Curiosity

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for the delay.

It is very common to experience anxiety durng this process of investigation. This anxiety can lead to a lot of extra thinking, as you have suggested. The important thing now is to look at the anxiety directly.

Is it possible for you to feel the anxiety about this investigation as an emotion or does it always seem to manifest as extra thinking?

Anxiety happens when there is a feeling that something is in danger and needs protecting. But in the case of 'self', it was never 'there' in the first place. And it cannot be hurt becasue ... it's imaginary. So see if it is possible to think or feel this through and perhaps relaxation can happen? Say 'thank you' to the anxiety and that it is now free to relax :-)

Ok, so apart from one particular day anxiety has manifested itself as extra thinking. As you may remember from my previous post, I have have already done as suggested and will continue to do so.

In my last post, I intimated that this process may be complete, but you either thought best to offer no feedback at this time or perhaps I didn't express properly- so I have read other posts etc.

If the sole purpose at this stage is the "realisation/knowing that there is no separate entity called 'self'" (borrowed from another thread) then I think this has been achieved. There is no point in continued searching for something that doesn't exist.

I sincerely hope this is not coming across in a confrontational manner, that is certainly not the intention.

With thanks as always,

Tim

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,

If the sole purpose at this stage is the "realisation/knowing that there is no separate entity called 'self'" (borrowed from another thread) then I think this has been achieved. There is no point in continued searching for something that doesn't exist.

I sincerely hope this is not coming across in a confrontational manner, that is certainly not the intention.

No. It's fine. There can be intellectual understandng that, in theory, the 'self' does not exist but what we look for is the experiential 'understanding' or 'seeing'. In other words the noticing that there is no 'I'. It's not the same as just knowing it in principle.

Since you are telling me quite forthrightly that this seen I'd like to ask you a series of questions that we always tend to ask around now? Are you ready for these?

Best wishes,

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your quick response. I am happy to go with your advice. As I am unsure what to expect, I am hoping that current negative emotion is part of the unravelling process. If I look, I can find no 'I' but at this stage I can’t honestly say that I feel more relaxed etc.

So if you feel I am acting prematurely then of course I am happy to continue with the process. I just don't know what else there is to do.

Many thanks, Tim

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[JonathanR]

OK Tim,

Here are three of the six questions. Have a go at answering these and we can take a lok at what you have written.

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.


Thanks,

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for the delay, I was out all evening with my daughter.

Here are three of the six questions. Have a go at answering these and we can take a lok at what you have written.

Ok great.

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

No.

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 a mental construct which provides a perspective from which all is perceived. How does this relate to 'me'? This 'narrow' perspective is one of 'self-importance', 'selfishness' and 'self-centredness'. It is a naive perspective 'learned' in childhood. There is now a greater knowledge of this process at work and the ability to see through it. After 40+ years of witnessing life from this illusory perspective, the sense of self has not just disappeared but it has lessened and will perhaps continue to do so.

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 as though there is now a greater (less narrow) 'perspective' or understanding. There is a greater awareness of these 'selfish' automatic processes at work and an intent be more 'selfless'. Seeing how automatically 'selfish' I am is not a pleasant experience but there is trust that this will change.

Thank you as always,

Tim

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,

Apologies for the delay, I was out all evening with my daughter.

That's OK. No problem.

After 40+ years of witnessing life from this illusory perspective, the sense of self has not just disappeared but it has lessened and will perhaps continue to do so.

'Self' can't be detected with the five senses, can it? But I know what you mean, it's not just thoughts but emotions too that seem to be part of the imagined self? But what happens when we look behind any emotion that appears to be rooted in a 'me'?

It feels as though there is now a greater (less narrow) 'perspective' or understanding. There is a greater awareness of these 'selfish' automatic processes at work and an intent be more 'selfless'. Seeing how automatically 'selfish' I am is not a pleasant experience but there is trust that this will change.

I understand what you are saying Tim. But what is this entity that needs something to change? I'm not suggesting for one moment that it is not a very good idea to be kind and generous. But where is the 'I' that is uncomfortable with 'selfishness' and where is the one that 'is selfish'? Could it be that what is labeled as 'selfish' simply happens, without a doer of selfishness?

I'll await your response before sending the three other questions.

Best wishes,

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

I hope you don't mind, I just wanted to 'let be' for a while.

