Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

When thought states "I feel my feet tingling " then simply perceive the tingling.. Thought labels this sensation, fine, but there is also the pure sensation... Can this sensation really be confined by any border?

My mind would argue that yes, it is confined by the ability of an organism to sense it. The sensation can't exist without an entity that has a complex enough brain to be aware of it. With the "no I" understanding perhaps everyone's sensations are equal by all belonging to the same no-one, but this is too theoretical and far too removed from my current (mis)understanding.

See if you can watch thoughts in the same way as you watch sensations.

I still need a lot of practice watching my sensations without automatically being attached to thoughts about them, so I guess watching thoughts is still quite a while away.

It's a feels a bit disheartening - at times it seems like whether one remains in the illusion or not is just a matter of random luck (from the perspective of the illusionary character of course). I try to look at this frustration as yet another passing experience to watch just like everything else that is happening, and even this attempt is again noticed as a passing thought about a strategy to be free - but none of this helps to detach from the identification of a so called "thinker" so the circle continues on.

The bottom line is that the belief in the "I" thought is still very much in power and I feel at a loss as to where or even how to look to unsee this "I" belief that has been so deeply entrenched. Perhaps I have to feel totally and utterly defeated before that happens, which with my stubbornness would unfortunately mean that it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Well, that was a useless rant of self pity - another story that I fall prey to from time to time, but at least I noticed it before I hit Submit. Please disregard - including it only for entertainment purposes ;-)

[Alexw]

My mind would argue that yes, it is confined by the ability of an organism to sense it. The sensation can't exist without an entity that has a complex enough brain to be aware of it. With the "no I" understanding perhaps everyone's sensations are equal by all belonging to the same no-one, but this is too theoretical and far too removed from my current (mis)understanding.

Yes, this is too removed for anyones understanding :-)
Why don't you simply feel this tingling - don't just think about stuff - and then honestly describe what is being felt.
Do you feel this organism? Do you sense any confinement? Do you sense a complex brain? Do you sense an "I" that does the understanding? Or do you simply sense "tingle"?
When you listen to the wind... do you hear an eardrum picking up the sound, a brain deciphering it, an I thinking about it? Or do you simply hear "whoosh"?
Its about the "tingle" and "whoosh", not about all the stories about "tingle" and "whoosh"... Look at the basic experience not at all the add-ons.

It's a feels a bit disheartening - at times it seems like whether one remains in the illusion or not is just a matter of random luck

Yes, thats true... "You" cant do anything to escape it. But it doesn't really need escaping anyway as you have never left "perfect clarity". If I would ask you to walk towards your "self" - which direction would you go? Would it matter where you go? Or are you always here/now?

none of this helps to detach from the identification of a so called "thinker" so the circle continues on.

What would that be like? Being detached from the thinker?
Would you always have to think "Ah... I am still detached! - Its all good!" - then you get lost in thought and you seemingly attach to this separate self, you act as if it were real. Then you realise that this is happening and you think "Oh no! I lost it again!" Have you really lost anything? Or was this just how here/now played out? Does here/now change if you think this or that about it? Is "whoosh" any more or less "whoosh" depending on thought about it?

So what..? Maybe even the "state" of illusion is just how this plays out - for now... maybe its different tomorrow... The weather is not always the same, quite contrary, it always changes... why would you be able to remain in a permanent state of "clarity" or "illusion"? Can you find anything at all that doesn't change? Anything that is permanent? If not, why should you be able to remain permanently in the same perfectly "clear" state?

Well, that was a useless rant of self pity - another story that I fall prey to from time to time, but at least I noticed it before I hit Submit. Please disregard - including it only for entertainment purposes ;-)

Well... you posted it and I answered it... another "meaningless" happening... how great! :-)

[placebo8]

Can't believe it's already been seven days since I received your last reply. My thoughts move between despair that realization isn't going to happen here and noticing of this despair as yet another story just like any other thought that passes (though not clearly enough to laugh at it just yet). I keep trying to notice what happens as a neutral witness - sensations, feelings, thoughts, even unanswered questions. Perhaps it's going to be a very long process of crystallization, perhaps there won't be any, but whatever the result, I'll just continue watching, and see what happens.

why would you be able to remain in a permanent state of "clarity" or "illusion"?

