Hello! I could use some help!

[Danial]

Hey Rali,

Well do you (think, see, observe)?

That can't be truthfully said. All that can be said is that there is observing or thinking.

Can you think only positive thoughts if you are the thinker?

Haha unfortunately not. I cannot only think positive thoughts.

Why do you “choose” to have negative then?

I don't. That's just the conditioning of the thoughts - they tend to be more negative.

Can you decide not to see if you are the seer?

No.

So are you also the experiencer?

No - there's just experience. But the thought "Ok this is great, but I am the experiencer" comes up very strongly.

Can you spot that “guy”/agency?

Can't spot the guy - only the things the guy is supposedly experiencing -> experience itself.
Experience itself has led to a conditioning in which there is thought to be a guy at the center of experience, commanding it or something. Is he there though? No, because even the thought or feeling is just simply more experience.

What is the label “experiencer” pointing to?

Just experience, and a thought of an imaginary self with control at the helm of experience.

better for whom???

I don't know.

So basically, in DE, what is happening is a lot of thinking and sensations, right?

Right.

Which one of them is the sensation of “being in or out of control”?

With DE, looking plainly at the sensation and ignoring thought content, the sensation is just like any other.

Can you pinpoint it? What is that sensation without the label?

Can't pinpoint it - it's just there.
The sensation without the label is just a nameless sensation.

What is it trying to protect?

Thoughts of "me" come up. It's trying to protect the imaginary self.

Is this true? How are “others” experienced in DE?

With DE - there's just sense info (ignoring thought content). With that, one can't say anything about what life is like, etc.
Others are experienced in DE as color and sound and sense.

Is there an “apple" to be known on any level??? There are sensations, colours, taste, smell labelled apple but is there an “apple” at all?

No - there is no "apple" in reality. The labeling mechanism is a strong one, but it is ultimately thoughts without substance.

Is that clear?

Clear!

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

No - there's just experience. But the thought "Ok this is great, but I am the experiencer" comes up very strongly.

Yup, that thought wants to attach to something so badly. All these thoughts pointing to nothing should be seen for what they are – fiction :). Only then they will stop appearing. Every time a thought like that appears, turn to DE and ask Is it true, what is this label pointing to? What is here?

The key here is to see that all thoughts are empty – no matter how close they come to describing DE. That there is no doer and objects, but language with nouns and pronouns. This comes down to learning how to use words more accurately.
As the world (your world) is a projection of your mindset, there is great value in becoming aware of unconscious bias and habitual suffering. If you limit yourself to describing experience, you are in safe territory. Description that is devoid of opinion or judgement. So every time a thought about how THIS is not right, that something needs to be fixed, that something is lacking, it needs to brought to closer inspection and compared to DE. It’s that simple, right? Habit persists, despite having seen through the illusion of a separate self, and continuing to notice that thought tells stories that may not be supported by direct experience is very important. Checking direct experience for proof of what thoughts say is a most useful practice.
The key for living rooted in the realization of no separate self is knowing that “no self” is not a state that can pass; it’s not a way of being or of thinking or feeling, but a plain fact just like “no Santa.” We don’t expect to “abide in no Santa”; we simply know that Santa is not an entity in reality once we’ve discovered that. This initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
First-person pronouns are still used to describe “ourselves” with the same ease they have always been used, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either. The separate “self” is seen to have been nothing more than inference and interpretation. We then see how the truth has been right under our nose all along: there’s simply nobody here! Though this illumination is of a preliminary nature (the honeymoon), it nevertheless initiates a significant re-ordering of how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.

So…Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is? Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address? Is there anything else that you want to explore?
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hi Rali!

Yup, that thought wants to attach to something so badly. All these thoughts pointing to nothing should be seen for what they are – fiction :). Only then they will stop appearing. Every time a thought like that appears, turn to DE and ask Is it true, what is this label pointing to? What is here?

I think I get it now. There are labels that point to real things, and labels that point to unreal things. Just because a label exists doesn't make the thing it points to real. Just because a reoccurring thought of an I keeps coming up, it doesn't make "I" real - it just means there has been conditioning to make the "I" thoughts come up a lot.
"I" here is the controller, the experiencer, etc. But in moment to moment, with DE there is no such thing separate from the actual experiences and such. Just a thought of an imaginary being through whom and to whom experience happens.

It’s that simple, right?

Yes.

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is? Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address? Is there anything else that you want to explore?

Not quite yes. Give me a few days to keep looking. There's such a huge attachment to this belief. Even when the thought "look and see who is thinking this, is there any one at all?", comes up, and there is seen to be no one thinking, the "self" immediately shifts to feeling, then another sense, and so on.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

I think I get it now. There are labels that point to real things, and labels that point to unreal things. Just because a label exists doesn't make the thing it points to real. Just because a reoccurring thought of an I keeps coming up, it doesn't make "I" real - it just means there has been conditioning to make the "I" thoughts come up a lot.
"I" here is the controller, the experiencer, etc. But in moment to moment, with DE there is no such thing separate from the actual experiences and such. Just a thought of an imaginary being through whom and to whom experience happens.

YES!!! Even in thought there is no controller… - there are just nouns and pronouns.

