Path or No Path

[Canfora]

Some degree of misunderstanding is to be expected in these conversations. I think we are doing fine.

I said the personal self is experienced as a thought or emotion, never did I say it was real.

If it isn't real, how can you experience it?
Can you give me one example or two of things that aren't real and can be experienced, so that I can understand what you're trying to say?

How do you know a separate self is illusory?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

If it isn't real, how can you experience it?
Can you give me one example or two of things that aren't real and can be experienced, so that I can understand what you're trying to say?

"I" itself isn't real, but thoughts and emotions are. Thoughts are seen as thoughts and same with emotions. They are real and experienced. Although, these are not "my" thoughts nor "my" emotions, they are just sensory phenomenon arising and passing away based on causes and conditions. This collective aggregate of sensory phenomenon creates the illusion of a separate self.

We can replace "I" or self with Santa Claus. The thought about Santa Claus and the feelings of joy associated with him are real, but Santa Claus himself is not real.

So what I'm trying to say is, thoughts and emotions are real sensory phenomenon. There's nothing personal about it unless one believes the story to be real.

How do you know a separate self is illusory?

Because it is seen as just a thought or emotion. When there is no thought or emotion, all that's left are the remaining physical sensory phenomenon. Existence. There's is nothing apart from existence itself. Even when there is thought and emotion, it is also part of existence and cannot be separate. But it is no longer mistaken as "I", "me", or "mine". All rises in consciousness and there is awareness of it.

[Canfora]

Good answers. Would you say you are awareness? Or consciousness?

Does this perspective of the illusion of a separate self change the way you deal with life or the way you think and feel about yourself? Is anything different?

Did you realize what you expected to realize? Do you have doubts?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Would you say you are awareness? Or consciousness?

To be more precise, there's consciousness of each individual sense faculty (thought, eye, ear, etc...) and there's the awareness of it. Each sense faculty's consciousness is known by and rises in awareness.

Does this perspective of the illusion of a separate self change the way you deal with life or the way you think and feel about yourself? Is anything different?

As mentioned in another prior post, given a situation or circumstance, when it is more intense, one can still get wrapped up in the separate self. However, after the event has subsided, there's an acknowledgement and ease of dealing with what just happened. As in "ah, these are just thoughts and emotions" and do not need to be taken as real. The "I" has less power over being. So what's different now, is that there is a constant recognition that there's no need for the content of thoughts and emotion to be personal. There's definitely some peace and ease there.

Did you realize what you expected to realize? Do you have doubts?

What I realized is that this is only the beginning of a new way to perceive things and it'll take some time to get situated and to be familiarized with this new mode of being. The seeds definitely have been planted but will take time to slowly chip away at the old sense and habits of "I". Being realistic, old behaviors will take time to change, especially one that has been around for decades. However, without this newly gained insight, it would not have even been possible.

There is no more doubt, "I", is seen through. Now it'll take some time for new behavioral patterns to be established and accustomed to this new perspective.

Like watching a scary movie. Although I know the movie is not real, it still scares me the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time I watch it. However, by the 100th I've watched it, I'm sure the amount of fear the movie generates would greatly diminish over time. Likewise with the feelings associated with "I".

[Canfora]

Each sense faculty's consciousness is known by and rises in awareness.

How do you know this? Is this an idea you've learned somewhere or an experience? Can you check if this idea is accurate by noticing what's going on here now?
Have a look.
Do you experience separate sense faculties? Or a awareness that knows and contains them? Do you see any evidences that awareness is like a container where faculties rise?

Like watching a scary movie. Although I know the movie is not real, it still scares me the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time I watch it. However, by the 100th I've watched it, I'm sure the amount of fear the movie generates would greatly diminish over time. Likewise with the feelings associated with "I".

I understand what you're saying. I suppose that even when you aren't caught in the self illusion all kind of feelings are very likely to be felt. I think the existence and intensity of feelings doesn't depend on the existence of the self illusion. A kid under 1 year old has the ingrained capacity to feel all kind of feelings with a high level of intensity, even before a believe in separation starts to show up.

I'm not sure a huge decrease in the intensity of feelings happens to everyone that sees the illusion. The contrary may happen sometimes. Some people spend a bunch of energy trying to suppress what they feel and when it is seen that a self that needs to be protected from intense feelings, like fear, is illusory, the protection mechanisms that were keeping feelings at bay may start to loose their strength and the feelings may feel even stronger for a while.

The "I" has less power over being.

Being can be defined as *the nature or essence of a person*. What do you think "being" is?

one can still get wrapped up in the separate self

Right now would you say you are wrapped up in the separate self? What seems to cause that impression?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

How do you know this? Is this an idea you've learned somewhere or an experience? Can you check if this idea is accurate by noticing what's going on here now? Have a look.

