Seeking a guide

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Re recognition - not sure what to say. A sense of pure presence, maybe, a knowingness

Thanks. I'd like to come back to this later.

Now going back to the exercise: looking at an object.
When this was first attempted the report was: “...Colours, writing (the brand written on it). Shapes. Shadows. Awareness of light. The air-con control and sheet are in clear focus and the rest of my visual field has blurry bits...”
Now the report is: “There is just seeing...”

So, the first report contains a variety of words. Are these words:
1. actual experience?
Or,
2. describing experience?

And could you explain in your own words what makes 1 and 2 above different?
Hint: this question requires observing experience and what mind does with experience.
This is quite crucial, so please take your time with observation, and do not hesitate to come back with questions if it isn't clear.

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Hmmm. 2 - describing experience. In the first report there is a separation - an observer observing and describing something. This is in fact 'added on' to what is actually happening (the actual experience is nothing more than seeing just happening whereas in describing it there is something being constructed that isn't actually present in reality but is a conceptual overlay. That just happens on its own - there is no one actually in the drivers seat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Hmmm. 2 - describing experience.

Great stuff!

So now looking at this process more closely...

This is in fact 'added on' to what is actually happening (the actual experience is nothing more than seeing just happening whereas in describing it there is something being constructed that isn't actually present in reality but is a conceptual overlay.

Very well observed.

Furthermore...

That just happens on its own - there is no one actually in the drivers seat.

Yes! Very well observed.

Now what is this stuff that's 'added on', this 'conceptual overlay'?

Is it any different than thoughts?
Is it any different than those thoughts that were observed in a previous exercise?

So, in the context of direct experience, what makes this 'added on', this 'conceptual overlay' believable?
On what basis are these thoughts accepted as true representations of reality?

In the first report there is a separation - an observer observing and describing something.

And again: very well observed.

What you can do in order to expand the field of inquiry is move the exercise from vision to each of the other 5 'physical senses' and then to the mind.
There must be no doubt when answering the questions! ;-)

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

The stuff that is 'added on' - the conceptual overlay - felt at first like something different to thoughts but when I look closer it's revealed that what brings 'things' (including concepts/labels) into being is thinking itself. Eg I can hear the ocean in the distance at the moment but if I just experience hearing, there is no ocean and the sound has no qualities (eg: it's not 'distant' or 'soft'). Thinking is what moves 'hearing' into there being an ocean in the distance. So, the 'conceptual overlay' is only thinking. As for what makes it believable in the context of direct experience? It isn't believable, it's just assumption and it crumbles when what is happening is directly experienced. Even the overlay of 'hearing' 'seeing' 'touching' falls away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

...So, the 'conceptual overlay' is only thinking.

Excellent description of the process.
The experience is hijacked and a story arises.

It isn't believable, it's just assumption and it crumbles when what is happening is directly experienced. Even the overlay of 'hearing' 'seeing' 'touching' falls away.

Brilliant. Just 'thusness'.

OK, next step.
Moving through each of the 5 'physical senses' and then the mind, and observing experience.
Can a “self” be found anywhere?
And...
Can a “controller”, an “agency” be found anywhere?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Moving through the senses and the mind - no self to be found. And there's no one doing any of it - no controller, it's all just unfolding on its own.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Moving through the senses and the mind - no self to be found. And there's no one doing any of it - no controller, it's all just unfolding on its own.

Wonderful.

So, if I were to state: The “self” or “I” is a fraud, a sham, an elaborate construct; the “self” or “I” does no exist and never has existed, and since there is no “I”, “I” cannot be the agent or controller.
What does it now elicit?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Well, it just seems obvious :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Well, it just seems obvious :-)

Humour me, please.

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

What it elicits is an overall sense of something like equanimity. The presence of the 'I' doesn't feel confusing like it did when I popped up here - I realise it's a feeling that can come and go like all feelings/thoughts do but it's nothing more than that. In this moment the lack of an agent, controller etc, feels liberating and profound, like a force of nature.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Thank you, what's in your previous post needed to be stated.

Just to make sure there's no confusion.

The presence of the 'I' doesn't feel confusing like it did when I popped up here - I realise it's a feeling that can come and go like all feelings/thoughts do but it's nothing more than that.

