is happening and at which point it is very difficult to rationalise away the "I" story.

Its not about rationalising away a story but simply seeing clearly that it is only a story. Once you knew that Santa was not real, but only a story, did you always have to rationalise him away so he becomes "unreal" or did you simply know that he is not the real thing?

but again this understanding is of no use in shaking the feeling of a suffering "I".

First find the one that suffers and then we'll see if the feeling of a suffering "I" is still as strong as before... maybe it will slowly crumble hand in hand with the one that seems to be there doing the suffering...

Alex

[placebo8]

So, what makes it "feel concrete"? Is it the sensual experience itself? Lets have a look at how you experience really anything. You use your five senses - you look, hear, taste, smell and touch - right? And then you also think about all of that...

It’s difficult to explain what makes it feel concrete and real, in the same way that it’s difficult to explain what makes time feel real, or any other abstraction, but I see it has to do with the thought about the experience more than the sensual experience itself. Then again, I find it extremely difficult to separate the experience from the thought about it. This "thought about experience" is what seems to form the “I” sense. Throughout the day my sense of a personal “I” is derived from thoughts rather than the sensed event. However, per definition, there is no way for me to imagine what existence without an “I” can be - the very act of imagining is in itself another thought.

Sit down and close your eyes. Locate this feeling that feels most like your self. Lets say, it is a certain kind of pressure or tingling being the eyes or in your chest... Now focus on this physical sensation only. Don't worry about what thought might say about it. Does the physical sensation alone contain the information "this feels like my self!" ?

Just observing physical sensations does not yield any “I" - there’s just an awareness of physical sensations. Any thought about this being “my” subjective awareness is recognised as a thought (though this recognition in itself is seen to be yet another thought, and so on ad nauseam...). Anyway, at this point as an experiment, I took it up a notch and started holding my breath trying to notice what happens. Soon enough the physical discomfort of wanting to breath was noticed. I kept holding it past the "recommended dose" and the discomfort started turning to fear. I stopped before fear would turn to panic. I’d say then that this emotion is a good example of the sense of “I” in all it’s “glory”. I feel there is no way I could ever recognise this as Santa or Batman… but perhaps I’m trying to run before learning to walk.

Is this identification any more than simply another thought saying "I don't like these feelings. I am feeling bad!"
If this thought would not be present, would "you" feel bad?

No, if the thought would not be present, there would be no “I” to feel bad. But the thought is present and the identification with it seems automatic, strong and uncontrollable, especially when "turning up the volume” (so to speak), as in my little experiment.

[Alexw]

It’s difficult to explain what makes it feel concrete and real, in the same way that it’s difficult to explain what makes time feel real, or any other abstraction, but I see it has to do with the thought about the experience more than the sensual experience itself

Does it have anything to do with the senses at all or is it always only thought?
Do sense perceptions have any properties like good, bad, real, unreal, long, short... or is this always a label, a conceptual thought that tries to add meaning to something that is inherently meaningless?
When you were a baby, do you think you knew of something being "concrete and real"? Or have you learned this idea over time? Did you even know that you were a person, a human being, a man/woman... or have you learned all that? Have you always been "you" or did you learn this as well?

Now... is there an entity that has this knowledge? Can you find it as a separately existing subject? Or is there simply this knowledge... What is there?

However, per definition, there is no way for me to imagine what existence without an “I” can be - the very act of imagining is in itself another thought.

Well, sure you can imagine how it would be... and you will even build expectations based on it and then you will chase them, try to have them fulfilled... You have an idea of how it might be to be enlightened or to see no-self, so you try to reach this goal, but the goal is again only an idea... just like "you" are only an idea... So... what can be done?

I stopped before fear would turn to panic. I’d say then that this emotion is a good example of the sense of “I” in all it’s “glory”.

Is it? Or is it simply a natural reaction? Did you decide to stop? If so, where is this deciding entity?
Can "you" choose the next thought you will think or the next action that is being taken?
Try this: Sit down, relax. Simply think of a number between 1 and 10. Do this a few times.
Did you decide which number to think or did it simply show up? Please note what you find.

