Please help...

[poke it with a stick]

Hello,
I'm ready to get off the seeking treadmill. Right now. I've been trying very hard recently - and trying not to try! - but I've got nowhere. I think I know all the right answers but I'm not feeling it. I 'know' that liberation is nothing special, and should be obvious. When I look for a me I cannot find one, but it still seems like there is a me who is having the experience that a me cannot be found. I know, it's ridiculous, but I can't shake it.

[Jorge786]

Hello!.

I will be your guide if you want

There is a few commitments:
maintaining contact at least once a day,
leave any spiritual practice and readings for the moment.

Explanation of what we do here, a disclaimer, also a video to watch are at the home page (http://www.liberationunleashed.com/), if you have not seen yet.

This is a process in which I ask, and you consider what direct experience shows, in all honesty with oneself.

Please tell me what do you expect to get from this conversation, what do you think about this, what do you think will happen?

Warm regards
Jorge

[poke it with a stick]

Hello Jorge. I would be very happy for you to guide me :)
I am also happy with the commitments. I will put my big pile of in-progress books under the bed. I’ve read the introductory stuff and watched the video now. I definitely want to wake up, and I’m very willing to trust you!
My name is mo, I’m 34 and have been seeking for about 12 years after a huge experience that thanks to my extremely limited religious knowledge I put down to jesus entering my heart. No, really. Luckily I found a way out from evangelical christianity through a course in miracles and then zen, and after a year or two realised that seeking for something I (apparently) already had was the problem. I don’t really know what happened here - I started my first ‘real’ job and the spiritual stuff kind of fell by the wayside, with occasional bursts of activity. But in the last two or three years, and in particular the last couple of months, I’ve been trying hard again to wake up - reading, meditating, inquiring...

Please tell me what do you expect to get from this conversation, what do you think about this, what do you think will happen?

I honestly don’t know what to expect. The message that liberation will not be like I expect it to be has obviously been successfully drummed in by repeated readings in different places. What I hope to get from this: peace of mind. Freedom from anxiety. No more replaying/rehearsing conversations. No longer thinking that acquiring things will make me happy. An end to constantly trying to show everyone how very clever I am. No more self-justification to people who probably don’t care. Other things, too, that aren’t coming to mind now. I feel like I need to point out that none of these things are particularly troublesome for me - in general my life is good. But there’s something here that’s driving this seeking.
I admit that I’m a bit suspicious of the inquiry process, having tried it on my own with no real success. I am trying to suspend that because I really want to wake up. I think that either I will wake up or the process won’t, and will never, work for me, and I genuinely can’t decide which I believe more. I know (or I think I know) that the expectation of a future awakening is an impediment to awakening, but I can’t see a way around it.

Many thanks,
mo.

[Jorge786]

Hi Mo!

Nice to read your post, thanks for sharing your experiences!. You have a fun way to explain what you looking for, and very true ... many seek that same.

Your "hopes" do not fall far from the tree, but let's leave aside for the moment and focus on this process.

please read the following article on direct experience, and tell me if you have any questions about, is very important because we will use it constantly. (http://www.liberationunleashed.com/Arti ... ience.html). As it is said in article "Direct Experience is what is noticed, here and now", avoiding what the thoughts are telling.

ok!... lets start...

when you say "I" or "Me" what you're referring to exactly?
What is that what you call "I"?, Where is it located?, What is it?
carefully observed with direct experience ... calmly, which is what appears on what is the "I"

Warm Regards
Jorge

[poke it with a stick]

I have now read that article on direct experience; as I mentioned in my first post, I have found that when I look I only find the experience and not the experiencer, but I still feel that there is an experiencer one step back from that experiencing the whole thing!

when you say "I" or "Me" what you're referring to exactly?

I'm referring to the feeling that there is something that is experiencing whatever is happening.

What is that what you call "I"?, Where is it located?, What is it?