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?
Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?
Does the label "I" know anything about an I?
What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

That is the illusion :)

Not quite yes. Give me a few days to keep looking. There's such a huge attachment to this belief. Even when the thought "look and see who is thinking this, is there any one at all?", comes up, and there is seen to be no one thinking, the "self" immediately shifts to feeling, then another sense, and so on.

How does the “"self" shift to feeling, then another sense, and so on” ? Is it a self or is it attention+feeling? Look! Every time a thought about “self” and “others” appear, it HAS to be checked.
Please let me know if you want to explore anything else together?
Have in mind that even after the crossing of the gateless gate, we can still continue to chat on this thread or privately if a problem appears.

We have some traditional final questions. Please let me know when you think you are ready to answer them.

Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hello Rali,

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?

No, it's just a label.

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?

No - in its various forms it's either a sound, color, or it appears in a thought. It itself is just a word/label and not a controller/observer.

Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

No, there are thoughts in which an "I" knows things about an I. But that doesn't make any sense. Thought about this a while, and I came up with -> when I say "I know about so and so" that just means "it is known that so and so". I know is like Santa knows, in a literal sense.

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

I refers to the experience being experienced - not the experiencer feeling the experience, but the experience itself. So, if one says, "I feel sad", what is meant is, "sadness is felt", or whatever.

How does the “"self" shift to feeling, then another sense, and so on” ? Is it a self or is it attention+feeling?

I guess it doesn't now - it's just seen that what is, is.

Thoughts about an I keep coming up, but these prompts here have shed some light on the situation.
There's a clinging sensation, but what is clinging, and onto what?

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram
Yay! It sounds like doubt is starting to dissolve…

Thoughts about an I keep coming up, but these prompts here have shed some light on the situation.
There's a clinging sensation, but what is clinging, and onto what?

Is there an actual “clinging” sensation? How is "clinging" experienced? Can sensations “cling”? What would they cling to? Or there are just thoughts about clinging?

I explained before about thoughts being self-organizing and confirmation bias. The fact that there are doubtful/stubborn thoughts means that there is still quite a lot of “problematic” thoughts that have not been tested vs reality every time they appear. Always ask “Is it true”, “what is actually here". That is how we deal with doubt. Doubt is not solved but dissolved :)

In my experience doubt happens when there is a previous thought tendency to “overanalyse” everything, scepticism, disbelief, distrust to “outside” thought patterns. Also a as result of hesitation in how to deal uncertainty, “indecisiveness”. These patterns are self-organising patterns and they don’t prove anything. Thus, looking in their content does not provide information how to deal with them. The “solution” comes by looking what is actually here and understanding the emptiness of thoughts in general. Do you agree?
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Is there an actual “clinging” sensation?

No. There is a sensation. Then labelled clinging.

How is "clinging" experienced?

Clinging is not experienced. A sensation is experienced.

Can sensations “cling”? What would they cling to? Or there are just thoughts about clinging?

Sensations are just experienced. They just appear and disappear. There are thoughts about clinging.

In my experience doubt happens when there is a previous thought tendency to “overanalyse” everything, scepticism, disbelief, distrust to “outside” thought patterns. Also a as result of hesitation in how to deal uncertainty, “indecisiveness”.

Oh yeah, that definitely describes my tendencies.

Thus, looking in their content does not provide information how to deal with them. The “solution” comes by looking what is actually here and understanding the emptiness of thoughts in general. Do you agree?

My initial reaction was to think about this, and how it could be wrong. I just noticed you don't say "looking at" - just looking what. I thought that was on accident until now.
I don't get it. :(

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

Thus, looking in their content does not provide information how to deal with them. The “solution” comes by looking what is actually here and understanding the emptiness of thoughts in general. Do you agree?

My initial reaction was to think about this, and how it could be wrong. I just noticed you don't say "looking at" - just looking what. I thought that was on accident until now.
I don't get it. :(

Well, what answers could you possibly get from thought content? More fiction? The answers are found in DE. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here (and thus what is not); it is finding out what is true in experience.
Thoughts are empty because the stuff they talk about are concepts which cannot be found in DE. It's just language. They point to existing stuff (some of them) but they themselves cannot be found in DE as inherently existing. Emptiness in Buddhism refers to Dependent origination which holds that all phenomena (subjects and objects) arise from other, pre-existing phenomena, and in turn current phenomena condition future phenomena. As such, everything in the world has been produced by causes. There are no permanent and stable things. Because everything is dependently originated, nothing is permanent and nothing has any self-nature or essence. Consequently, all phenomena (i.e. labels/things) lack essence. It also refers to the workings of the mind and how suffering, craving, and self-view arise. This can refer to how different mental states condition each other over time, or to how different mental phenomena condition each other in a single moment.
Here is a very short video that explains it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

Is there anything else that you want to explore together?
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hey Rali,

Well, what answers could you possibly get from thought content? More fiction?

I don't know.

I went back to the thinking section we did together, and I redid the questions and answers.

That shed some light on our work here.

Forgive me for getting off track here and there.
It's like you said - lots of resistance.

