Seeing No-Self

[Ross]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That what we call the Self is created by thought, and is a series of recurring thoughts, and is not
a distinct, long-lasting independent entity.

What are you looking for at LU?
To see that the Self as we normally think of it is not there. I have explored many methods to see this, and the self still seems as solid as ever. It is felt behind the eyes as a distinct entity. I know the LU books say it is as unreal as Santa Claus, but it's quite real to me.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
For someone to help me see what is blocking my seeing that the self is not there. I know people that have seen there is no self,
so I know it is possible. A guide can reference any of the great spiritual traditions, since I'm familiar with most of them.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I did Transcendental meditation for 14 years, studied Dzogchen Buddhism in Nepal for 2 years, have been to 4 Vipassana 10 day retreats,
did zazen with Sasaki Roshi, and have done a lot of self inquiry as taught by Greg Goode. I also did some fetters work, although I don't think
I am through the first fetter (seeing No Self).

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

[Matt]

Hi, Ross!
I can help if you'd like, and have a similar base of experience in traditions and teachers, including TM, Zen and Greg Goode. Did you also take part in Jeffery Martin's courses?

It sounds like you understand how the forum works: please reply to posts within 12 hours when possible. I take Saturdays off and I live in the GMT+2 time zone. Please work with only one guide; please let me know if you think you're going to slow down, terminate or choose another guide.

Be willing to let go of presumptions and prior learning; you are probably already on board with the way of "not-knowing", but that is essential in this dialogue, especially since you know a lot. It helps to temporarily put aside other learning and just go fully into this without resorting to intellectual or spiritual beliefs. Meditation is OK unless it's taking away from direct looking. We will be examining direct experience without relying on knowledge, theories, narratives, memories, etc. This process may or may not correspond to anything in tradition, and the outcome may or may not correspond to anything in tradition such as "stream-entry", "liberation", "awakening", or glimpsing or realizing shunya, rigpa, the unified field of consciousness, peace, etc., etc. It may or may not correspond to any maps or locations of awakening.

And finally, you are responsible for your own shift in perspective; I can't do anything, neither for the good or the bad. You'll have to be brutally honest, and you'll also have deeply gentle with yourself. You said you're 11 out of 10 in willingness to question beliefs — which shows you already don't believe in mathematics :o) . So you might have what it takes. :-)

Are you in?

Best wishes,
Matt

[Griselda]

Yes, Matt, I'm in. Let's go for it!

Ross

[Matt]

Great.
(I should have said that in my experience, Greg Goode's deconstruction work can be helpful in LU style "looking". I very much resonate with his article on Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning applied to the appearance of an inherently existing self: https://www.nonduality.com/goode6.htm), although here we're relying more on "direct experience" than on reasoning.)

But let's start here together. When I make a bullet (•), I mean a question that I'd like to be answered from actual experience, or present perceptual evidence.

the self still seems as solid as ever. It is felt behind the eyes as a distinct entity.

• Inspect this closely and at length: is there any experiential evidence of 'solidity' there, "behind the eyes"?

• Inspect this closely and at length: WHAT exactly, in direct experience, is felt there, "behind the eyes"?

• Is that an entity?

• Is that a 'you'?

Repeat as many times as needed, for as long as needed to get clear.
If there's a sudden burst of clarity, just relax and savor it...

Thanks!

[Griselda]

• Inspect this closely and at length: is there any experiential evidence of 'solidity' there, "behind the eyes"?

Solidity is a good word for it, though I've never described it that way, so I would say yes. It is felt as a solid entity.
It is there when I get up in the morning, and doesn't go away as long as I am awake. That is a 'you'.

[Matt]

Thanks!

Here's where it will help to apply 11 out of 10 willingness to question beliefs.
Even if you're talkling about a real "solid entity behind the eyes" (one that can be found with an x-ray or surgery) it is a belief that this is "you".

If you're willing to look in direct, actual experience instead of beliefs, then we can proceed.
"Direct experience" means the unmitigated experience of smell, taste, sound, sensation, color and observed thoughts.