I don't know exactly know what it is. I think maybe, just whatever it is that experiences happen to. When I try to find it, 'I' is nowhere (although it still feels like there is a me who is undertaking this search and finding nothing); but when I'm just living, it feels like 'I' am my body, perhaps more specifically an undefined area inside my head.

which is what appears on what is the "I"

Sorry Jorge, I can't quite make sense of what you're asking here!

[Jorge786]

Hi Mo!
very good job!.

I have found that when I look I only find the experience and not the experiencer, but I still feel that there is an experiencer one step back from that experiencing the whole thing!

is that "experiencer" an entity?, is that "You" personally?
Ok... now... what (or who?) is experiencing the action of reading or writing? or the reading is happening without a "doer"?
what happens in DE?

I'm referring to the feeling that there is something that is experiencing whatever is happening.

then... you are the experiencer?... are you sure?...
in direct experience, are "You" experiencing things?, can you find that experiencer who is experiencing things?,
can be possible the experiences are simply happening?

it feels like 'I' am my body, perhaps more specifically an undefined area inside my head.

then when you are just living... the "I" is inside your head... can you define exactly where? can you point this place with your finger?, if a neurosurgeon extirpated that part, then we would lose the "I"?, really that make sense?
or maybe the thoughts are trying to explain something which is impossible to explain?
this is not personally... im not talking to a "You"... i'm "just talking", but the thoughts over there will react to words in a screen... and there is not an "I" reacting... can you imagine that?

Sorry Jorge, I can't quite make sense of what you're asking here!

Never mind (literally ;-) )... will clarify the question later if necessary

[poke it with a stick]

is that "experiencer" an entity?, is that "You" personally?

Yes. The experiencer is what I am.

Ok... now... what (or who?) is experiencing the action of reading or writing? or the reading is happening without a "doer"?
what happens in DE?
...
then... you are the experiencer?... are you sure?...
in direct experience, are "You" experiencing things?, can you find that experiencer who is experiencing things?,
can be possible the experiences are simply happening?

Right now, there is just typing. But thought comes in immediately and says that it’s me who is typing. In fact, when I say ‘thought comes in immediately’, I mean it happens apparently simultaneously. My direct experience appears to be of an action occurring and a feeling that there is an actor performing that action and the thought that the actor is me, all occuring at once. I can’t seem to disentangle them.
Although I cannot find the experiencer, the sensation that there is one is undeniably present! Is the sensation nothing more than a thought? I will think about that!

then when you are just living... the "I" is inside your head... can you define exactly where? can you point this place with your finger?, if a neurosurgeon extirpated that part, then we would lose the "I"?, really that make sense?

Okay, ‘I’ am my brain. I think a neurosurgeon could remove some parts of my brain and ‘I’ would still exist, but if he took the whole thing away then I would certainly be lost! This does make a lot of sense to me!

or maybe the thoughts are trying to explain something which is impossible to explain?

I think I must have trouble with the idea of something that is impossible to explain. I can cope with the idea that there are things I can’t explain because I don’t understand them fully. How would I know the difference between the two, anyway?

this is not personally... im not talking to a "You"... i'm "just talking", but the thoughts over there will react to words in a screen... and there is not an "I" reacting... can you imagine that?

I am working on this...

[Jorge786]

Although I cannot find the experiencer, the sensation that there is one is undeniably present! Is the sensation nothing more than a thought? I will think about that!

close your eyes, imagine a green and little lemon, very fresh... seems juicy, cut the lemon with a knife, take one half into your mouth and squeeze... are your mouth full of saliva right now?... is the origin of this sensation real or was only imagination?, some sensation is real (saliva)... but what is causing?, don't believe everything thoughts are saying, thats reason we use DE.
There is life there, and everywhere, there is sensations, emotions, thoughts, but is somebody feeling the sensations, the emotions?... thinking the thoughts?