No, if the thought would not be present, there would be no “I” to feel bad. But the thought is present and the identification with it seems automatic, strong and uncontrollable, especially when "turning up the volume” (so to speak), as in my little experiment.

Yes, identification is very strong and it will also not immediately vanish with seeing that this I/self is just a story. Its like Santa does not vanish once seen that he is only a fat man in a red costume. Santa is still visible in all these shopping malls but now you know that he is not the real deal... Sure, the belief in identity is much stronger than the belief in Santa (at least for adults :-) and it will take some time to slowly dismantle it... but is it any more than a belief?

Did you expect that seeing this would once and for all annihilate the person called Amnon from all thoughts with immediate effect?

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Does it have anything to do with the senses at all or is it always only thought?

I feel it is only thoughts about the stimuli combined with an awareness that somehow "breathes life" into these thoughts that produces an "I" feeling or a perspective of personal suffering. The senses are innocent of any "I" story. Yet when I see for example an animal in pain or distress, my first instinct is to find a way to help it as I assume there is some suffering "I" there too. This might only be a projection on my part but it seems that suffering does not require an evolved story.

When you were a baby, do you think you knew of something being "concrete and real"? Or have you learned this idea over time? Did you even know that you were a person, a human being, a man/woman... or have you learned all that? Have you always been "you" or did you learn this as well?

Though I have no memories of what it was like as a baby, I imagine there was only awareness and response to stimuli. Feeling hungry? Cry. Food bad? Cry. Colic pains? Cry. Tired? Sleep. Was there any suffering? I really can't say, but for the same reasons that I'd want to help a an animal in distress, I'd certainly want to help a baby in distress, on the assumption that there is some sort of suffering going on there which I want to alleviate.

Now... is there an entity that has this knowledge? Can you find it as a separately existing subject? Or is there simply this knowledge... What is there?

I'd say the collection of this knowledge woven together and identified with via an awareness gives an incredibly strong and persistant illusion of a separate entity that has this knowledge. An intellectual understanding of this however is useless in dismantling this perception, and when I try to look directly at this entity to expose its nonexsitance, it feels like trying to catch water - crafty little bugger...

Or is it simply a natural reaction? Did you decide to stop? If so, where is this deciding entity?

That's a good question. Looking more deeply into it, I didn't decide to stop the experiment in the same way I didn't decide to start it. Things happen and then I take ownership over them. Reminds me of the joke of a fly riding on the top of a running elephant and looking back, thinking to himself: "wow, look at how much dust I'm making"... The thing is that in the moment, when things are happening and the rubber meets the road, all this post mortem understanding flies out the window and all that's left is the identification with the "I want this to stop" sensation.

I tried what you suggested with thinking of numbers between 1 and 10. The numbers just showed up - "I" had nothing to do with it.

Did you expect that seeing this would once and for all annihilate the person called Amnon from all thoughts with immediate effect?

Well, a guy can dream can't he? :-) Seriously though, assuming my expectations mean anything, I'd say they are not that I will stop having thoughts or emotions, but that they would be seen as just thoughts and not as what I am. For example, fear will still exist, but there will be no fear of the fear. In general, the expectation is of being free of identifying with the thoughts and the story.

Best regards,
Amnon

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

Seriously though, assuming my expectations mean anything, I'd say they are not that I will stop having thoughts or emotions, but that they would be seen as just thoughts and not as what I am. For example, fear will still exist, but there will be no fear of the fear. In general, the expectation is of being free of identifying with the thoughts and the story.

Thats reasonable enough :-)
What does it take to reduce and maybe eventually annihilate identification with a story-character?
Well.. first you have to see that its only story, right? You have to see that clearly and thats exactly what we do here at LU - we look at all different parts of this experience, the senses, thought, how do decisions work, who is there that has free will, who is responsible for things that happen etc... You are making good progress in seeing what has to be seen, but this is only the beginning of the road. Sorry there is more work to do which is applying this understanding in daily life, in every moment that you live. Try being consciously aware of this experience as well as of the thoughts that arise - see if they match the experience - observe how the I/self is included in every movement of life... Keep on observing and self referential thoughts will become less and less... You can't stop thought but you can remain aware of whats happening (which is a paradox as you are again using thought to do so :-) and this will slow things down...