Both learned and verified through personal direct experience. Yes I can. This moment, there is an awareness sight, sound, thought, and touch. Taste and smell are absent, but I know they arise in the presence of food.

Do you experience separate sense faculties?

Yes. Each is distinct in the experience it creates and unique in its properties (e.g. blue, loud, sweet). I've also had experience with powerful psychedelics where touch faculty went offline, but visual and sound phenomenon was still present. I could see my body but couldn't feel it. Was a fearful yet interesting experience. And I know of fellow meditators who've had meditative experiences with the dissolution of the body.

Or a awareness that knows and contains them? Do you see any evidences that awareness is like a container where faculties rise?

Perhaps it's just verbiage. When I say arise in awareness. It just means awareness of the experience. There's a knowing of all experiences. Not implying that there is some personal subjective knower. Just experience as it is known thorough each particular sense faculty appears.

A kid under 1 year old has the ingrained capacity to feel all kind of feelings with a high level of intensity, even before a believe in separation starts to show up.

That is quite true.

Being can be defined as *the nature or essence of a person*. What do you think "being" is?

Let me clarify, the "I" has less power over presence or the present moment. Meaning, to see things as they are directly experienced and less about the story and judgement associated with the feelings or thoughts of "I". But as mentioned above, it scales with intensity.

Right now would you say you are wrapped up in the separate self? What seems to cause that impression?

No, not right now. In an example I gave in an earlier post, with suddenly needing to do some form of public speaking or simply talking to someone at work who makes you anxious, the impression of separateness arises. Self consciousness or concern for what others think seems to give rise to that impression. Since suddenly, the habitual impression of self is strong as is the impression of other. To give you a little background, I have a minor or mild form of social anxiety. Used to be worse. It's what led me down this path. Although the understanding is that there's no "I", anxiety still arises. The freedom comes after the situated has passed and it is realize that it wasn't personal, but due to past conditioning.

[Canfora]

Do you experience separate sense faculties?
Yes.

Right now seeing is happening.
Listening is happening also.
Sensations are going on.
And so on.
When we describe stuff it seems separation is a fact. Usually we don't question what we think it's a fact.
But...
If you notice this present experience, as it is, do you see borders separating the seeing, the hearing, the sensing, etc, etc.
Use a finger. Point to the separation you are saying can be experienced. Can you find it? Can you find borders, seams, division?
Is sensing like a puzzle made of separate parts?

[pwsamadhi]

Right now seeing is happening.
Listening is happening also.
Sensations are going on.
And so on.
When we describe stuff it seems separation is a fact. Usually we don't question what we think it's a fact.
But...

I figured you were alluding to this.

I'd actually like both of us to keep a open mind here. Contrary to what you mentioned above, I think most of us traditionally experience all sensory faculties simultaneously. We think that seeing and hearing are happening at the same time, say when driving, it feels like we're paying attention to stimulus coming in all at once. But could it be possible that at a sub-perceptual level, consciousness is actually oscillating very quickly between the different human organ instruments (ear, eye, skin) that is beyond our ability to perceive it that way.

Sight and sound are actually out of sync. Say when listening to a person talk and lip reading. Light travels faster than sound, so visually we are seeing the lips move then the sound actually catches up. This has been measured and is all happening at a sub-perceptual level so it's difficult for us to conceive. And studies have shown it also varies from person to person.

Renowned Meditation Master Mahasi Sayadaw:
"In reality, seeing does not occur at the same time as hearing, nor does hearing occur at the same time as seeing. Such incidents can occur only one at a time. A yogi who has just begun the practice and who has not sufficiently developed his mindfulness, concentration and knowledge will not, however, be in a position to observe all these moments singly as they occur in serial order. A beginner need not, therefore, follow up on many things. He needs to begin with only a few things."

I also recall reading from experienced meditator Culadasa, that the mind is actually conscious of a single event one at a time.

But yes I get it, everything mentioned above is not at my direct experience, it is secondhand information. However, I wouldn't discredit the direct experiences of highly trained meditators who have logged more hours of meditation under their belt. I'm open to the possibility that they can perceive more than the average. Humans can accomplish some pretty remarkable feats both physically and mentally.

I'm also aware, what I mentioned above gets into the concept of time. Which I know doesn't really exist and all things are happening now, despite it may appear things happening sequentially.

If you notice this present experience, as it is, do you see borders separating the seeing, the hearing, the sensing, etc, etc.
Use a finger. Point to the separation you are saying can be experienced. Can you find it? Can you find borders, seams, division?
Is sensing like a puzzle made of separate parts?

