Path or No Path

[pwsamadhi]

We did?

Yes, before we started talking about sensory faculties .

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

Yes that is okay, open to not knowing until known. =)

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.

From an earlier post:

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.

I also get what you were implying here now. Key word being "describe".

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...

The very nature of communication of "thoughts", "labels", and "names" dissects and conceptualizes reality. So everything becomes categorized into the world of concepts. In a world without thoughts, all just is. There's no eyes, ears, mouth, no "parts". The nature of thought makes things into "things", "objects", "nouns" and "pronouns". Chops up reality into distinct qualities (color, sound, temperature), features, attributes, characteristics, and borders. Also introduces segments, sections, time, and sequence as well.

And it's interesting to see why Mahasi Sayadaw stated what he said. Because he invented the meditation technique of "noting" or "labeling" every sensation, thought, or emotion as it arises. So each experience gets conceptualized in rapid succession and breaks reality apart allowing one to discover the insight of Impermanence. A constant flow of conscious experiences that never stop changing. This practice would seem to hold reality conscious of an a single experience one at a time. Since we are only capable of one thought at a time.

But in the absolute (non-relative), there's only experience and there's only now. Now whether reality is a actually oscillating vibrations of sensory experience that we're conscious of, that's sub perceptual and beyond what I'm capable of perceiving, perhaps not for him. As science has shown, matter isn't really solid. S.N. Goenka, would be another that makes this claim, but using the body scan technique of perceiving vibrations at the subtlest levels of sensate phenomenon of the mind and body.

[Canfora]

I also get what you were implying here now. Key word being "describe".

If you read what you wrote, would you say you have described what is going on?

Do you expect that I will be capable to understand what you are seeing/perceiving right now if you carefully explain what and how you think? Or what Mahasi Sayadaw states?

Let's say I ask if it is raining where you are.

Will you tell me your thoughts about the nature of rain, what this or that person thinks about rain, and the best techniques to know if it is raining or not?

Do you think I will know if it's raining where you are if you don't look outside and describe what you see going on in a way that will let me know if it's raining or not?

Why aren't you going straight to the point and plainly describing what's really going on?

[pwsamadhi]

If you read what you wrote, would you say you have described what is going on?

It depends. In the world of thoughts and communication, I'd stick to what I said. In the world without thoughts, it just is. But in our world, thoughts and languages exists. Anytime we try to "describe", it's automatically conceptualized.

This is why, in Zen, when asked these questions they usually yell "KATZZZ!!", clap their hands, or the teacher hits the student. Because these are all direct experiences before the thinking mind.

Here's what I'm struggling with:
I keep falling back to the example that I can never taste blue or see salty. By instinct I know these are different experiences and nobody had taught me this. The very nature of seeing and hearing is different. But I also know they both fall under the broader bucket of just experience.

This is back to where I left off with the last guide (Robyn), before you took over. I struggled with direct experience versus direct knowing via instinct. In the tool she used, she asked me how can I recognize people who are sad or happy with just seeing. I understood her point in that each sense faculty on its own, does not have emotional recognition. But somehow, seeing someone's face that's happy or sad, their emotional state is instinctively known without the need for thought. Similarly, I can discern sight and sound being different without thought.

Will you tell me your thoughts about the nature of rain, what this or that person thinks about rain, and the best techniques to know if it is raining or not?

No, I would simply tell you it's raining.

Do you think I will know if it's raining where you are if you don't look outside and describe what you see going on in a way that will let me know if it's raining or not?

No, it would have to be described.

Why aren't you going straight to the point and plainly describing what's really going on?

Because you asked me about sensory experience. And, as mentioned above, in the world of thoughts and descriptions, sound, seeing, and touch are different. And I can only describe things in detail with the properties of each sensory experience.

I would describe sound to you as loud, low, humming, buzzing, crackling, ringing, etc
I would describe seeing to you as blue, red, 3d, flat, round, tall, short, deep etc
I would describe touching to you as hard, soft, moist, dry, etc

I could also say, I'm just sitting here experiencing life. Or I could there's a multitude of experiences going on, the humming of a laptop (sound), the brightness of the light (sight), the warmth of sitting on a chair (touch).

Both versions are true, both are facts.

If an eskimo has never experienced a banana and asked me to describe it.

• I can say, well a banana is a banana. And the experience of a banana is the banana experience. That wouldn't be very helpful to him.
• I could also say it's a fruit that looks "yellow", is "long with a slight curve" and is "yellowish-white on the inside", and "needs to be peeled" before you eat it. And when you eat it, it tastes "mushy" and "sweet".

He would still never know what a banana is like until I show him one and he eats it for himself. But the 2nd bullet brings him slightly closer to what the experience of eating a banana would possibly be like.

[Canfora]

Here's what I'm struggling with:
I keep falling back to the example that I can never taste blue or see salty. By instinct I know these are different experiences and nobody had taught me this. The very nature of seeing and hearing is different. But I also know they both fall under the broader bucket of just experience.

This is back to where I left off with the last guide (Robyn), before you took over. I struggled with direct experience versus direct knowing via instinct.