I'd say the collection of this knowledge woven together and identified with via an awareness gives an incredibly strong and persistant illusion of a separate entity that has this knowledge.

Do you identify "via an awareness"? Can you find this awareness as a separate entity?
When a thought arises, is there the thought and the awareness thereof or is there only the thought? Is someone aware of the thought - is there a border between the thought and the one being aware of it - or is the thought and awareness one and the same "thing"?
Is there awareness of sound or smell OR is sound and awareness of the sound inseparable? What if they are one and the same?

That's a good question. Looking more deeply into it, I didn't decide to stop the experiment in the same way I didn't decide to start it. Things happen and then I take ownership over them.

Yes, very well seen! :-)

The thing is that in the moment, when things are happening and the rubber meets the road, all this post mortem understanding flies out the window and all that's left is the identification with the "I want this to stop" sensation.

Remain consciously aware of this life and see how things change... I know this will take some practice and you will get lost in thought a lot - especially in the beginning - it might feel strange and like a strong effort to keep on observing/witnessing everything that happens "in- and outside of you" but it works if practiced persistently...
Anyway, this is not really part of our dialogue of seeing through the illusion of no self, but rather work that can be done afterwards... still, I do understand that you want not just another medal for your spiritual hall of fame but something that really makes a difference all the time and not just during a few moments of meditation :-)

Alex

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Do you identify "via an awareness"? Can you find this awareness as a separate entity?
When a thought arises, is there the thought and the awareness thereof or is there only the thought? Is someone aware of the thought - is there a border between the thought and the one being aware of it - or is the thought and awareness one and the same "thing"?

Wow, some tough questions there.

Well, it seems as if I can point to instances where there is awareness without thought (for example getting lost in beautiful music or any sensual pleasure, moments of creativity etc.) Perhaps these moments do not have an "I" but there is certainly an awareness there, that I later call my own (or perhaps the awareness only comes afterwords when an "I" remembers it? - hmm, need to look deeper into this)

Other than that, I can't point to an instance where there is awareness without thought and in those cases it is seen that any awareness is in itself just another thought about something. While this is noticed, part of me wants to object because I can't see how a thought (which for me corresponds to some "objective" complex neurological activity) can induce the intimate and undeniable sense of "isness" of existence and the qualia experience. It feels like that this raw "isness" exists prior to thought, before neurones, electrons or any other label that I try to put on reality, and these labels/thoughts then create the illusion of an "I" which in turn takes these labels to be reality. I'm getting too close to theorising here and this is not what this correspondence is about, but what I'm getting at is that it appears that my sense of "I" takes much of it's power from this subjective feeling of the raw "isness" that I build my story upon, and since this "isness" feels undeniably real, I then take the labels and story built on it to be real as well.

Having said that, this subjective perception of "isness" does not exist in deep sleep, or under anaesthesia and of course no sense of "I" exists then either so I guess that this drops any sense of it being fundamental. It's just that this personal "I" can't imagine any recognition of existence without it being present. Who would be there to recognise anything? Sorry for rambling, but my answer seems to have winded up at a dead end. Need to meditate on this more, but further hints would be appreciated... (I'm already very grateful for your time and guidance)

Is there awareness of sound or smell OR is sound and awareness of the sound inseparable? What if they are one and the same?