Please allow me to continue going through our old messages, and I'll be in touch soon (hopefully).

Hawram

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

Forgive me for getting off track here and there.
It's like you said - lots of resistance.

Resistance is a tool for discovering false beliefs, but there is no such thing as resistance as a thing in general. Sensations come in all “shapes and sizes” , however the thought is quite similar every time – that there is something wrong with THIS that needs fixing. Every time a should or should not appear – how reality should be different – it is an invitation for a close inspection. And this process can take a lifetime, it just never ends. There is a ton of accumulated conditioning that will reveal itself at some point. But does that mean that the illusion of self is not clear? Resistance does not mean that there is a self that is fighting for its existence. Resistance is just a mechanism in a self-organising system (of thoughts). It is trying to protect the status quo as changes take a lot of energy (i.e. looking). There has never been a self in that system to get rid of, thus no self to be protected. It may look like there is a self, but there is no such entity when seen from up close. It’s only a mirage, an illusion – like a Kanitza Triangle:

Please allow me to continue going through our old messages, and I'll be in touch soon (hopefully).

By all means. This is your inquiry. At this point, though, it becomes a bit unproductive. There is nothing to see (excuse the pun) that we haven’t looked already. The realization of no self could be so subtle that if there are expectations it can be missed and no amount of pointing can help.
You see doubt is a product of expectations – you probably imagined that seeing through the illusion would somehow be a show stopper. That all unwanted emotions would drop away and there will be bliss and non-stop happiness (or something of that kind). That usually is the sales pitch :).
So I just want to make sure that there is no an expectation that resistance would somehow disappear with seeing the illusion of no self. Is this the case here? You know what…Let’s just put all expectations out in the open. What do you think should happen when the illusion is seen?

Is the self back somehow (from non existence) that you need to examine everything again? Or are there just doubtful thoughts present? Are their presence somehow indicative of the existence of a self? Are thoughts accurate?
Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are.
Reality is very simple – just THIS – all the sensory information with meaning/description added by thoughts. Thoughts add an overlaying narrative of names, labels, interpretations, explanations over the simplicity of what is. Instead of endlessly reaching for ideas, concepts and explanations, just let it all go, and see what is here now silently, without words. Just notice what is left when you stop thinking about it.

Love
Rali

[Danial]

Ok, I get it. There was just a lot of resistance because of a lot of “negative” feelings that remained, along with an expectation that they would no longer be there. But they are much less sticky.

And yes, I did view this as an out to the shitty feelings and stuff, but it’s not. They’re still there, but they’re not happening to anyone. Hooray?

Thanks for your help, Rali. I appreciate your time.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

And yes, I did view this as an out to the shitty feelings and stuff, but it’s not. They’re still there, but they’re not happening to anyone. Hooray?

:) Yeah and with time the “shittiness” becomes less and less as it is seen as just fiction.

Here is a poem by Rumi for your enjoyment:

The Guest House
By Jalaluddin Rumi


This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honourably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.
Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

Now can you say with big fat YES it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those?

Love
Rali

[Danial]

Now can you say with big fat YES it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those?

Yes, I can.
I can answer those questions.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

Yes, I can.
I can answer those questions.

Wonderful!

Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer
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.

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

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?


Love
Rali

[Danial]

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

Nope, it's just an illusion.

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.

It's just a byproduct of object/subject oriented language. It starts when a child is taught to call "themself" an I and differentiate between themselves and different "objects" in existence.

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.

Doesn't really feel different. Less self-referential thought, a little more calm.

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

The thought stuff was the sticking point for me - so I went back and really sat down and saw whether there were any thoughts that "I" controlled, and within those thoughts that contained a reference to an "I", whether there really was such an organism there.

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Decision is a pointing to an imaginary self, and as such is itself imaginary. There's no separate self to decide, just things happening. If I "decide" to eat one thing over another, that is simply a thought construct. No such self is present deciding these things -> there is simply a thought of that.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Same as decision, intention relies on a separate self. If there is no one there to intend/choose/decide/whatever, there can be no intention. Simply what's happening. If I intended to do something good but ended up doing something harmful, that is a thought construct relying on the presence of a separate self.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

No free will because there's nobody to have free will. What people say when they say it feels like they have free will, is that there is a story going on (based on conditioning) that there is something there that is responsible for stuff. But this is not the case. Examined closely, one can see that there are just things happening - no deciding entity.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Choice is, again, a concept based on the belief in a separate, deciding self. It really shows itself mostly in terms of future or past thinking. In the moment, there's really no room for thinking about choosing when stuff is happening. It is just when thoughts of the past or future appear that there are thoughts about a separate self that chose to do this or that.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

Control is a concept that relies on a separate self. Without a separate self, control is useless as a concept. Seen as a whole, reality is just a flow - there are no separate things.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

Stuff just happens, no idea how it works.

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

There's no me to be responsible for anything. I can have the thought that I'm not good enough or whatever, but upon inspection, there's no one having the thought. Just the thought itself. The idea that there needs to be one experiencing things, or an experiencer/experience duality, is just that, an idea. So there's no me to experience things, just the experience.

6) Anything to add?

Thanks for your time, Rali.