I don't expect anything permanent so long as there's a belief in an "I" that will get it, however the assumption is that a permanent state of "not suffering" is attainable - if not by this "I" then by getting rid of the belief in it. As I am led to believe this has been realised by other enlightened people my conclusion is that there can be a permanent clarity of everything by "no one".

Anyway, wish there was more to report. I'm sticking with trying to be aware enough to notice the awareness. I find this is possible only when I'm not focused on anything else (such as concentrating on work, or other things where I can't be on autopilot - and yes, I know that everything is autopilot, including the times when I think I'm piloting, but at those times I can't notice that the plane is flying itself...)

[Alexw]

I keep trying to notice what happens as a neutral witness - sensations, feelings, thoughts, even unanswered questions.

Maybe for a change try a different angle of attack:
Instead of identifying with a separate, neutral witness (which is always a thought based construct) see what really is present in each moment. When you witness "sensations, feelings, thoughts" what is really happening? Is there a witness that can be found? Or is this witness just another thought stating "I witness a specific sensation."
Now... try to disconnect from this witness, forget it, its not real. Instead of feeling a sensation, be the sensation. Instead of hearing a sound be the hearing. Focus is on the -ing. The flowing, moving, ever changing flow of experience. Be the aware-ING, not the awareness - not the witness, but the being.
See how everything moves, changes and flows. Can you hold on to anything? Can you make any of this experiencing that is happening permanent? Is there a permanent observer or witness to be found? Or is there simply this ever changing flow of life?

however the assumption is that a permanent state of "not suffering" is attainable - if not by this "I" then by getting rid of the belief in it

Look at this experience. You might experience a sensation, lets say a tingling in your foot, and a thought follows "I feel a tingling in my foot!".
Now please eliminate all parts of this statement that are not 100% true. Take away everything that is thought based and not just a direct experience. What remains? Can what remains suffer?

[placebo8]

Every time I try to explain what's keeping seeing from happening it boils down to me being in the way - it's like wanting to get some sun on a sunny day, but no matter where you go, there's this one small and irritating cloud that follows you, continuously blocking it.

Look at this experience. You might experience a sensation, lets say a tingling in your foot, and a thought follows "I feel a tingling in my foot!".
Now please eliminate all parts of this statement that are not 100% true. Take away everything that is thought based and not just a direct experience. What remains? Can what remains suffer?

For me this is difficult to do, as sensing experience without thought about experience (as in "yes, this is nice, why can't it last?", "no this is painful, I want it to stop") is something that I probably need much more practice in. I tend to test things by seeing if they'd still hold in extreme cases, and I know that if it wasn't a feeling of a tingling in my foot but a feeling of "I've just stepped barefoot on broken glass", then recognising the thoughts and emotions as stories happening would do little to reduce the identification with them and therefore the perceived suffering.

Instead of feeling a sensation, be the sensation. Instead of hearing a sound be the hearing. Focus is on the -ing.

Is the focus on a sensation already a thought? I've always equated focus with awareness, but I'm starting to think that perhaps this is part of the confusion. On one hand, in order to even know a sensation (for example, to do this exercise) my focus should be on it, on the other, this very focus implies a "focuser". Arrrgh, still trapped...

[Alexw]

Arghhh.... Hahah...

For me this is difficult to do, as sensing experience without thought about experience is something that I probably need much more practice in.

No, you don't need any more practice! You are doing it all the time, you just don't know it.
Stop! Now! Listen! Did you hear something! Yes? Great! You just experienced something directly!

What do you hear?
Answer: "I hear the sound of the waves breaking!"
Is this true? Yes! And no!
This is a conceptual overlay, a thought about the sound that you perceived. Its conventionally true, but not absolutely?
Agree?

So, what do you really hear?
I hear a "Wooshh!"
Yes! And no!
This is still a conceptual overlay, but yes, it is as close as we can get using language to express it.
Agree?