After 40+ years of witnessing life from this illusory perspective, the sense of self has not just disappeared but it has lessened and will perhaps continue to do so.

'Self' can't be detected with the five senses, can it? But I know what you mean, it's not just thoughts but emotions too that seem to be part of the imagined self? But what happens when we look behind any emotion that appears to be rooted in a 'me'?

For clarity, when I said 'sense of self' I didn't mean anything detectible by the five senses. There is understanding that emotions are part of experience, there is nothing behind emotions.

It feels as though there is now a greater (less narrow) 'perspective' or understanding. There is a greater awareness of these 'selfish' automatic processes at work and an intent be more 'selfless'. Seeing how automatically 'selfish' I am is not a pleasant experience but there is trust that this will change.

I understand what you are saying Tim. But what is this entity that needs something to change? I'm not suggesting for one moment that it is not a very good idea to be kind and generous. But where is the 'I' that is uncomfortable with 'selfishness' and where is the one that 'is selfish'? Could it be that what is labeled as 'selfish' simply happens, without a doer of selfishness?

This is where language becomes an obstacle. I didn't mean to suggest that there was an "entity that needs something to change", there is only the present experience of change. Neither did I mean to suggest that there was an "'I' that is uncomfortable", only the experience of discomfort.

Could it be that what is labeled as 'selfish' simply happens, without a doer of selfishnes

Yes and 'change' also happens. Experience is ever-changing. Learning happens and is part of experience, experience can change after learning (as is often quoted here, experience changes after the realisation that Santa doesn't exist).

I hope this makes sense.

Thank you as always for your assistance and patience.

Tim

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your clarifications. Here are the second three questions. Once again, have a go at answering these and we can ltake a lok at what you have said.

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

5)Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

6) Anything to add?


Best wishes,

jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your clarifications. Here are the second three questions. Once again, have a go at answering these and we can ltake a lok at what you have said.

Thank you.

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

There is still a certain amount of hesitancy surrounding the thought that 'I am over' but then another thought arises saying ' there's no you to be over'.

I don't think there was one 'last bit', more a general 'unravelling' (still happening). As you know, I experience much overthinking and sometimes this leads to overcomplicating. Ambiguity is also an issue. A few things happened that helped as far as this process is concerned:

1) Learning that it is ok to use 'I', 'me', 'self' etc in reference (I found this ambiguous) and finding out that this automatic labelling won't just stop. Now though, such thoughts are often followed by 'reminders' that there is no such thing.

2) I stumbled upon a thread for somebody whose experience of this process was very similar to mine. The guide kept pointing to the true purpose of the process being "realisation/knowing that there is no separate entity called 'self'" and like me she kept overlooking this basic objective. When seeing this objectively (and not being involved), a sense of clarity emerged and the thought that there is nothing to left to search for because no 'I' can be found- Anything else is just overcomplication.

3) When responding to one of your most recent posts, there was a realisation that even though I had previously thought I had no expectations, this was not true and that 'what is here and now' is perfectly fine as it is. Looking back, I was trying to force expectations based on 'stuff' that I had read many years ago. It now seems laughable- I stood looking at trees expecting some sort of dissolution of what I thought was reality. Maybe these sorts of shifts occur but maybe they don't and it doesn't matter anyway.

5)Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

Being 100% honest, there was still some resistance surrounding this so I have had to look deeper and explore other texts. I have always felt a 'closeness' to God, though I don't pretend to understand this experience. I was born a Christian but my beliefs have always been beyond religion. This inherent spiritual drive has always been there and is not a product of upbringing/nurture. Of course the name God is a label for 'everything that is', for 'life itself' because there is nothing other than God, but the absence of 'freewill' caused conflict with existing conditioning.

This experience itself kind of answers the questions posed in one beautiful process. So there is firstly acknowledgment that I did not choose to have this spiritual inclination. I did not choose to be the distracted child at school who was walking around school fields contemplating God and life while others were studying for exams etc. I did not choose to have the strange (seemingly spiritual) experiences that have persisted throughout my life.

Secondly, in recent times I did not choose to become ill however that experience adjusted my path to one that was more 'nourishing'.

Thirdly, I only stumbled upon Liberation Unleashed because I was not accepted for a Vipassana retreat. I did not choose this.