They are one and the same. Smell is the awareness of smell, then again, I can't imagine existence without a personal awareness of existence (though I know the world will exist just fine without me). I'm trying to find what recognises the awareness. What is there before it is labeled as sound and smell? What is there in deep sleep? Sorry, I'm a bit disoriented and could be asking myself the wrong questions, so I'll just stop here and leave the task of asking questions to you. :-)

I do understand that you want not just another medal for your spiritual hall of fame but something that really makes a difference all the time and not just during a few moments of meditation :-)

If I had to judge myself by what I've managed to understand after so many years of questioning, then spiritual hall of shame would be a more fitting title for my achievements :-) Anyway, I really don't care about any medals/titles/acknowledgement of my abilities. Getting at the truth is the only agenda I have (realising that paradoxically, this yearning is also perpetuating it's seeming distance).

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

Other than that, I can't point to an instance where there is awareness without thought and in those cases it is seen that any awareness is in itself just another thought about something.

Well... is the "instance" a thought or is there thought about the "instance" which happens after the fact?
Does thought live in the "now" when it talks about experience or is it always already old news?
Does this moment wait for you, for thought, to think about it and analyse it?
What exactly are you thinking about? Are you thinking about this moment or rather about a conceptualised memory of the moment? Is it the moment itself or just a distorted reflection of it?

So... is awareness just a thought about something..? If you don't think about something does it still exist? If you don't think about the rain, do you still get wet?

It feels like that this raw "isness" exists prior to thought

Maybe it does ;-)
But, once you think about it, is it still "it"?

what I'm getting at is that it appears that my sense of "I" takes much of it's power from this subjective feeling of the raw "isness" that I build my story upon, and since this "isness" feels undeniably real, I then take the labels and story built on it to be real as well.

How does "is-ness" feel like? Where do you feel it? Does it have a location in the body? How do you know this is how "is-ness" feels like?

It's just that this personal "I" can't imagine any recognition of existence without it being present.

What is it that is present and does the recognising? Is there an entity "I" present at all? Or are there only thoughts about it? When you recognise anything... how does that work? Is any recognition possible without first objectifying the experience? You cut it into subject and objects and then you recognise them - even if they are very subtle, like a thought etc.... Can anything be recognised and singled out if there is no separation, no duality, no relativity?

Look at this experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - where is the separation in this experience if there is no thought about it? Do any of the senses provide any information about borders, inside, outside, I, me, you..?

They are one and the same. Smell is the awareness of smell, then again, I can't imagine existence without a personal awareness of existence (though I know the world will exist just fine without me). I'm trying to find what recognises the awareness. What is there before it is labeled as sound and smell?

Ok, they are one and the same.
Is there "personal" awareness? Do you own your awareness? Show me the owner of it! Where is it?

If there is an owner of awareness, or another awareness that is aware of awareness, how do you experience/know this owner? Wouldn't there have to be another (super)awareness that is aware of (regular)awareness?
Do you see the futility of this concept? Do you see the border that thought can not cross? Can thought ever know/understand what is beyond it? Do you think "beyond" is somewhere else than here?
Can thought know really anything or can it only ever conceptualise based on what has been learned?

How do you know that this thing out there is a tree that is separate from this thing here, you? If nobody would have ever told you, if you wouldn't have the concept, would you know? Does a baby know that it exists?

Getting at the truth is the only agenda I have

What tells you that something is true and something else is not? Can THIS experience, this moment, life, be contained by a concept like "truth"?

Alex

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for the great questions.

Well... is the "instance" a thought or is there thought about the "instance" which happens after the fact?
Does thought live in the "now" when it talks about experience or is it always already old news?
Does this moment wait for you, for thought, to think about it and analyse it?

Thought is always after the fact. When I think about "now", that "now" is already long gone.

What exactly are you thinking about? Are you thinking about this moment or rather about a conceptualised memory of the moment? Is it the moment itself or just a distorted reflection of it?

Definitely a reflection, and when the filters of the senses, thoughts, opinions and emotions are through with it, it is a far cry from the "moment".

So... is awareness just a thought about something..? If you don't think about something does it still exist? If you don't think about the rain, do you still get wet?