Okay, ‘I’ am my brain. I think a neurosurgeon could remove some parts of my brain and ‘I’ would still exist, but if he took the whole thing away then I would certainly be lost! This does make a lot of sense to me!

well... for sure if "he took the whole thing away" surely that body going to death, that make sense!
we are talking about THAT part... no some part, that part, only that part you are saying is "you".
are you the brain but you can define which part?...
are you maybe confusing the thoughts with the "I"?, observe this carefully in direct experience.

I think I must have trouble with the idea of something that is impossible to explain. I can cope with the idea that there are things I can’t explain because I don’t understand them fully. How would I know the difference between the two, anyway?

Can do you explain what is blue color to a born blind?
you "think" and you "feel" there is an "I", how can I explain there is nothing like that? you must to realize that, find this "I"... then, if you can't find it, you must be rethink that thought and feeling are saying

[poke it with a stick]

don't believe everything thoughts are saying, thats reason we use DE.

That's... good. I do habitually believe my thoughts. Clearly I'm not very good at applying DE. I’m finding it very hard to not have thoughts about my direct experience. I get the theory but it isn’t happening in practice.

we are talking about THAT part... no some part, that part, only that part you are saying is "you".
are you the brain but you can define which part?...

So, the story goes that there is no particular part which is ‘me’; the whole (or most of the whole) brain is required to produce ‘me’. I cannot define which part. I know that this is a story sold to me by science but it’s really rather convincing.

are you maybe confusing the thoughts with the "I"?, observe this carefully in direct experience.

Well, the thoughts arise. But how are they percieved at all? I can see intellectually that there is no ‘I’ thinking them, but the thoughts definitely arise, and are being somehow seen or apprehended (otherwise how would I know about them at all?), and I can’t help but feel that seer of the thoughts is the seperate ‘me’.

Can do you explain what is blue color to a born blind?

Ah, I see. No, although I'd probably give it a bloody good try! So unexplainable things exist.

you "think" and you "feel" there is an "I", how can I explain there is nothing like that? you must to realize that, find this "I"... then, if you can't find it, you must be rethink that thought and feeling are saying

I do understand that there is no ‘I’. But I think the problem is that I don’t equate unfindability with non-existence.

[Jorge786]

Hi Mo!

Clearly I'm not very good at applying DE. I’m finding it very hard to not have thoughts about my direct experience. I get the theory but it isn’t happening in practice.

The thoughts are always present, the trick here is not to give it the importance that we give, why do we that?, because we think (yes is another thought) "we are the thoughts"... we call that "the mind"... which is another form to say "me", do not believe me... look!...
do you think you are the thoughts... (btw "which comes from the brain")?
do you have a mind or what you call mind is simply a string of thoughts?

When you try really hard to find something, are the thoughts involving?.. see... they are?... the story, the thoughts may come later... "oh my... i lose it!", "I can't find it.. what shall I do now!!!", and the drama begins!.. hahaha.
if you arrive to the conclusion "i can't find the I"... you are using DE very well, because you are not basing on the history you learned as a child, not in conclusions form other "authority", a parent, a book, a "teacher", it's simply, you find something or not, and you can try harder if you are not convinced!.

You are doing well... we only need the willingness of persisting in looking... no more... don't forget that and persist.

the whole (or most of the whole) brain is required to produce ‘me’

there are cases in which a person lose part of the brain by accident or by surgeon, they don't lose the "I", the "feeling" of "I" persist, why? because is a imaginary construct like a University. look... the university have buildings, students, teachers, authorities, but... what really is the university? is a tangible "object" like this monitor?, is a real object?, can you touch it?, oh.. you can touch a building but you can't touch the "University" (oh... maybe you can touch the "alma mater" with your heart... ;-) ).
The "I" is the same...
what happen when I said "you don't exist... you really do NOT exist!.. there is NOTHING there"?
what thoughts appear?, what feelings appear? is a violent react? where you feel that?

