Here

[Hawthorne]

Are you sure you crashed the gateless gate? Are you absolutely sure you saw through self-illusion?

Honestly, no.
But I can't tell if that's because I was expecting something different, or if I just didn't see.

That said, I absolutely, certainly, and clearly saw that there is no self, and I am irrevocably changed. I can also see that this is clearly just the beginning of understanding... there are so many more questions to ask and things to understand.

Do you think I saw through self-illusion?

Your further question about what it is that is observing, can be seen from DE and I can help you access that too.

I would love to pursue that!

I know I have thanked you profusely for this already, but I am so impressed by your rigour, thoughtfulness, and patience. You have really helped me a lot. I wish I could send you a nice vase or something. :)

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Honestly, no. 

No problem. Let’s investigate a bit more.
Can you say a bit more about this doubt? What is the doubt about? Is it that you suspect you could go back to believing there is a separate self after all? Or is it more vague in the sense you’re not sure you understand all aspects of it? Or something else?

I know I have thanked you profusely for this already, but I am so impressed by your rigour, thoughtfulness, and patience. You have really helped me a lot. I wish I could send you a nice vase or something. :)

It’s my pleasure and honour to help you. You’re thanks are received with a smile.
Gratitude comes naturally as a function of love. Unconditional love is always available and more easy accessible when the “self illusion” is out of the way.


This method of direct pointing aims at all ways the sense of self can emerge. By looking at those, and bringing the observation back to the the physical senses and thought, in actual experience, we can see the difference between what is actually happening and what we imagine is actually happening. We discover every time, that what is actually happening is not what we usually were thinking or believing that was happening. By specifically looking out for a separate self, we discover in this way that there is no such thing, and there never was. It was an illusion all along.
As you point out, you discovered this yourself.
Once seen, it is recognised what else has been part of that illusion. As you also discovered by answering those 6 questions.

But now let’s look from a few more angles and see we can get more clarity. There are exercises aimed at the emerging of different aspects of the self. By doing these you can also in these aspects understand why you formerly thought you had a self, but in essence there are only sense perceptions. One at the time.
So when doing the excersise, be precise with the looking and observing. Give it sufficient attention, to make sure you’re answers come, once again/every time, from your actual experience, and not from memory.

Drink Exercise

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

Here's what’s needed - a chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice
Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella! Great to dig back in.
Please excuse my somewhat slow responses lately. I am going to get back to daily responses again, starting today.

Honestly, no. 

No problem. Let’s investigate a bit more.
Can you say a bit more about this doubt? What is the doubt about? Is it that you suspect you could go back to believing there is a separate self after all? Or is it more vague in the sense you’re not sure you understand all aspects of it? Or something else?

I could not go back to believing there's a separate self. It is bewilderingly self-evident at this point. Bewildering in the sense that even reading my first post, only a few weeks ago, seems like reading something written by someone else. It's so obvious, in hindsight.
It's vaguer. I think it's more of a 'really? That's it?' . Not exactly a disappointment, but kind of disillusionment. Maybe disbelief more than uncertainty. I think I may be coming to terms with some of the implications of this realisation.

Honestly, if the questions is "Did you see past the illusion of self?" , then the answer is 'definitely yes', with no uncertainty. I think I'm more unclear on what it really means to have had this understanding.

Drink Exercise

I do not have access to a quiet environment until later tonight. I will complete this at that time.


Thanks again!

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

That’s clear then. I am going to submit your post to other guides who will assess your responses so as to make sure my guiding is clear. It is a good way of making sure that I am pointing clearly. They may have further questions.

I will get back to you as soon as I have heard from them.
We will go on with the additional exploring.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

I'm looking forward to hearing back. I completed this excercise, here are my results below.
Thank you !
Albert

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

I simply looked at the drinks, thought about them, imagined drinking them. Liked the idea of one of them more than the other. There was no choosing of any of these qualities of preferences.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

-I did not choose it. It was your idea!
-I did not choose the preferences to give way. I did not experience a mental function or faculty doing choosing.
-No , I did not see the function in action.

I recently re-watched the Truman Show. I realised just now that the world is a reverse Truman show. Instead of it being arranged for me, I am literally not in it at all! hahaha

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

No, nothing like that. Just one thought / quality after another.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Feelings can't choose, any more than I can choose feelings.
It honestly doesn't feel like I did the choosing at all.