I used to give a lot of thought to the famous "if a tree falls in the wood and there's no one to hear it" question and reached the conclusion that it doesn't make a sound. I even rejected the notion that it creates physical sound waves that no one can hear, since the very notion of "sound waves" is in itself a thought about reality and not reality. I can't escape the conclusion that indeed "something happened", but not only was there no sound, there was even no tree and no woods.
However, if I don't think of something, that doesn't stop it from existing (not as a thought construct, but as something independent of my thought.) Taking your question as an example, suppose I go hiking and go to sleep under a clear sky. When I wake up, I realise I'm soaking wet. I then ask a passer by what happened and I'm told that it got cloudy and they saw me sleeping in the rain. Well, during deep sleep I wasn't thinking about the the rain (as there was no I to think anything) but I woke up wet...

Ok, they are one and the same.
Is there "personal" awareness? Do you own your awareness? Show me the owner of it! Where is it?

Perhaps it's just an issue of terminology, but I can't separate the concept of awareness from the concept of recognition (for an "I" to exist, it has to be aware of some "not I"), and as such there is certainly a personal awareness: I'm aware of my dog bringing me the ball to play, while until now you were not even aware I had a dog, so that would seem to make my awareness personal to me (or rather my body/mind) and yours personal to you (your body/mind). So now the evidence seems to show there are two body/minds (or to be more exact, that there is a thought about two body/minds). While I can't show you the owner of my awareness (probably because it has none), the fact that these "awarenesses" are not aware of each other seem to suggest there are two of them (well, billions of them) which only serves to strengthen the concept of a personal "I".

Still, while writing this, I realise that if awareness is thought then there is no way thought can "know" anything. It's just a thought. Not only can it not know other thoughts in other body/minds - it can't even know other thoughts in it's own body/mind. So where's the thinker, or the owner of awareness? Well, I'd say it is the consistency of what the thoughts refer to, the seeming pattern and consistency recognised within change (for which a memory is required) suggest that there is some hidden but inherent order "out there" which someone "in here" was able to recognise. This assumption is what science is based on (though in physics the line separating the "in here" from "out there" can get blurry).

If there is an owner of awareness, or another awareness that is aware of awareness, how do you experience/know this owner? Wouldn't there have to be another (super)awareness that is aware of (regular)awareness?

Do you see the futility of this concept? Do you see the border that thought can not cross? Can thought ever know/understand what is beyond it?

Yes, I see the border and obviously can't cross it because it can't be crossed with an "I". The very attempt to solve this by analysis is doomed to remain within the confines of thought and can't escape it. Of course I see the futility here and it only serves to add to the frustration of the search. This is the dream that I wish to wake up from, and as I've mentioned, knowing intellectually there's no "I" to wake up is as useful as knowing intellectually how to ride a bike...

Do you think "beyond" is somewhere else than here?

I think it only feels like somewhere else, but that's because thought gets in the way, but looking at it logically, where else can it be? where else is there? what else is there? There is only here and now and then thoughts come in that create somewhere else or somewhen else. I think this and yet, I don't know it. At times it feels like a hungry person who can smell the food but can't find it. :-)

Can thought know really anything or can it only ever conceptualise based on what has been learned?

Thought can't know something any more than a rock can know something. There is knowledge and there are thoughts which together somehow manage to construct a "perceiver" and a "doer". But the event of perceiving is in itself not a thought. I was about to say that a rock can't perceive while I can, but after rethinking , there can be no "I" in pure perception, only existence happening - the "I" is an invention that comes later with thought about the event of perception, an event in which (I assume) the perceiver and the perceived are indistinguishable.

What tells you that something is true and something else is not? Can THIS experience, this moment, life, be contained by a concept like "truth"?

Well, since I define truth as "That which is" then ultimately, there is nothing else but truth. Although this definition is not truth itself, it's probably as close as thought can get to describe it. I probably don't need to add a disclaimer that I'm speaking from an intuitive feeling that this is so, and not from actually "getting it". Sorry if I keep mentioning this, but I just don't want to give the impression that I clearly "see" the things I somehow feel to be true...