Does this thought based definition really define, grasp or contain the experience of "Whoosh!"?
No! Will anything ever really, truly define "Whoosh!"? No!

Now, lets come back to the tingling in the foot.
Try again, this time without thinking what it might be like if there would be no tingling, but how it might be like if somebody cut off your whole leg.
Just look at this moment, you still have your foot, so lets feel the tingling. Ok?

Sit down and focus on the sensations coming from your foot... What do you feel?
There are certain sensations arising and there might also be a thought:
"I feel a tingling in my foot!".
Now please eliminate all words of this statement that are not 100% true. Take away everything that is thought based and not truly perceived in this direct experience. Which word remains?

Alex

[placebo8]

I think about your replies quite a few times a day, and it still eludes me.

Stop! Now! Listen! Did you hear something! Yes? Great! You just experienced something directly!

and yet, the I thought still exists, and there is still a belief that somehow this "I" heard it, even though all evidence is to the contrary.

What do you hear?
Answer: "I hear the sound of the waves breaking!"
Is this true? Yes! And no!
This is a conceptual overlay, a thought about the sound that you perceived. Its conventionally true, but not absolutely?
Agree?

So, what do you really hear?
I hear a "Wooshh!"
Yes! And no!
This is still a conceptual overlay, but yes, it is as close as we can get using language to express it.
Agree?

Yes. Agree without any hesitation on both counts.

"I feel a tingling in my foot!".
Now please eliminate all words of this statement that are not 100% true. Take away everything that is thought based and not truly perceived in this direct experience. Which word remains?

I've tried doing this quite a few times, and (I would add, as expected) none of the words are applicable when focusing on the experience and removing thought from the equation. Still, this does not come easily - it requires constant focus and effort, which is counter to what I'd expect from accepting things as they are and of course, I'm still here with my ego intact, taking all of life's worries very seriously (will I be healthy?, will I be prosperous?, will I manage to avoid physical and emotional pain? blah blah blah...) so I'm not sure how this temporary recognition helps to eliminate that.

I feel bad with the content of my replies, like a dumb student not wanting to disappoint the teacher, but not understanding the material either. On the bright side, at least I'm giving you an opportunity to test the level of your patience... :-)

[Alexw]

and yet, the I thought still exists, and there is still a belief that somehow this "I" heard it, even though all evidence is to the contrary.

What are these evidences that work against there being a separate I/self?
Can you please list them.

I've tried doing this quite a few times, and (I would add, as expected) none of the words are applicable when focusing on the experience and removing thought from the equation.

OK, yes, no word really describes the sensation accurately as a word simply cannot be the sensation itself. It is only a label, an abstraction. Still, lets have another look which part of the sentence comes closest to describing the process that is happening...

Sit down, close your eyes and feel this sensation. Now lets look at each single word of the sentence:
"I": Is there a separate "I" to be found in this sensation? Forget what thought might say about this I, only look at the sensation and see if it contains any information about a separate I/self...
"I feel": Is there an I to be found that does something we label "feeling"? Is there someone in control of a process that we call "feeling"?
"tingling": Is there a sensation at all? Is there something experienced? Is there something called "tingling" happing? Yes, tingling is just a label for what is happening, but something is happening, right? We might call it "tingling" as we don't have a better word, but you do feel this tingling, don't you? Does this tingling say anything about an I, about an I feeling something, about a foot or about a location?
"in": Does the sensation have a location at all? Does the sensation itself state "I am in your foot".
"foot": Does the sensation state anything about a foot being present? Or is this again a conceptual overlay to the pure sensation?

I'm not sure how this temporary recognition helps to eliminate that

Is there anything that is not temporary? Can you have a permanent recognition - a recognition that is always present? You would have to think about it 24/7, wouldn't you?
Maybe each temporary recognition leaves its mark and life will not be the same again after each little mark. It might happen slowly but every time you look - no matter what has triggered the looking - a little bit of the belief will be chipped away until it becomes natural to look and somewhen even looking will not be necessary anymore as it has been clearly seen and integrated.
Don't expect too much from one single experience - it is very human to expect so much from everything, but life does not work like that :-)

Alex

[placebo8]

What are these evidences that work against there being a separate I/self?
Can you please list them.

