Ready to End the Questions

[EricW]

Hello. I've been on this path (whatever that means) for a long time now.

"My" mind already understands the "self" to be a thought it itself holds. It can say, "I am not you, I am a thought you are watching" and the silent Awareness behind that thought can observe the mind doing that. That same Awareness observes everything else too - the computer, bed, the feeling of frustration/pessimism, etc.

However, I still experience a subject, an "I" if you will. There's still a thought and feeling to "go further." I still experience the computer as apart from the Awareness - it fills the "space" that is Awareness.

I've heard awakened friends of mine talk about being "identified" with the sense of a pure "I AM" too (I'm sure they've reached the goal, but I stress that they're not teachers - I don't want teachers anymore). It bears resemblance to the concept of Brahman even though our conversations tend to stay away from unnecessary philosophic muddling.

---------------------------------------------------

I just read over what I wrote, and it sounds overly confusing, but it does match my experience of things.

I guess I just want an end to my questions - to KNOW I'm done.

[EricW]

As an addendum - I speak of "Awareness" here and perhaps that's a misleading thing to say. That Awareness is really a non-thing. If I point to it there is nothing there. If I listen to it there is only silence. It has no time, space, boundaries, etc.

Intellectually, I understand that there's no Awareness there - that that's a subtle form of "me-ing." It's just that there is the computer, that's it. Here it is. No one and no thing experiences it. There's just the computer.

I just don't SEE this though. I understand it intellectually I guess as well as anyone could. I don't want to understand I want to see.

[Paulo]

Hello EricW, my name is Paulo, and it would be a pleasure to guide you. Thank you for sharing some of your story so far.

A few ground rules -

1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. Answer from personal experience only.
4. Read the disclaimer on the Liberation Unleashed main page - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/
5. Read the FAQ page to get an idea of what we do here - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/LU_FAQ.html

Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

If you are happy to agree to the above, let me know and we can begin.

What exactly do you expect will happen here?

When you say 'I', what are you referring to in direct experience?

Paulo.

[EricW]

I can follow all those rules.

What exactly do you expect will happen here?

I expect that you'll ask me some questions similar to this one and the next, I'll take a literal look at reality as I experience it, I'll then write what I see and then you'll ask more questions if it's warranted.

At some point what I expect is that there will be no more questions to answer, as in I'll see through the illusion and I'll be done with this journey. By done I just mean there are no more questions - they've all been answered or seen as irrelevant.

When you say 'I', what are you referring to in direct experience?

"I" doesn't appear in direct experience, at least not like, say, a table or a sound. It has no form. It's a nothing.

Otherwise, it only seems like an idea, a thought - really a linguistic contraption that assumes subject to match objects. It just seems I can't shake the assumption. :/

[Paulo]

Hi EricW, many thanks for your reply,

our conversations tend to stay away from unnecessary philosophic muddling.

Great to hear, the approach here is very much one of experience, so take nothing I say for granted, try it and test it. What we do here is just LOOK at what is in the moment, it's such a simple little thing really. In this dialogue we will be exploring the various aspects of Direct Experience (DE) as looking to see what IS around the illusion of a separate entity called 'self'.

If you are unfamiliar with DE, you may wish to read this excellent article by Neil to orientate you - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/Arti ... ience.html

For today, we will look at our first aspect of DE - EMOTION

Think of something that made you happy.

Is there an EricW there making you feel happy, or creating that emotion?

Did the experience of happiness you’ve just had last, or did you begin feeling something else after some time?

How did this change happen, did you choose another thought to make the happiness change to something else?

Paulo

[EricW]

Hi EricW, many thanks for your reply,

our conversations tend to stay away from unnecessary philosophic muddling.

Great to hear, the approach here is very much one of experience, so take nothing I say for granted, try it and test it. What we do here is just LOOK at what is in the moment, it's such a simple little thing really. In this dialogue we will be exploring the various aspects of Direct Experience (DE) as looking to see what IS around the illusion of a separate entity called 'self'.

If you are unfamiliar with DE, you may wish to read this excellent article by Neil to orientate you - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/Arti ... ience.html

Cool. I'm intimately familiar with doing this. I've always called it "Literal Looking." I associate it with a famous Philip K. Dick quote - "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."



Think of something that made you happy.
Is there an EricW there making you feel happy, or creating that emotion?

No. Nothing creates the emotion or has any control over it. The emotion just appears and is experienced.

Did the experience of happiness you’ve just had last, or did you begin feeling something else after some time?

It was temporary. I would say it faded, but it was more like it was simply replaced by another feeling.

How did this change happen, did you choose another thought to make the happiness change to something else?

Certainly not. If "I" chose, I'd probably want to be happy forever. But even directly looking at your question here, it simply changed on its own. There was not a choice of the thoughts/circumstances that produced the emotion nor was the emotion chosen directly.

[Paulo]

I've always called it "Literal Looking." I associate it with a famous Philip K. Dick quote - "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Fantastic, so you're well on your way. I hadn't heard that quote before, but I'll definitely be 'borrowing' it :-)

Nice observations in looking at emotion. In my experience too emotions arise in reaction to stimuli, whether that be sensory, or imagined in thought. They arise, and fade as others take their place, and so on it goes. No one in charge of it all selecting which emotion comes next or making it all happen. It's almost mechanical in it's nature, automatic in a way.

Next we will look at another aspect of Literal Looking - THOUGHT

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of the above in as much detail as you can.