And now today, the conflict that was felt about the 'absence of freewill' has been overcome. If you remember Jon, I mentioned about a prayer in which I offered myself as a vessel to God. I also mentioned that perhaps this process is part of that. Today I stumbled across a website which allowed me to relax into the realisation that I am no more or less than a vessel and never have been! I suppose this can also been seen as the Gateless Gate.

In case this of assistance to others, the following text is in response to the objection that 'Without free will we would be robots'...

... No, without free will we are lumps of clay in the Potter’s hands that are made either as vessels of wrath or honor. We exist to glorify God and therein lies our purpose. (Those who make such an objection should carefully study Romans 9.)

The website page can be found at http://www.christianfallacies.com/artic ... eWill.html

So I can see now that there is only life unfolding or God's plan in action, words don't really matter here. 'I am happily a lump of clay'.

There is the illusion of freewill and control but I can see now there can not be such a thing.


6) Anything to add?

Yes, during this process there have been so many synchronicities but I found the following one confusing at the time and now quite amusing!

If you are familiar with the London Underground, you will be familiar with something similar but it is usually a very different image on a seat for elderly and disabled people (in a different seat location). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it doesn't exist! Somebody had been sitting in the seat and then left a couple of stops before I had to depart and there it was staring me right in the face, directly opposite from where I was sitting. Take a look... Lol

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=C ... hoto%2cjpg

I was considering going back and editing this post but unravelling occurred during the process so I will leave as is.

I continue to unravel even though 'I' don't exist.

Thank you sincerely for your help, patience and time Jon and thank you to all at LU.

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,


In relation to question 4.

There is still a certain amount of hesitancy surrounding the thought that 'I am over' but then another thought arises saying ' there's no you to be over'.

Whist that may be true, is seeing no-self a matter of thinking one thought or another about anything, even ideas about being 'through' or not?

When seeing this objectively (and not being involved), a sense of clarity emerged and the thought that there is nothing to left to search for because no 'I' can be found- Anything else is just overcomplication.

Who or what is being objective?

You say 'not being involved'. Can you say a little more about this, describe what you mean?

About question 5...

Being 100% honest, there was still some resistance surrounding this so I have had to look deeper and explore other texts.

I have always felt a 'closeness' to God, though I don't pretend to understand this experience. I was born a Christian but my beliefs have always been beyond religion. This inherent spiritual drive has always been there and is not a product of upbringing/nurture. Of course the name God is a label for 'everything that is', for 'life itself' because there is nothing other than God, but the absence of 'freewill' caused conflict with existing conditioning.

This experience itself kind of answers the questions posed in one beautiful process. So there is firstly acknowledgment that I did not choose to have this spiritual inclination. I did not choose to be the distracted child at school who was walking around school fields contemplating God and life while others were studying for exams etc. I did not choose to have the strange (seemingly spiritual) experiences that have persisted throughout my life.

Secondly, in recent times I did not choose to become ill however that experience adjusted my path to one that was more 'nourishing'.

Thirdly, I only stumbled upon Liberation Unleashed because I was not accepted for a Vipassana retreat. I did not choose this.

And now today, the conflict that was felt about the 'absence of freewill' has been overcome. If you remember Jon, I mentioned about a prayer in which I offered myself as a vessel to God. I also mentioned that perhaps this process is part of that. Today I stumbled across a website which allowed me to relax into the realisation that I am no more or less than a vessel and never have been! I suppose this can also been seen as the Gateless Gate.

In case this of assistance to others, the following text is in response to the objection that 'Without free will we would be robots'...

... No, without free will we are lumps of clay in the Potter’s hands that are made either as vessels of wrath or honor. We exist to glorify God and therein lies our purpose. (Those who make such an objection should carefully study Romans 9.)

The website page can be found at http://www.christianfallacies.com/artic ... eWill.html

So I can see now that there is only life unfolding or God's plan in action, words don't really matter here. 'I am happily a lump of clay'.

There is the illusion of freewill and control but I can see now there can not be such a thing

Intellectually. But experientially?

This background research and deliberation you have been doing about God and free will seems to have taken place largely independently of this guiding conversation.

Whilst you have told me a lot about God and free will you have not answered the question at all. Could you please read it again and answer it, this time, more succinctly, without referencing a lot of ideas, with examples from your experience, please?...