Well, the thoughts arise. But how are they percieved at all? I can see intellectually that there is no ‘I’ thinking them, but the thoughts definitely arise, and are being somehow seen or apprehended (otherwise how would I know about them at all?), and I can’t help but feel that seer of the thoughts is the seperate ‘me’.

we need an "I" to perceiving things (like thoughts) or the thoughts just happen?
look... there are sensations in the body, when an itch occurs, do you need an "I" to perceive?, or just itching and scratch occurs without the presence of the "I"?...
look!, is the perception there without an "I"?
there is a perception of thoughts!... (btw incontrolable thoughts) but... there is an "I" perceiving that thoughts?

So unexplainable things exist.

the time is an unexplainable thing to "the mind"... the present time is always here, but the time is happen?

I do understand that there is no ‘I’

you understood that for sure, but there is a thought inside saying "must be an "I" somewhere", "is here or over there"... "is 'this' or 'that'"... "because i can feeling".. you have near to 30 years believing that, but if you look hard you can't locate that "I"... nowhere.

But I think the problem is that I don’t equate unfindability with non-existence.

that is the reason why we are here no? ;)... really... we do "exercises", we do "looking", we do "arguing", we persist until you realize "oh my!... there is no me... it's empty!".

[poke it with a stick]

The thoughts are always present, the trick here is not to give it the importance that we give, why do we that?, because we think (yes is another thought) "we are the thoughts"... we call that "the mind"... which is another form to say "me", do not believe me... look!...
do you think you are the thoughts... (btw "which comes from the brain")?
do you have a mind or what you call mind is simply a string of thoughts?

It occurred to me earlier that the arising of thought and perception requiring some perceiver was a thought. And the thought doesn't have to be believed.
Now, when I pay attention to any particular sensation, there's just the sensation. But it seems like it requires a constant effort to prevent myself from feeling that there is an 'I' back here, somewhere. As soon as I stop paying attention, the sensation of I-ness seems to be present. I am continuing to try and pay attention to just what is happening, thought, including that sensation itself...

I wondered about my assumptions of this process. I think I had assumed that any seeing through of the separate self would happen more or less instantaneously, like when looking at this box http://goo.gl/Kv1XiO and the star moves in and out. But perhaps a gradual seeing is possible too.

look... the university have buildings, students, teachers, authorities, but... what really is the university? is a tangible "object" like this monitor?, is a real object?, can you touch it?, oh.. you can touch a building but you can't touch the "University" (oh... maybe you can touch the "alma mater" with your heart... ;-) ).
The "I" is the same...

Okay, I get that. 'I' am a collection of behaviours that is labelled 'I' for convenience, but nowhere is the 'I' actually found.

what happen when I said "you don't exist... you really do NOT exist!.. there is NOTHING there"?
what thoughts appear?, what feelings appear? is a violent react? where you feel that?

Thoughts, feelings: nothing much. I'm a cold person. I don't cry when pets die. I'm totally okay with the possibility of 'my' non-existence! Actually, I feel a longing, and a frustration: why don't I feel that way yet?!

the time is an unexplainable thing to "the mind"... the present time is always here, but the time is happen?

I think I can deal with the time thing. Past memories and future speculation only occur in the now.

you understood that for sure, but there is a thought inside saying "must be an "I" somewhere", "is here or over there"... "is 'this' or 'that'"... "because i can feeling".. you have near to 30 years believing that, but if you look hard you can't locate that "I"... nowhere.
...
that is the reason why we are here no? ;)... really... we do "exercises", we do "looking", we do "arguing", we persist until you realize "oh my!... there is no me... it's empty!".

I'm trying :)
Thank you for your help!

[Jorge786]

Hi Mo!.

As soon as I stop paying attention, the sensation of I-ness seems to be present. I am continuing to try and pay attention to just what is happening, thought, including that sensation itself...

don't worry about the sensation of I-ness, it's something learned and falsely supported by the sensations, thoughts, etc., when the idea, when the illusion of "I" drops, then is more easy to look inside and find emptiness.