I suppose then when you say you are struggling you are saying you don't understand how it works?
We could say the body has different tools that each lead to a specific experience: in a simplistic way we can say the eyes allow seeing, the ears allow hearing and so on.
You already know this, so why are you struggling? Do you expect to touch a color or to hear a smell?

I could also say, I'm just sitting here experiencing life.

Yes. And what is this I you talk about? How do you know it is "sitting here experiencing life"?

You are talking with someone that realizes a separate self is an illusion, so if you describe your own realization (or lack of it) I will get what you are saying. But you have to talk about your own experience. Can you do that? Look around and tell me what is this I you talk about. Like if you are describing a banana to an eskimo has never experienced a banana. You have to describe to him the banana as best as you can, instead of going into a story about it. So have a look. Can you find a real I? What do you see?

[pwsamadhi]

I suppose then when you say you are struggling you are saying you don't understand how it works?
We could say the body has different tools that each lead to a specific experience: in a simplistic way we can say the eyes allow seeing, the ears allow hearing and so on.
You already know this, so why are you struggling? Do you expect to touch a color or to hear a smell?

No, this is in alignment with the sense faculties being separate. From what was said above, it seems like you're in agreement, then there's no struggle. Previously you were alluding to it not being separate or distinct which confused me.

I could also say, I'm just sitting here experiencing life.

Yes. And what is this I you talk about? How do you know it is "sitting here experiencing life"?

Just speaking relatively. There's just experience. There's just life.

You are talking with someone that realizes a separate self is an illusion, so if you describe your own realization (or lack of it) I will get what you are saying. But you have to talk about your own experience. Can you do that? Look around and tell me what is this I you talk about.

There is no "I". That's all. There's no "my own experience" nor is there a "my". "I" was just using "I" to communicate as you were referring to "me" as a "you" or "your own". So there's nothing to describe. Just a dance of two with words.

Like if you are describing a banana to an eskimo has never experienced a banana. You have to describe to him the banana as best as you can, instead of going into a story about it. So have a look. Can you find a real I? What do you see?

What is there to be seen if it doesn't exist? There are thoughts, emotions, and sensations. Not sure how to describe the phantom. It can appear as a thought, but thoughts are just thoughts. It can appear as emotion, but that's just emotion. Neither is taken a personal, nor is their ownership. There's no doer. This has been previously mentioned twice.

[Canfora]

This has been previously mentioned twice.

What you've written before about this isn't a description of what is going on now, so it doesn't count. I hope my insistence isn't bothering you but I'm still not sure of how you know that a separate self is an illusion, in terms of your present experience!

No, this is in alignment with the sense faculties being separate. From what was said above, it seems like you're in agreement, then there's no struggle. Previously you were alluding to it not being separate or distinct which confused me.

When I look to this experience that is happening right now, it seems to me that although the sense faculties are apparently separate - each do one specific thing, or so it seems - the experience itself is a seamless all. Aren't you experiencing all at once?

There are thoughts, emotions, and sensations.

Sorry for insisting but I still don't know what you're experiencing.

There's no doer.

Can you look closer and tell me what is going on right now that let's you know there's no doer?
How do you know this?
Right now things are being done. You are writing a reply.
What is happening in terms of thoughts, emotions, sensations, perceptions that shows you there's no doer?

[pwsamadhi]

What you've written before about this isn't a description of what is going on now, so it doesn't count. I hope my insistence isn't bothering you but I'm still not sure of how you know that a separate self is an illusion, in terms of your present experience!

No it doesn't bother me. You asked about the illusory self, not what's currently happening. There is the arising of thoughts, the typing of the keyboard, and the seeing of words appear on the screen.

When I look to this experience that is happening right now, it seems to me that although the sense faculties are apparently separate - each do one specific thing, or so it seems - the experience itself is a seamless all. Aren't you experiencing all at once?

Yes they do different things but the experience itself is seamless. But there's a knowing that they are different things because taste is typically absent in the absence of food. And as you mentioned, each does a specific thing and do not cross. But I get what you mean now. Nothing can be separate from experience and life. It's self contained.

Can you look closer and tell me what is going on right now that let's you know there's no doer?
How do you know this?
Right now things are being done. You are writing a reply.
What is happening in terms of thoughts, emotions, sensations, perceptions that shows you there's no doer?

Because thoughts and emotions are spontaneously arising and subsequent action is taken after. There's looking, reading, and reacting. There's a response formulated from thoughts, then there's typing and seeing of words on the screen.

Although thoughts and emotions simulate a person thinking or replying. The sense of "I" or a "doer" is Santa Claus. It is conceptual and can't be seen, heard, or felt. The thought and emotion content are secondary conceptual experiences, not direct experience of the thought or emotion itself as a raw object sensory phenomenon.

[Canfora]

Although thoughts and emotions simulate a person thinking or replying.

How does it feel to see this?
Please also share some examples from daily life.

[pwsamadhi]

How does it feel to see this?
Please also share some examples from daily life.