5)Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.


Many thanks,

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

This is getting a bit confusing regarding language etc but I will try to answer with honesty.

There is still a certain amount of hesitancy surrounding the thought that 'I am over' but then another thought arises saying ' there's no you to be over'.

Whist that may be true, is seeing no-self a matter of thinking one thought or another about anything, even ideas about being 'through' or not?

Aren't thoughts and feelings part of experience? This was an honest response to a question. I didn't mean to lay claim to those thoughts. If those thoughts will go away, then the gate hasn't been crossed. In between our posts, I have read a lot of other posts (only because there are so many questions and I didn't want to burden you) and maybe that has brought confusion. I understand that seeing there is no-self is experiential but there are still thoughts/doubts etc but these are less personal than they were.

Maybe clarification is needed. This is current experience:

I can not find an 'I' in anything that happens but there is still a perspective from which this life/experience is lived. I have not reached an experiential 'place' where there is no separation between this perspective and the universe. There is still a belief that my experience of life is different from your experience of life but there is understanding that there is only life unfolding. There is no tangible 'I' but there are still self-referencing thoughts, there is an observable body that types.

When seeing this objectively (and not being involved), a sense of clarity emerged and the thought that there is nothing to left to search for because no 'I' can be found- Anything else is just overcomplication.

Who or what is being objective?

You say 'not being involved'. Can you say a little more about this, describe what you mean?

Thoughts were objective, leading to an 'intellectual' understanding about what should be 'experienced' in this process. 'Not being involved' meant that it was easier to see past any ambiguity that was being experienced from 'my'/this perspective.

I am finding it very difficult to communicate without using I, me, my etc.

If it is ok with you, I think some clarification is needed on the above before I continue answering the rest of your questions, especially regarding perspective and whether this perspective should change during this process. During normal daily living, there is still an individual perspective that is experienced.

Thank you as always.

Tim

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,

Thoughts were objective, leading to an 'intellectual' understanding about what should be 'experienced' in this process. 'Not being involved' meant that it was easier to see past any ambiguity that was being experienced from 'my'/this perspective.

To me, this statement says that there is a view that it is possible for something (an assumed entity) to stand back from experience in order to think about things 'objectively'.

Who/what is supposed to be achieve this?

Who/what is supposed to 'not be involved'?

What is it that is imagined 'should be expereinced'?

It would be great if you could answer question 5?


Regards,

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

As mentioned previously there is still the experience of 'unravelling' happening.

Thoughts were objective, leading to an 'intellectual' understanding about what should be 'experienced' in this process. 'Not being involved' meant that it was easier to see past any ambiguity that was being experienced from 'my'/this perspective.

To me, this statement says that there is a view that it is possible for something (an assumed entity) to stand back from experience in order to think about things 'objectively'.

There is the experience of this process. There are thoughts, there is learning and there is change.

Who/what is supposed to be achieve this?

Who/what is supposed to 'not be involved'?

Stripping everything back without thought, without sensation, without perception of experience, without language- there is only the indescribable. To put a label on it is impossible because then the label must be interpreted and is open to subjective translation. However for the means of communication, beyond subjective experience there is only God/Life.

What is it that is imagined 'should be expereinced'?

From this subjective experience, I don't know. At this moment I'm not quite sure how everything interplays.

It would be great if you could answer question 5?

5)Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

I would prefer not to at the moment because but I will try.

Decisions seem to happen, intention is experienced, choice and control are illusions. Outside of thought, there is no me to make things happen so I can't give you examples.

Still unravelling.

Thank you as always.

Tim

[JonathanR]

Hi Tim,

Just at the moment I'd like us to take one idea at a time, so that I do not misunderstand what you are saying.

Thoughts were objective, leading to an 'intellectual' understanding about what should be 'experienced' in this process. 'Not being involved' meant that it was easier to see past any ambiguity that was being experienced from 'my'/this perspective.

To me, this statement says that there is a view that it is possible for something (an assumed entity) to stand back from experience in order to think about things 'objectively'.


There is the experience of this process. There are thoughts, there is learning and there is change.

You describe thoughts as 'objective'. What do you mean?

What is meant by 'not being involved' (And in what way)?

What should be experienced in this process?

What intellectual understanding of it do you have?

Who or what is 'seeing past ambiguity'?