You don't necessarily need to "see" borders. This is where it can be very debatable. I "see" the border of my skin separate from the environment, but it doesn't mean I'm actually separate. And to your questions, the borders aren't seen. It is through distinct experiences that the realms of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell do not cross each other. So yes, I find that it never crosses. I can never taste blue, see bitter, or hear stinky. These are quite different instruments meant to perceive different things, hence separate. Likewise, you can't use a piano to create a painting or a paint brush to produce music.

A blind man will never understand what it's like to see. So how can we say it's not separate from hearing. The blind man will always be missing a piece of the puzzle.

[pwsamadhi]

or a paint brush to produce music.

Unless you use it as a drum stick :D

But you get my point.

[Canfora]

I wrote a lot this time. Most questions I wrote are rhetorical questions. I don't expect you to answer them all!
I should keep it simple but the below post is more a rant than a guiding post.

It seems to me you're saying that maybe someone somewhere, with different capacities / sensory faculties, may be perceiving a separate self? Which would open the possibility to the existence of a separate self? Because someone perceives it as real?

So are you focusing in the unreliability of perception and also in the possibility that what can't be perceive now may be perceived later on to argue that a self can be real after all?

Does this mean that if someone says it can perceive Santa Claus, Santa is probably real?
Or that it is realistic to expect Santa to appear in front of one of us, because some kids believe in it?

Some centuries ago perceptions and beliefs were the main reason people believed the earth was flat.

It is very likely that today someone somewhere believes the earth is flat.

When we talk about the earth we are talking about something that I suppose is being perceived by everything that is alive (unless it's capacity to perceive isn't in the spectrum of what is considered normal). Cats, ants, birds, fish, blind people, etc are perceiving the earth, each in their own way. There is no need to think about the earth to somehow perceive the earth.

We can keep a open mind about the flatness or roundness of the earth and believe it's one way or the other. But keeping an open mind wouldn't give us any certainties one way or the other.

We can have a open mind and use arguments to show that the earth may NOT exist. Or discuss theories about the earth flatness or roundness, etc etc. In thoughtsland everything is possible.

Currently there are millions of persons believing they are a separate self and perceiving life as a separate self.

Does that mean their perception is accurate and the existence of a separate self is a fact?

Does that mean their perception isn't accurate and the existence of a separate self is an illusion?

Perhaps something else seems to be truer?

If we think about these questions with a open mind, will we know their answers? Is thinking capable to realize if what is being perceived is accurate? If I hear a sound and I think it's a cat behind me, does that mean there is a cat behind me? Is thinking more trustworthy than perceptions?

Fortunately there is a BIG difference between the separate self belief and the flat earth belief.

When we talk about the earth we are talking about something very concrete, something that can be perceived. Would you agree?

Yes, *earth* is a concept, but it's a concept that points to concrete evidences that let us know there is this (whatever that may be) that we conventionally named earth.

We don't have to use arguments to justify that the earth may or may not exist. We know it does. We perceive it, regardless of our thoughts about it. If you open a window there it is, a small fragment of the earth, staring you at the face.

When we discuss the existence of a separate self we are talking abut something that can't be perceived at all. When we talk about the earth, we are talking about something that has lots of evidences of its existence.

One things is to speculate about something that is obviously a fact. Other is to speculate about something that isn't. If keeping a open mind would make a difference in what is going on right now, I would keep an open mind to the possibility of Hogwarts being real. I would love to learn to make spells.

[pwsamadhi]

It's not as black and white as you put it.

Let's stick to the topic. We're discussing sensory faculty perception. We're not talking about the separate self nor are we talking about something make believe like Santa Claus. We've already established the separate self as not real so there's no point going down that rabbit hole again. There definitely are kids that believe Santa Claus is real, but the probability of him being real is highly unlikely.

Do I see the possibility of someone having heightened sense perception greater than the average, I certainly do. The blind have an acute sense of hearing and smell that's far greater than someone who can see, simply because their mental faculties have been further developed due to the need to make up for lack of vision. There are creatures in the animal kingdom that have far greater sensory capacity than man (sharks detecting a drop of blood in the ocean, birds with built in polar navigation system, dolphin's echolocation, a dog's nose), so certainly these things exist in our physical world do not fall in the realm of the unlikely (e.g. Santa Claus, Hogwarts). So there's a higher probability that folks who have developed their minds with years of meditation are not lying about what they say or can achieve. Even drugs like amphetamines or psilocybin can produce acute sensory perception beyond the norm. It's also no different from Olympians who can accomplish human extremes with speed, strength, flexibility, and agility that really seem to defy what average humans are capable of. This is about the human ability to expand the mental and physical capacities and has nothing to do with a separate self. It's neuroplasticity and sensory capacity to perceive beyond the average.