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Well done. Next exercise is about the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’? Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

Very weird. Very very strange to realise that these are separate. There's no directly experienced connection. There's just the sight of a body, and the thoughts saying "that's my body, should work out more, got too much sun today, yaddayaddayadda"

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

The felt sensations and the visual stimulus appear to occur simultaneously. Otherwise, no connection can be found. It is the same in the mirror and without mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

The image of a man peering back at me from this mirror does not suggest that it is me, except by the context it is given by my thoughts.
It is simply an image. From the context of memory and thought, I label it as "my body" or "me".

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

There is the physical sensation of , for instance, pressure on feet, or 'pants on thigh', but visually, it is again only by context that I can 'infer' (maybe more accurate to say 'conjure') the existence of the legs.

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Oh! the 'body' is just the label given to a certain pattern of sensations, which by convention, conditioning, memory etc is known as "body". Taken as-they-are, these sensations do not, in any way, point to the existence of a 'body' as a discrete entity.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are sensations that I would normally refer to as "a body walking" , but now that I am looking closely, it seems they are not proof of a body walking at all.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all? Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

There's just the sensation, sights, sounds , etc. The thoughts about those sensations are usually enough to 'prove' that walking is being experienced, but when looked at closely, there's really just thoughts.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’? Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

I didn't find a body, or walking. Sensations and thoughts, as usual. :)

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Well done again (about the body-exercise).

There are a few extra questions for you. Please remember to answer them from your direct experience.

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

A: There’s thoughts/other sensations and perception of thoughts/sensation

What is the difference between "having thoughts" and "perception of thoughts?"
Is there a perceiver of thoughts?

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. 

A: The illusion of the self is a process of labelling thoughts with the thought of “I” or “Me”

Do you mean "the PROCESS of labelling thoughts with the thought "I" is the illusion"? How does that work?
What is exactly the illusion?
What made that you were fooled to belief there was a separate self?

How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days. 

A: it has become much easier to simply rest in what’s happening, without commenting. This is not a constant state, however. I do still notice ‘coming to’ , and suddenly noticing elaborate selfing taking place.

What is it that is resting in what is happening?
Who is abiding in a certain state? Is there a "state" where one can abide in?
Is there anything at all outside experience?

What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

Can you answer this question again? Please describe the last few "aha" moments. (you can repeat from previous answers in the thread).
Do you still think you're missing something?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

A: This ‘self’ , having no agency or even existence to speak of, could not really be said to be responsible for anything. 

Is there a no-self?

There is a lot of curiosity about what kind of questions could be asked from the perspective of no-self.

Was it that the "old self" provided the old perspective and that the new "no-self" provides another perspective?
Is seeing through self-illusion only a matter of perspective?

This is quite a lot. If there is any unclarity about what a question is about, please let me know.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella!

I will work on this.

Thank you!

[Hawthorne]

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

A: There’s thoughts/other sensations and perception of thoughts/sensation

What is the difference between "having thoughts" and "perception of thoughts?"
Is there a perceiver of thoughts?

There are thoughts that sometimes have the content of 'being perceived', however, no 'perceiver' is evident.

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. 

A: The illusion of the self is a process of labelling thoughts with the thought of “I” or “Me”

Do you mean "the PROCESS of labelling thoughts with the thought "I" is the illusion"? How does that work?
What is exactly the illusion?
What made that you were fooled to belief there was a separate self?

Yes, I meant the process of labelling thoughts is the illusion. But now I am less sure.
It would seem that if there is 'labelling' taking place, there would have to be a 'labeller', no? But in my experience, there is no labeller, or at least one can not be found.
It seems that it is simply thoughts that have content called 'labelled' which occur. It is the belief that there is a 'labeller' that is the illusion of self. Where does that come from? I don't know yet.

To answer why I believe this in the first place, I simply don't know. It seems to be an artifact of language and culture, but I can't say with certainty. It's like believing in santa, I guess.

How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days. 

A: it has become much easier to simply rest in what’s happening, without commenting. This is not a constant state, however. I do still notice ‘coming to’ , and suddenly noticing elaborate selfing taking place.

What is it that is resting in what is happening?
Who is abiding in a certain state? Is there a "state" where one can abide in?
Is there anything at all outside experience?