I take it the “presence of the 'I'” mentioned here pertains to an illusory “I”, a concept; not to a fixed “I” that comes and goes and whose presence is felt or thought.
Agreed?

Are you aware of the process commonly called 'selfing' (in the LU community at least)?

And two more questions: is the search over, is there still a seeker?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Yes, the presence of the I is illusory, not fixed. The reminder/question about 'selfing' is helpful. Am not overly familiar with it in the LU context but what I mean by it being helpful is seeing that 'self' (a noun) is a hoax and yet 'selfing' (a verb) is something that can still occur at the relative level. Conceptual overlays happen, this starts up the illusion of a separate 'I'.

As for the seeker/searcher question...definitely no seeker. Is the search over? Yes and yet there is a longing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dharmakrow]

Actually, re the search: i would say that it's been replaced with some sort of will to explore. The longing seems tied up with that somehow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Yes, the presence of the I is illusory, not fixed. The reminder/question about 'selfing' is helpful. Am not overly familiar with it in the LU context but what I mean by it being helpful is seeing that 'self' (a noun) is a hoax and yet 'selfing' (a verb) is something that can still occur at the relative level. Conceptual overlays happen, this starts up the illusion of a separate 'I'.

Yes, you've got 'selfing' nailed too.

As for the seeker/searcher question...definitely no seeker.

Great.

Is the search over? Yes and yet there is a longing.
Actually, re the search: i would say that it's been replaced with some sort of will to explore. The longing seems tied up with that somehow

Yes, probably why it's called a 'gate'. Crossing this 'gate' opens up to a vast expanse of inquiry, of discovery.
Welcome!

So it seems here that this inquiry is over, wouldn't you say?
On LU, the inquiry is usually concluded with a series of 6 questions. The answers are used to ferret out any remaining 'wrong view' regarding the "self" that could have slipped through in the course of the inquiry.
These answers -and the whole thread- are presented to other guides for comments, and sometimes further clarification is asked for. It is useful to look at this questioning process as one of somewhat clarifying aspects of the insight.
We are looking for three additional guides to confirm that Kathy has seen through. :-)

Here are the questions. If 'you decide' to answer them you can feed back the answers all at once or one at a time.

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) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

6) Anything to add?


And well done!

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Here are the questions. If 'you decide' to answer them you can feed back the answers all at once or one at a time.

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

?

No, there is no separate entity at all, anywhere. There is no thing that is myself or me. Amazing to say, but, no there never has been.

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

.

The apparent separate self is a thought/feeling that arises from time to time. There is experience and then a conceptual overlay (thinking) which starts up the illusion of the 'I'. The I can be mistaken for awareness ('someone' being aware or 'having' an experience) but actually awareness doesn't need an I at all. The I feeling/belief is no different to to any other thought/feeling/belief that pops up...out of nowhere.

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

.

It feels like a relief - like letting go of struggle. Before coming here, there had been some insight into the hoax of the self but this process uncovered a hidden, mistaken expectation: that such insight would mean the 'I feeling' would vanish, never to return. Now I see that, like the arising of any other thought, the 'I' will pop up and there is no one making that happen - there is nothing to be done (doing is pointless here because there is no I that can do anything about an I because there is no I in the first place - it's like expecting one thought to be able to 'do' something about another thought...impossible!) The difference in the last few days has mostly just been a sense of ease...also an engagement in sensations at a different level...like a life force. Hard to nail in words.

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

The last bit that pushed me over was the realisation that the 'I' is no different, no more believable than any of the myriad thoughts/feelings/beliefs that arise. It has no special status that makes it more believable or real. It's the same process (and nothing more than a process)

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples

.

No! There's no one in the driver's seat. No one controlling anything at all. It all just unfolds on it's own. The fingers tapping this out are just doing that themselves and even the responses are just coming on their own. Yesterday I decided to get up and make a cup of tea but then found myself in the garden doing something. I can't say where the 'decision' to make a cup of tea came from but whoever made the decision didn't even make it to the kettle before the organism took itself out to the garden. Funny. But actually, a bit scary too, to realise that it's all just 'stimulus and response' or just a mystery. Mostly it feels liberating. Nothing to do, no one to do it, everything just happens on it's own.

6) Anything to add?

Just a big thanks to, you, Dridhamati xx