On a more down to earth of a personal/practical level, truth for me means a statement or event that I accept as having a high probability of existence based on previous experience. This also includes recognition of patterns of causes and effects.

Best,
Amnon

[Alexw]

This is the dream that I wish to wake up from, and as I've mentioned, knowing intellectually there's no "I" to wake up is as useful as knowing intellectually how to ride a bike...

Well... you can learn something like riding a bike by physically training your body to remember how to balance on two wheels. The muscles remember to react automatically... but still, it helps immensely if you first know intellectually how you should ride a bike, what the pedals and the breaks are for and that it rides on a road and doesn't float on water...

But:
Is there a "direct knowing" of how to ride a bike? Well.. your body, your muscles know directly how to react, you don't have to think about it, but do they know that this is called "riding a bike"? What pretends to have the knowledge of "riding a bike"? You do! But do you really? Do "you" - thought - know how all these muscles achieve the feat of riding a bike? Or is there simply the natural process unfolding and "you" have really no way of knowing how you do it? Yes, you might talk about it, maybe use all sorts of scientific descriptions, but this does not equate to knowing how to ride a bike... its a description of what you think it is like and why it works etc, but it is not IT.


What exactly do you expect will happen when you wake up? How will life be different from now?
What will change? Will your body change? Will your perception, your seeing, hearing or smelling change? Or will your thinking change?

Look... what is this separate I/self... where does it live?

Look at the belief in Santa. When you were a child you might have believed in him. You were convinced that he is the real deal. Then, some years later, maybe an older sibling tells you that he is only a fat man in disguise... You might have had some suspicions but until now the belief in Santa was still intact. The older sibling telling you (and maybe pointing out some obvious facts about Santa) shatters your belief - it crumbles... it goes...
How was this loss (of a belief) experienced? Maybe you felt sad, maybe you felt happy, maybe you started crying or laughing... who knows... it doesn't matter, what matters is that you now see that it was just an idea, a story, a belief that is now seen through. Does it make all Santas automatically vanish..? No! You will still see them at Christmas, but you will never again think he is the real thing, will you?

I used to give a lot of thought to the famous "if a tree falls in the wood and there's no one to hear it" question and reached the conclusion that it doesn't make a sound. I even rejected the notion that it creates physical sound waves that no one can hear, since the very notion of "sound waves" is in itself a thought about reality and not reality. I can't escape the conclusion that indeed "something happened", but not only was there no sound, there was even no tree and no woods.

Do you see that this is pure thought story? Questions like that are not meant to have one single correct answer...
The only right answer is no answer, but not because you still haven't figured out the right one, but because the question has disappeared... I guess this is what Zen works with a lot in their Koan tradition...

Anyway, we are simply looking at this experience and thought about it - we reduce it as much as possible and see what is left... When you sit down and close your eyes and feel your body. What do you feel? A body? A hand or a foot? Maybe a self owning the body?
Or is there just some pressure, some tingling that doesn't even have a fixed location at all... some sensation that doesn't belong to anyone... do any sense perceptions belong to anyone? Do your thoughts belong to you? Do you choose to think them any more than you choose to hear the sound of a bird?
Can you choose when the next sound will arise? Can you choose what your next thought will be?

Thought can't know something any more than a rock can know something. There is knowledge and there are thoughts which together somehow manage to construct a "perceiver" and a "doer". But the event of perceiving is in itself not a thought. I was about to say that a rock can't perceive while I can, but after rethinking , there can be no "I" in pure perception, only existence happening - the "I" is an invention that comes later with thought about the event of perception, an event in which (I assume) the perceiver and the perceived are indistinguishable.

Yes, well seen!

Are there ever a "perceiver and the perceived" outside of thought about them, or is there always only perceiving happening? When you look at a cup on the desk in front of you... thought states "I see a cup!"... while thats perfectly right in the conventional way, it does not accurately reflect the experience of seeing at all, does it?

[placebo8]

but still, it helps immensely if you first know intellectually how you should ride a bike, what the pedals and the breaks are for and that it rides on a road and doesn't float on water...