Thoughts and feelings are perceived to come and go. Immediately as soon as waking, thoughts and feelings appear. Both thoughts and feelings lead to action to satisfy whatever discomfort of the body. This includes hunger, using the restroom, or needing to groom. Some of it appears habitual, some of it appears to driven by factors that arise in the body. There are natural forces orchestrating and dictating the mind-body phenomenon.

Even if "I" tried to not use the restroom, not think, not feel, not move, not eat, ultimately it'll succumb to some sort of action, feelings, or thoughts. They take place on their own and it is seen that they spontaneously arise.

Although it appears to be a doer, a choice, but when looked at carefully, it's seen as just thoughts and feelings arising. There's now a secondary sense of acknowledgement, a thought or feeling that questions where or how all of this is happening, but it is. It recognizes the arising and passing away of phenomenon without a need for an inherent self.

It's interesting to observe and see this happening moment to moment. To be honest, not quite sure how "I" feel about this lol. It just is. Life unfolding, a process taking place, a story or script that is being experienced. That's all.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't". Damned if you think there's a doer and you attempt to resist to life and struggle in the process. Damned if you don't, cause whether or not you think you are the doer is not up to you to begin with anyway.

[Canfora]

Thank you for your post.
Would you say you can see without a doubt that a self is an illusion?
Do you have doubts? Does it feel that something is missing?

[pwsamadhi]

Would you say you can see without a doubt that a self is an illusion?

Yes, I can see the illusion.

Do you have doubts? Does it feel that something is missing?

No I don't have any doubts but the process doesn't feel complete. I'll allude back to two of my earlier posts.

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".

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.

Culadasa: Right. That’s what goes away with first path, with stream entry. What remains is the inherent sense, this feeling, a feeling that I’m a separate self even though I know I’m not. From stream entry on I’ll know I’m not a separate self, I’ve seen through that but I still feel like it. What goes away with the arhat is the feeling, the inherent sense of being separate, that’s completely dissolved.

I believe this is as far as LU can take me. The rest of it will be a natural maturation of this new understanding. As you mentioned above, the protection mechanisms in place need to ultimately fall off. I assume this new way of seeing needs to be integrated into how life is approached are perceived. And with the new understanding, the feeling of "I" will gradually subside because it is now known and seen through. Thus weakening its influence due to it being acknowledged or taken for real less and less each time.

[Canfora]

And with the new understanding, the feeling of "I" will gradually subside because it is now known and seen through. Thus weakening its influence due to it being acknowledged or taken for real less and less each time.

If a separate self is an illusion to whom will this happen?

Is there something wrong with the feeling that you are an I?

You seem to be trying to "shape" a self. What for? If an I is an illusion what are you trying to change?

[pwsamadhi]

If a separate self is an illusion to whom will this happen?

To the remnants of the illusion itself. I know what you're implying, it's like what they say about enlightenment, there's no one that gets enlightened. As it is often asked who or what is it that gets enlightened?

Is there something wrong with the feeling that you are an I?

No, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It has its purposes, but it also has it's limitations. Bound to it, are usually the hang-ups in life. As I mentioned, it'll take steady remembrance to be habituated in recalling it's an illusion.

You seem to be trying to "shape" a self. What for? If an I is an illusion what are you trying to change?

There's nothing that's trying. Can "I" really stop or change anything if there's no doer? Yes it is an illusion, but a very sticky one. Not trying to "shape" it, but to get familiar with the fact that it's an illusion. Just because I know the rope is no longer a snake, doesn't mean the rope doesn't still fool me again every so often, especially when it's dark.

Through practice and wisdom, how life is dealt with can gradually and dramatically improve. This has been experienced over the course of the last four years with other spiritual practices. The wisdom gained from LU is an additional stepping stone towards that direction.

There are ways to go in how reality can potentially be perceived, how consciousness can shift. There are many anecdotal stories of people whose lives have changed dramatically from awakenings to nibbanic experiences. These are well documented and studied. I even know of two in person. Yes, this is secondhand knowledge and not direct experience, that is... until it is. ;)

From the Kalama Sutta (modernized):
“Don’t take my word for it; see and test for yourself.”

Humble Tibetan Quote:
"Don't mistake understanding for realization. Don't mistake realization for liberation."

[Canfora]

The wisdom gained from LU is an additional stepping stone towards that direction.

Can you say more? What did you gain from LU?

We usually ask 6 "final standard" questions to the ones that see the illusion. Would you like to answer them?

[pwsamadhi]

Can you say more? What did you gain from LU?

Quite a few takeaways:

• Clarification and recognition of thought content vs thought
• Clarification and recognition of direct experience vs second hand knowledge
• Useful exercises to help one see direct experience
• Got more in touch with direct sensory experience, has been very helpful for some of my mindfulness practices
• Seeing that the separate self is illusory
• To see that life unfolds as it should regardless of what "I" do or don't do
• With knowing, able to see the mind's story and ignore or disregard them as not true
• With knowing, able to feel negative emotion but to let it bypass with more ease
• To take things as not personal

We usually ask 6 "final standard" questions to the ones that see the illusion. Would you like to answer them?

Sure.