How did the thought arrive? Was there an EricW there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

Paulo.

[EricW]

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of the above in as much detail as you can.

I think of an old maroon hatchback. It's parked on the curb on a sunny day here in California. There's a black rack on the top of the car and the antenna seems quite long.

How did the thought arrive? Was there an EricW there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

I don't know how the thought arrived. I just read "imagine a car" and "as much detail as you can" and that's what appeared.

No one picked that car to appear. Again, it just appeared as a response to the request made.

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

I have no clue.

[Paulo]

Nicely done EricW,

I don't know how the thought arrived. I just read "imagine a car" and "as much detail as you can" and that's what appeared.

No one picked that car to appear. Again, it just appeared as a response to the request made.

As you can see, thoughts, just like emotions, arise as an automatic response to stimuli. That stimuli could be sensory, e.g. words on a computer screen, or from other thoughts and emotions. In my experience there is no EricW sitting behind a velvet curtain somewhere (a la Wizard of Oz), pulling levers and making all these things occur. What I have experienced is that a thought will arise, and it's labelled 'my' thought a moment later, but when looking there is no separate entity 'me' there at all, there is just experience.

Today we'll look at another aspect of Literal Looking - PHYSICAL

Observe your movement in the moment.

The body moves, but is there an EricW there making this movement occur?

How is it that all those muscles and joints work so perfectly to enable you to type on a keyboard with such precision?

If you tried to grow your hair longer by sheer force of will, could you? What are the implications of this?

That last one is just for fun, but consider it, and let me know if you needed an emergency haircut :-)

Paulo

[EricW]

Observe your movement in the moment.

The body moves, but is there an EricW there making this movement occur?

This one seemed trickier than the previous ones. The mind immediately said, "Hey, I can move the body! See!"

Oddly though, the mind then immediately had to admit, "Yes, it's true, I can move the body, because the "I" in that sentence is the mind and not a person. The body moves in response to these thoughts, emotions, and circumstances."

To add to that, another voice came in to talk to the first one, pretending to be "my" response to this. But it was just mind talking to mind. It was almost as if this second voice had the "flavor" of being "mine." But since the mind was really watching itself in that moment, it quickly recognized its own tricks.

How is it that all those muscles and joints work so perfectly to enable you to type on a keyboard with such precision?

No idea. I think I get your point though - there's no "I" that sits down and coordinates the whole affair. It just sort of happens.

If you tried to grow your hair longer by sheer force of will, could you? What are the implications of this?

Again it just seems to happen on its own. Same with heartbeat, sleep, etc. I'm sure some scientist thinks he has a physical explanation for all of this, but in the broader sense he'd just be confirming what's already being said - that these processes just happen as a response to other processes, not because some agent with free will coordinates any part of it.

[Paulo]

Nicely done EricW,

But since the mind was really watching itself in that moment, it quickly recognized its own tricks.

Was there anything there watching the experience, separate from it?

Is the watching just another experience in awareness?

there's no "I" that sits down and coordinates the whole affair. It just sort of happens.

these processes just happen as a response to other processes, not because some agent with free will coordinates any part of it.

Perfect, you can see now that there's no entity there, separate from the typing, manipulating all those delicate muscles and fibers and coordinating and directing every cell in the fingers to type out a message. In my experience the body pretty much does it's own thing, growing hair, nails, digesting, etc., as you say. There's no 'being' separate from all that making it all happen.

Here we will also look at the last component of Literal Looking - the HERE and NOW

Nothing exists outside the present moment.

Have a good look at that statement and consider it as you go about your daily routine.

Did you find ANYTHING at all outside the present moment?

(There’s a prize of a luxury cruise if you can find anything outside the present moment).

Paulo :)

[EricW]

But since the mind was really watching itself in that moment, it quickly recognized its own tricks.

Was there anything there watching the experience, separate from it?

I can't remember, the memory of that moment has faded.

Is the watching just another experience in awareness?

Yes (as far as I understand the terms "watching and "awareness" anyways). Oddly the thought that watching and awareness were the same thing was dominant before. Looking at it, watching (conscious attention) happens within awareness (awareness being reality).

That's...very strange.

Nothing exists outside the present moment.

Have a good look at that statement and consider it as you go about your daily routine.

Did you find ANYTHING at all outside the present moment?

No, and it's impossible for anything to be outside the present moment. Even a thought about past or future happens now.

[Paulo]

No, and it's impossible for anything to be outside the present moment. Even a thought about past or future happens now.

Perfect, yes, as you say even memories, or projections of futures, are all happening in something we call 'now'.

Take a look at the 'now' -

Is there anything there watching current experience, separate from it?

Paulo.

[EricW]

Is there anything there watching current experience, separate from it?

It does seem like something is watching current experience, yes, but not separate from it. There's no boundary or dividing line, but it seems like that watching is a container for reality...a field for reality to happen on.

There's a lot of frustration and uncertainty in this answer though.

[Paulo]

There's a lot of frustration and uncertainty in this answer though.

Can you share a little more about that? Any doubts, get them out, you're here now so we're going to go for it, no holding back. Don't think it out or theorise, just LOOK in the moment and rely on your own experience of what actually IS.

Take a couple of minutes, right here, right now. Look around the space you're in - see the colours, contrasts, hues, light and shade, shape and form. Let it all just BE.

Is there a seer separate from the seen?

Paulo.