I was wrong about all of this.
There is no continuity of experience, and therefore, no 'state'. A state cannot be 'constant' since each thought is distinct.
There is nothing resting. It is all change and flow. Nothing can exist outside experience, as shown by definition, and by experience.

What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

Can you answer this question again? Please describe the last few "aha" moments. (you can repeat from previous answers in the thread).
Do you still think you're missing something?

The main moment where something just 'changed' was when you showed me the sutra in which it is shown that one is not 'with it' or 'of it', when phenomenon occur. It was a distinct 'wow' moment. I don't remember the others as clearly, although there were lots of small things.

What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

A: This ‘self’ , having no agency or even existence to speak of, could not really be said to be responsible for anything. 

Is there a no-self?

I don't understand this question.
Is no-self the absence of self? In that case it would simply be everything. There is no singular no-self. No-self is not a thing or a state. It's the simple reality of not having or being a 'self'.

There is a lot of curiosity about what kind of questions could be asked from the perspective of no-self.

Was it that the "old self" provided the old perspective and that the new "no-self" provides another perspective?
Is seeing through self-illusion only a matter of perspective?
[/quote]

Great question.
I have a hard time answering this. In a sense, yes, it's just perspective. It did not seem like self was questionable, then there was new information, and it seemed less certain.
On the other hand, there was never any self to be found, so 'my' perspective was irrelevant from the beginning. But seeing through it required a shift of perspective, although it is not entirely 'just' a shift of perspective.

Thanks,
Albert

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Thanks for your answers. I will come back to them later. For now I give you the next exercise. It is about the looker.

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear and put them aside.
Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the feeling/sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?
2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?
3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'? What do you find?

Can an INHERENT FEELER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Can there be a location appointed to what seems to be the looker/feeler?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?

There are sensations, which I could call 'hand on desk'. But they are all simply sensation.

2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?

No.

3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?

I can see this either way. On the one hand (no pun intended), there's just pressure, temperature, and so on. Sensation. On the other, I can infer that these sensations mean 'hand on desk.' In the same way someone speaking to me is just 'sound', it also carries the meaning of 'words, language, communication'.

4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'? What do you find?

Simply sensation. At first, attention was going 'towards' the hand, and therefore telling it what it was (a hand). Upon noticing this, the sensation was just a sensation.

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Thanks for your answers. You forgot the last bit. These questions wil lead you to the feeler/looker:

Can an INHERENT FEELER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Can there be a location appointed to what seems to be the looker?
Can you describe the actual experience of the (seeming) looker?

I can see this either way

I know it is tempting to look to the content of thoughts. But the inquiry needs to be pure on direct experience of what is actually happening (5 physical senses + thought), while the content of thoughts is clearly recognised as such. So if you infer something, that is already interpretation and is not what is intended in the inquiry.
So please stick to the first kind of description only. You're doing well on that.

From yesterday:

Yes, I meant the process of labelling thoughts is the illusion. But now I am less sure. 
It would seem that if there is 'labelling' taking place, there would have to be a 'labeller', no? But in my experience, there is no labeller, or at least one can not be found.
It seems that it is simply thoughts that have content called 'labelled' which occur. It is the belief that there is a 'labeller' that is the illusion of self. Where does that come from? I don't know yet. 
To answer why I believe this in the first place, I simply don't know. It seems to be an artifact of language and culture, but I can't say with certainty. It's like believing in santa, I guess. 

Your answer is not totally clear to me. Please stick to the description of the actual experience only.
Can you look again and answer not from guessing or interpretation, but only from what you directly experience? Is there a labeller? Is labelling happening? How does "believing" happen? What is the actual experience of "belief"?

Do you still think you're missing something?

You forgot to answer this question. Do you?

I don't understand this question. 
Is no-self the absence of self? In that case it would simply be everything. There is no singular no-self. No-self is not a thing or a state. It's the simple reality of not having or being a 'self'. 

Good. This was a trick-question. Sorry about that. But sometimes it can clarify just to check what it is not, or whether there is an underlying belief.

But seeing through it required a shift of perspective, although it is not entirely 'just' a shift of perspective. 

Or the other way around. The perspective shifted because you dropped the believe in the illusion. Can you say a bit more about why it is not entirely just a shift in perspective?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella,

You forgot the last bit.

Oops! Kind of sleepy last night.