But perhaps a gradual seeing is possible too.

that is correct.

Okay, I get that. 'I' am a collection of behaviours that is labelled 'I' for convenience, but nowhere is the 'I' actually found.

even if you say it's fake collection or just a label or a convention, that's something, there is nothing, there is emptiness, vacuity absolute.
nothing and nobody.

there is an "I" doing something?, acting?, reacting?

there is a "doer" or the things just happen?

look... there is a sensation, there is an "I" perceiving the sensation or just happen?

every "body/mind" is different. you don't need to feel nothing especial, now... look what do you think, are "you" your "mind"?, your body?, your sensations?, thoughts?... or nothing?...it's nothing there?, really?.

you can't find an "I"?... explain that to me in simply words!

[poke it with a stick]

Hi Jorge,
I started back at work today after a long holiday so I have had less time to pay attention! Nevertheless...

don't worry about the sensation of I-ness, it's something learned and falsely supported by the sensations, thoughts, etc., when the idea, when the illusion of "I" drops, then is more easy to look inside and find emptiness.

That's encouraging. So the more time I spend watching my sensations, thoughts etc, and noticing that they just - kind of - happen by themselves, the less the feeling that I am a seperate self 'in here' will occur?

you can't find an "I"?... explain that to me in simply words!

It's not that I'm looking for an 'I' at the moment. I'm just watching what occurs. Everything is self-contained - does that make sense? Things come and then go. I don't think an 'I' is needed to explain what's happening. And yet... I'm definitely still here

[Jorge786]

Hi Mo!,

I hope you enjoyed the holidays!, it's ok if you have less time now, but don't loose the "inertia".

the less the feeling that I am a seperate self 'in here' will occur?

I can't say how the "feeling" will be for you, for somebody is strong for other is weak, sometimes is strong, sometimes is weak, what really matter here is to realize there is no self, then... will not be only a feeling ... will be a certainty.

so... what occurs?... when "you" see around, when "you" hear around, it is "you" seeing, hearing?.

self-contained?, no, no make sense, everything is the same and one unique thing in different forms, what tell us there is many objects is the "mind", "mind" entirely failed to understand this fact.

Things come and then go. I don't think an 'I' is needed to explain what's happening. And yet... I'm definitely still here

Things come and go, sure, nothing is permanent in their form, everything is changing, come and go, so... "you" are permanent?, how many times in an hour that "feeling" of "You" changed?.. in a minute?... in a second?.
sometimes is that way, sometimes is not in that way...
sometimes think in a way, and in a second, change their way of thinking. why?
what makes it (the "I") so permanent in our eyes?
is "Mo" always "here" in the same manner?, even you can't find a "Mo"!... because that doesn't exist!

[poke it with a stick]

so... what occurs?... when "you" see around, when "you" hear around, it is "you" seeing, hearing?.

No. There's just... sights and sounds.

self-contained?, no, no make sense, everything is the same and one unique thing in different forms, what tell us there is many objects is the "mind", "mind" entirely failed to understand this fact.

okay, another belief that needs quashing. I can see now that the idea that the things that are arising are seperate is just that: an idea, a thought - and I don't have to believe it. Having said that, it's a tough one to see through.

what makes it (the "I") so permanent in our eyes?

I don't know!

is "Mo" always "here" in the same manner?, even you can't find a "Mo"!... because that doesn't exist!

Mo doesn't exist. So this body exists, and is labelled 'Mo' - but the entity assumed inhabiting it does not exist. Actions are performed with no actor.
Actually it feels like I'm still acting. When I look at action, there's just action, no-one choosing to act, but I've still got the base assumption that it requires an actor. This is a hard one because when I'm fully absorbed in action there's no attention to spare to observe what's happening - in fact I think maybe there's no thought at then!