Do you mean that you had reservations about free will becasue of your Chritian belief and that you feel that you managed, intellectually, to find a work-around that made it possible to remain Christian whilst accepting a new belief that there is no free will? Please, in answering this question, don't intelelctualise. If it's 'yes' then say so. If it's 'no' then say so.

if the answer is more or less 'yes', do you still have reservations or doubts about the compaptability of these beliefs?

Jon

[Dsydnll]

Hi Jon,

Just at the moment I'd like us to take one idea at a time, so that I do not misunderstand what you are saying.

Ok, no problem.

You describe thoughts as 'objective'. What do you mean?

The thoughts that were experienced were not influenced by personal feelings.

What is meant by 'not being involved' (And in what way)?

During this process of pointing, there has been much intellectual overcomplicating and ambiguity. To be honest, for the most part it hasn't and still isn't a pleasant experience. 'not being involved' means that I was reading somebody else's story and not experiencing it directly, this enables a certain amount of dissociation as there are less emotions and there is less mental chattering. If I watch somebody else having a conversation, it is not the same experience as if I am having a conversation.

What should be experienced in this process?

As previously mentioned - 'The guide kept pointing to the true purpose of the process being "realisation/knowing that there is no separate entity called 'self'"

What intellectual understanding of it do you have?

That the notion of 'self' is an illusion which causes separation between 'self and other'.

Who or what is 'seeing past ambiguity'?

Of course the initial automatic conditioned response is that I am seeing past the ambiguity but It can't be 'me' as no separate 'self' can be found. It is however part of this experience. It is just happening- in the same way that typing is just happening. Being completely honest, it still feels like a me is doing this but less so than before- experience seems less personal.

Do you mean that you had reservations about free will becasue of your Chritian belief and that you feel that you managed, intellectually, to find a work-around that made it possible to remain Christian whilst accepting a new belief that there is no free will? Please, in answering this question, don't intelelctualise. If it's 'yes' then say so. If it's 'no' then say so.

I will try not to intellectualise but will put it in to context...

Yes I had reservations at the time and not just about free will. I remember reading a post where Ilona assured somebody that this process would not interfere with her Islamic beliefs. I also read a post where the guide appeared very happy to say that he had witnessed the crumbling of religious beliefs by some of those he had worked with. In this case, that was the last post in a very long conversation (just at the point where a breakthrough had been reached). After much 'investment' in this process, it appears that the other participant had experienced strong resistance to this and left the conversation (although this is only an assumption). I did not want to do the same.

I entered this process in a bid to experience life more fully and possibly even use what is learned to help others. My understanding was that this process is nonsecular so that post perturbed me and caused much resistance.

As agreed, I have stopped all reading of non-dualistic texts other than the LU website. However, this was so crucial that I had to enquire. This is not about Christian or any other religious beliefs, this is about a fundamental belief in God that has been held since childhood. I just happened to stumble upon a Christian website which helped to intellectually and experientially overcome resistance. I have also read many Buddhist texts over the years and there appears to be some conflict about this, some Buddhists believe in a monotheistic God and some don't. My understanding is that Buddha didn't lalk about God/gods or the lack of, therefore this is not an issue.

So to summarise in response to your question, this is not about being Christian or remaining a Christian. And yes, I did need to overcome some resistance based on the above and the fact that I had not previously spent much time thinking about or looking at free will.

if the answer is more or less 'yes', do you still have reservations or doubts about the compaptability of these beliefs?

I would be lying if I said that there was absolutely no resistance and to be honest some of this resistance is being caused by your style of pointing. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort but you seem to completely overlook a lot of what is being said. There is very little encouragement, but more of what appears to be a mixture of gameplay, frustration and anger- I warned you at the beginning I have a tendency to overthink. Yesterday I looked deeply and felt a new level of understanding was reached but you choose to ignore that completely and we seem to be going over what has already been said... I am not here to delude myself or get some sort of certificate or badge Jon. This process has been all-consuming for a month now and has not been easy. So let me make this clear- I do not know where I am in the process, there appears to be continuous unravelling. In times of quiet, I understand and see that there is no separate self to be found but there is still a sense of separation when the day gets busy and in all of the above the use of the word 'I' relates to subjective experience. Thoughts are part of this experience and there is no thinker.

Thank you as always,

Tim