1. Can an INHERENT FEELER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
2.Can there be a location appointed to what seems to be the looker?
3.Can you describe the actual experience of the (seeming) looker?

1. No inherent feeler can be found. All the sense of 'feeler' is also a feeling. As a friend of mine said 'observation of thought is a thought'. Trippy, but easily witnessed. It's harder to believe than it is to observe, I think.
2. It often seems to be behind the eyes, but upon investigation that also resolves into sensation. It often appears that the 'looker' is behind what I'm seeing, or behind me somehow. Like a camera lens, it's invisible in the 'video'. Reminds me of my earlier pondering: What is observing, if not an 'observer'? Observation occurs whether it's 'me' or not. Also, what is it that maintains the sense of continuity, illusory though it may be? It's very mysterious to me to realise that there's no 'seer', yet seeing happens nonetheless. Is there a way of seeing this directly?
3. As above, it is a feeling of 'weight' or 'pressure' behind my body or behind my eyes. A sensation of sometimes 'warm'.

I can see this either way

I know it is tempting to look to the content of thoughts. But the inquiry needs to be pure on direct experience of what is actually happening (5 physical senses + thought), while the content of thoughts is clearly recognised as such. So if you infer something, that is already interpretation and is not what is intended in the inquiry.
So please stick to the first kind of description only. You're doing well on that.

Alright, fair enough.

From yesterday:

Yes, I meant the process of labelling thoughts is the illusion. But now I am less sure. 
It would seem that if there is 'labelling' taking place, there would have to be a 'labeller', no? But in my experience, there is no labeller, or at least one can not be found.
It seems that it is simply thoughts that have content called 'labelled' which occur. It is the belief that there is a 'labeller' that is the illusion of self. Where does that come from? I don't know yet. 
To answer why I believe this in the first place, I simply don't know. It seems to be an artifact of language and culture, but I can't say with certainty. It's like believing in santa, I guess. 

Your answer is not totally clear to me. Please stick to the description of the actual experience only.
Can you look again and answer not from guessing or interpretation, but only from what you directly experience? Is there a labeller? Is labelling happening? How does "believing" happen? What is the actual experience of "belief"?


No labeller. Labelling is not happening. There are thoughts that arise with the quality of ' a label'. Believing happens the same way other thoughts do, by interpretation of sensations. Beliefs are experienced as thoughts taken to be related or connected to each other by some measure (the measure is also a thought).

Do you still think you're missing something?

You forgot to answer this question. Do you?

Not in regards to seeing no-self. That has become quite clear.
There is a lot that I don't quite grasp, though, in terms of the questions that raises. I've alluded to this elsewhere. The implications of no-self elude me, but the reality of it is evident.

But seeing through it required a shift of perspective, although it is not entirely 'just' a shift of perspective. 

Or the other way around. The perspective shifted because you dropped the believe in the illusion. Can you say a bit more about why it is not entirely just a shift in perspective?

Oh... right. That makes sense. I was thinking about this backwards. The perspective couldn't have shifted without losing the belief. You're right. It's like if I have poor eyesight, then get corrective surgery. The clarity was there, but not apprehended fully. It is not my surgery that makes it clear, it is clear already. A teacher explained this to me once in terms of cleaning polluted water. The water is always water, but it has dirt in it. By filtering it, the water does not become more 'water', it is just allowed to exist in its own right without the impurities.

In my experience, this same principle applies to the perception of reality. The 'perspective' of self does not make reality less real, or any different, it's just understood unclearly. When the belief is removed, things appear as they are, which is how they have always been.

So in this way, it's not 'just' a shift of perspective. It's more of a shift of 'perception'. That is, changing the perspective without losing the belief would still somehow point back to 'me'. "I am understanding no-self. Albert is so cool for understanding no-self" or something like that.
Without the belief, the sensation of thought occurs but it doesn't confirm my 'self-bias'. It just happens as a thought.
I'm piling on words here so I'll stop...
It is difficult to avoid going into theory with some of these questions, but very productive to snap back to directly describing the experience.

Thanks again,
Albert

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

What is observing, if not an 'observer'? Observation occurs whether it's 'me' or not. Also, what is it that maintains the sense of continuity, illusory though it may be? It's very mysterious to me to realise that there's no 'seer', yet seeing happens nonetheless. Is there a way of seeing this directly?

Continuity requires believe in time. Here is another exercise.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.
But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time? Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began? How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Bella