The question is not whether it "feels real" or not; that's a belief, a narrative about the sensation. In raw sensation without narratives, there's just raw sensation.

• Inspect this experientially: WHAT exactly, in "direct experience", is felt there, "behind the eyes"?

(It will help in the future if you'll use the quote function and answer every bulleted question one-by-one.)

[Griselda]

Inspect this experientially: WHAT exactly, in "direct experience", is felt there, "behind the eyes"?

It's something that's very hard, probably impossible, to put into words. The best description I've ever found is 'energetic contraction'.

[Matt]

It's something that's very hard, probably impossible, to put into words. The best description I've ever found is 'energetic contraction'.

Great, thanks. Now, I assume it's intellectually clear that the word 'I' means the subject of experience.
'I' can never be an object.
No object, no energy or state, nothing observed, can ever be 'me', by definition.

• Look carefully: in actual experience, is that 'energetic contraction' a real 'you'?

• Look carefully: in honest, direct experience, is there a subject, an 'I' in addition to the energetic contraction, observing it?

[Griselda]

Look carefully: in actual experience, is that 'energetic contraction' a real 'you'?

Yes, it is

• Look carefully: in honest, direct experience, is there a subject, an 'I' in addition to the energetic contraction, observing it?

No.

[Matt]

Look carefully: in actual experience, is that 'energetic contraction' a real 'you'?

Yes, it is[/quote]

Is this answer the product of looking in direct experience without theories or stories?
• Do you mean that you are an energetic contraction behind your eyes?


If you are looking at something, how can that something be you? In that story, you must be the one "here" looking at the contraction "there"; you are definitely not "over there"....
• Is there more than one you in experience? Is one you observing the other? If so, why don't you say "we" instead of "I"?


Let's clear this up, then we can start to explore direct experience more closely.
Without an agreement on the difference between the subject and an object, we can't look for the subject, 'I'.

[Griselda]

Is this answer the product of looking in direct experience without theories or stories?
• Do you mean that you are an energetic contraction behind your eyes?

Yes. Of course no words can capture what I feel. Energetic contraction seems close enough.

If you are looking at something, how can that something be you? In that story, you must be the one "here" looking at the contraction "there"; you are definitely not "over there"....
• Is there more than one you in experience? Is one you observing the other? If so, why don't you say "we" instead of "I"?

I actually do say "we" sometimes. So in that sense, it could be that there are two 'selves', not one. But what we're trying
to see at LU is that there is NO self. This does not lead to that recognition for me.

[Matt]

Hi, sorry, I was traveling for a couple days.
A 'you' would not be an object of experience, it would be the experiencer.
* When you look at how things are, without thinking about it, do you find an experiencer in addition to experience?
Thanks

[Griselda]

When you look at how things are, without thinking about it, do you find an experiencer in addition to experience?

Yes, I do. They are two separate things.

[Matt]

Thanks so much.
This exploration is based on "Direct Experience" or "Actual Experience" — putting thought aside and looking at smell, taste, sound, sensation, color, etc.
So far it seems you haven't been engaging in this kind of exploration. Are you willing to try?

[Griselda]

Thanks so much.
This exploration is based on "Direct Experience" or "Actual Experience" — putting thought aside and looking at smell, taste, sound, sensation, color, etc.
So far it seems you haven't been engaging in this kind of exploration. Are you willing to try?

I've been engaging in Direct Experience with this same kind of inquiry for over 30 years. This includes a period of 3 years during which I did NOTHING but inquire, meaning I went from one retreat or ashram or Zen center to another in North America, India, Thailand, and Japan.
At no time during these did I say to the Director of the monastery or retreat center "Look Swami, (Roshi, Sensei, Master) "I'm not into actual experience. I'm into THOUGHT, and that's the only way I will explore your teachings! So cut it out with the direct sensory experience, because I won't go there!" I followed the instructions as closely as I could (for one thing, I was paying a fortune for these sittings, and it would be utter folly to not do what they said!)
So when I say something like "these are two separate things", my conclusion comes from observation, not from thought.