Definitely :-)

I think I've had more insights in less than a week of correspondence with you than after months of studying other sources. Granted, these insights are only small steps and I don't think I'm anywhere near "seeing", but it is encouraging. My concern is that as far as "talent for seeing" is concerned, there's a good chance I belong to the slow class. I'm extremely grateful for your help in pointing to the right direction (the generosity involved with this site is truly inspiring) so I really woudldn't want to outstay my welcome. As such, I trust you'll let me know if you think I'm stuck and there are other methods you recommend I should pursue.

Do "you" - thought - know how all these muscles achieve the feat of riding a bike?

No, there's no "direct knowing" of how to ride a bike, but there is a direct experience that can't be conveyed of what it is like to ride a bike. I guess what I'm after is the direct experience of what it is like to see. I assume the difference is that there can be an "I" recognising and enjoying the experience of riding a bike, but obviously there can't be an "I" recognising and enjoying the experience of liberation.

What exactly do you expect will happen when you wake up? How will life be different from now?
What will change? Will your body change? Will your perception, your seeing, hearing or smelling change? Or will your thinking change?

How will life be different? Well, it won't be different as far as perceptions and senses are concerned, but I expect the first thing that would be different would be the ceasing of the desire to wake up. The falling into place of many pieces of the puzzle that I don't know where to place now. I once compiled a set of "questions for the liberated". I expect that after seeing, for each question in the list I'd be able to either see the answer clearly for myself, see the fault in the assumption behind the question or see that there can be no answer to the question but without being disturbed by that fact.

Does it make all Santas automatically vanish..? No! You will still see them at Christmas, but you will never again think he is the real thing, will you?

Being raised in a secular Jewish family, Santa isn't the best example as no one ever tried to convince me he's real :-) Still, I understand your point. Regarding never again thinking he's the real thing - well, theoretically, neurologists could understand the brain states that correspond to a "belief in Santa" and manage to recreate the neural pathways in a person that stopped believing in Santa, so perhaps that would reconstruct the belief in Santa for that person - but that's just theorising...

Do you see that this is pure thought story?

Apparently I don't see it. I thought I had a close an answer as can be given to the tree/woods question, but since you pointed that the only right answer is no answer and that the question itself is misguided then I guess this Koan needs more meditation on my part...

When you sit down and close your eyes and feel your body. What do you feel?

I'm aware of various sensations and thoughts. I focus for example on a physical sensation and ask myself where is it. I answer for example that it's in my foot. Then I think to myself, "well your foot isn't aware of this sensation so it can't really "be" there, so where is it?". My inner scientist/skeptic/materialist then answers that it's a preception registered by my brain in the same way that the thought about it is enabled by my brain. So is there some "external"/"objective" brain that generates a dependant subjective experience? Well, only if one buys into this separate "I" hoax. If it is clearly seen that there's no "I" in the first place, then I assume it is also seen (by a "no I") that the brain itself, just like a tree or a rock is non-separate happening in an infinite "no I" which is all there is. This is just an intuition of course. If true, it would be awesome to really see it. I do realise that as long as "I" want to see it, it won't be seen... :-)

do any sense perceptions belong to anyone? Do your thoughts belong to you? Do you choose to think them any more than you choose to hear the sound of a bird?
Can you choose when the next sound will arise? Can you choose what your next thought will be?

I was about to answer that it's obvious that sense perceptions belong to those that experience those perceptions, but if there isn't an "I" then there isn't anyone else either, which would mean these sense perceptions can't belong to anyone. It's hard to undo the subject/object perspective though. Ultimately, there's no choosing of anything, but even when this is recognised, it is recognised by someone - there seems to be someone experiencing the "no choosing".

[Alexw]

My concern is that as far as "talent for seeing" is concerned, there's a good chance I belong to the slow class.

Haha... this is exactly what I was thinking too when I was still seeking... Let me tell you it has nothing to do with talent. Honestly look at what is here right now and don't always try to find a thought based explanation why this is so... this is the only talent you need.