I know what you're getting at though. You're saying, just because 90% of the world believes in a separate self doesn't make it real. Likewise one person who has abnormal heightened sense perception, doesn't make it real. But similarly, I can use that against what you're proposing as well. You may be a small % that perceives all sensory faculties simultaneously. That makes you no different from the meditation master who is perceiving it another way and telling us that our traditional experience of perceiving things at the same time is false.

From my experience, I previously thought all sensory perception was perceived simultaneously. But upon my own investigation and experimentation I found that to not be true. And I know that light travels faster than sound and I also know sensory input is fed into the brain at different rates in neural pathways they need to traverse. Did you know that sensory input is actually fed into our brain through two routes, the short and long route. The shorter and faster route being the amygdala which triggers our emotional center and the longer and slower route which triggers our higher cognitive functions. That's why many times when it comes down to survival (fight or flight), our emotional centers take precedence over our higher cognitive capacities. Hence I get stuck dealing with a mild form of social anxiety even though I know it's illogical. So if the emotional and cognitive sensory experiences happen at different rates, what makes sight, sound, and touch any different.

So I'm not saying you're right nor the meditation master is right. I'm keeping what they call a "don't know" mind in Zen. I can't say for certain your perspective is reality nor can I say is his. From my perspective and experience, I see sensory faculty as distinct experiences. Sure it all falls under the broader bucket of experience, but until I can taste the color blue, will I say that these sensory realms cross. Unless you can show me otherwise, as you've had with the illusory self.

So I'm absolutely comfortable with this "don't know" mind. It keeps me fluid and dynamic, open to possibility of alternative perspectives, different views. It's certainly less rigid or fixed. But until I can repeatedly see with reason and experience, then can I deem something true to be likely or unlikely.

An open mind is important. It's is what was required to see the separate self to begin with. Had I been closed off to that perspective, I would not have seen. I cannot say anything is 100% certain (except experience and existence) in reality since everything comes down to the subjective experience. But I can see there are probabilities and possibilities.

• Santa Clause being real and you learning spells at Hogwarts, maybe .0000000009%.
• Humans being able to detect reality with greater sensory depth perception, ~85%.
• The world being round, 99.999%. I've never flown out to space and through direct experience and seen with my own eyes that the earth is round. But I can infer from pictures seen, take the word of modern science the world is round, and can be convinced through physics. But I leave that small %, because one day, someone may pull the rug out and say the whole thing was a hoax or reality itself is just an illusion.
• I've encountered spirits and entities on powerful psychedelics like Ayahuasca, Mushrooms, and DMT. I've seen light poured out of my mouth, experienced death, and have seen divine lights warping my whole mind. Under the influence, I've seen things my mind could not even comprehend or fathom. These events certainly seemed real at the moment, but it doesn't make them true either. Whether it's a projection of my mind or something from the beyond. I simply "don't know" and would neither disregard it as unreal nor would I say for certain what happened was real. I can only say the experience of "seeing" was real. Now whether it acutally objectively existed, I don't know. I certainly can't prove it outside my subjective experience. It's not any different from a schizophrenic who has delusions. Could it be possible that schizos or use of psychedelics are actually tapping into something beyond the physical known that rest of us can't perceive? Who knows.

Hence I said it's not so black and white.

[pwsamadhi]

So are you focusing in the unreliability of perception and also in the possibility that what can't be perceive now may be perceived later on to argue that a self can be real after all?

Just to add, many of these master's I quoted are champions of the notion that there's no separate self. So now why would I use them to argue that there is a self. It defeats the purpose.

[pwsamadhi]

By the way, how do I edit a post. I noticed grammatical errors and run-ons lol. I checked the FAQ, but I don't see an edit button.

I also noticed I mentioned "see the separate self to begin with", I meant illusory self.

[Canfora]

Impossible to edit a post, unless you have administrator permissions.
Don't worry with editing.

[Canfora]

It's not as black and white as you put it.

Sure. I have to say something and black of white thinking is very likely to pop up when the thinking goes into discussion mode. And everything I say can be questioned.

Let's stick to the topic.

Ok

We've already established the separate self as not real so there's no point going down that rabbit hole again.

We did?

It seems to me that you are open to not knowing. This is about knowing too.

An open mind is important. It's is what was required to see the separate self to begin with. Had I been closed off to that perspective, I would not have seen.

If you see it, you can describe it so that I can resonate with what is being seen.
Can you do that?
Tell me what you see.