I'm aware of various sensations and thoughts. I focus for example on a physical sensation and ask myself where is it. I answer for example that it's in my foot. Then I think to myself, "well your foot isn't aware of this sensation so it can't really "be" there, so where is it?".

This is what I was referring to when I was saying "Honestly look at what is here right now..."
When you ask yourself "where is it", what do you think you will as an answer? A thought based answer, right? Then you go on with contemplating that this answer is obviously just a conceptual thought and start trying to find a new answer based on the knowledge that you have about non-duality and no-self... You generate a story about how it should be so it fits into the prefabricated answer that you have already found in your imagination.
BUT: This is NOT how it works :-)
Try again - close your eyes - and focus on the sensations coming from your foot,leg or any other part of your body. If you find it easier you can also just listen and work with sound instead of physical sensations... it doesn't matter...
Now, don't ask a question to yourself that will only result in a thought popping up guessing the right answer... just feel, just hear... What is there?
Yes, your foot is "not aware", but we are not trying to find a logical explanation of "who is aware" - just a simple, most basic experience of this sensation... How is it experienced? Don't follow any chains of thought that want to make sense of it - just note what is there no matter how simple...

I was about to answer that it's obvious that sense perceptions belong to those that experience those perceptions, but if there isn't an "I" then there isn't anyone else either, which would mean these sense perceptions can't belong to anyone.

Yes, very logical, isn't it?
But again, we don't want logic. We want direct experience.
When you did the feeling and listening before, what part of the experience told you that it belongs to "you"?
Did you find any borders in the experience itself that clearly defines a you that is experiencing something that is not you? Did the experience define a border that defines a part of it as being "inside" and the rest of it "outside"?

For now try to stop all logical explanations and simply trust in your sense experience - it doesn't matter if it makes sense and sounds logical to your intellect. Just note what you find even if it runs opposite to what logical thought tells you...

[placebo8]

When you did the feeling and listening before, what part of the experience told you that it belongs to "you"?

No part of the sensation did it. It was logical thought about the experience that told me it belongs to me. The thought that says that a person sitting right next to me doesn't experience the sensation in my foot no matter how close they are, and neither can I experience their sensations. I assume though that you are referring to the experience before any thought about it was constructed. I'm at a loss here, perhaps because I'm not well trained in addressing the experience separately from the thought about it. Maybe it's a defence mechanism to try and keep an anchor on my sense of reality (had some scary related experiences in the past), maybe it's something else but whatever it is, it seems locked tight. I feel though that I'd go to great lengths if necessary to force it open using any technique (if I had a high degree of certainty that it would work). Don't know if I'd go to any length though. Perhaps that's an obstacle.

For now try to stop all logical explanations and simply trust in your sense experience - it doesn't matter if it makes sense and sounds logical to your intellect. Just note what you find even if it runs opposite to what logical thought tells you...

Try again - close your eyes - and focus on the sensations coming from your foot,leg or any other part of your body. If you find it easier you can also just listen and work with sound instead of physical sensations... it doesn't matter...
Now, don't ask a question to yourself that will only result in a thought popping up guessing the right answer... just feel, just hear... What is there?

I find any sensation (sound, touch etc.) to be something so primary, abstract, amorphic and indefinable that answering what is there is just impossible, but whatever it is, the pesky "I" quickly takes credit for it. I've started following your suggestion and will continue to do so for extended periods if necessary until hopefully I'll see what is supposed to be obvious... I'll be more than happy to report anything other than just more thoughts about it.

Did you find any borders in the experience itself that clearly defines a you that is experiencing something that is not you? Did the experience define a border that defines a part of it as being "inside" and the rest of it "outside"?

No, any experience that comes from supposedly something outside me is the only thing there is at the moment and it can't be anywhere else but the place it is perceived, which is nowhere really. This is noticed for a nanosecond until thought intervenes. Rationality enters the arena so fast that I wonder whether I've really had some insight or just imagined it. I'll keep looking.