Feels like I could write a book about them :-) They are all based on logical conclusions that go against the belief in a separate personal "I", both from external testimonies that I can use my logic to try and tear down (scientific articles or spiritual texts which I carefully read and uncompromisingly scrutinise) and also from what I understand based on "my own" experiences combined with common sense. I'll spare you the list of external scientific and spiritual evidence which I find compelling and consistent, and stick to my own observations. These include:

1. My lack of ability to define where I leave off and the rest of the world begins
2. The fact that I can't point out where this "I" is located.
3. That when I deeply inspect any concept, it is exposed as a made-up artefact useful only to convey information, but never the thing in itself. My personal "I" then appears to be just a "super artefact"
4. Noticing that any type of suffering always implies some degree of belief in a separate "I" (and vice versa). Knowing that what is ultimately real and therefore absolutely true can't suffer, from which I conclude that a separate "I" is not the truth.
5. Noticing rare moments of "no I" which however fleeting, seem more real than the belief that there is an "I" that sensed them.
6. Never being able to find a real "controller" or "chooser" when looking for it (though desperately trying to be in control...)

I could probably list some more but they all more or less point to this seeing how this "I" is a process or concept that somehow falls in love with itself :-) Actually, when I think about this "concept worshiping", then the severity of the sin of idol worship in the Bible makes much more of sense. I'd choose more subtle ways to warn people that worshiping concepts will lead them astray from the truth but I guess different times and cultures call for different measures...
Anyway, most of the evidence boils down to using logic and not due to some grand "Aha" moment. As an analogy, just like the fact that a schizophrenic who hears voices or even hallucinates might know using logic that they are not real, doesn't mean that they don't take their toll.

Is there something called "tingling" happing? Yes, tingling is just a label for what is happening, but something is happening, right? We might call it "tingling" as we don't have a better word, but you do feel this tingling, don't you? Does this tingling say anything about an I, about an I feeling something, about a foot or about a location?

Had I been forced to leave one word in the sentence then yes, it would be "tingling". All the context that comes with it (it's in my foot, it's because I'm sitting like this, it reminds me that I should buy socks etc.) is already in the sphere of thought and has nothing to do with the tingling.

Is there anything that is not temporary? Can you have a permanent recognition - a recognition that is always present? You would have to think about it 24/7, wouldn't you?

I don't know - do you have to think about it 24/7 in order to be permanently in temporariness ? :-) I guess thinking about it is currently the only option open to me as I see no other way of keeping it in my attention, and I figure the more I do it, the less it will have to be a conscious act.

[Alexw]

I'll spare you the list of external scientific and spiritual evidence which I find compelling and consistent, and stick to my own observations. These include:

Great! Nice list - pretty accurate :-)

Had I been forced to leave one word in the sentence then yes, it would be "tingling". All the context that comes with it (it's in my foot, it's because I'm sitting like this, it reminds me that I should buy socks etc.) is already in the sphere of thought and has nothing to do with the tingling.

Yes, well seen!

My lack of ability to define where I leave off and the rest of the world begins

How do you know of the I and how do you know of the world? What methods do you have to know anything (and I don't mean only conceptual knowledge, but also the knowing of this pure experience)?

What is a sound? What is an apple? What is a mountain? What is this body? What is the I?
We surely have tons of descriptions and theories about all of them, but what are they in direct experience?
Would you agree that they are see-ing, hear-ing, smell-ing, tast-ing and feel-ing, plus think-ing... Is there anything else you can do to experience really anything?
How do you know the world or rather its objects? Lets say an apple? Do you know the object or do you ever only know see-ing and feel-ing? Do you ever experience an object, something solid, unchanging or is there always only experienc-ing happening?
Is there an experience at all? Or is there only experienc-ing happening?
This seems to be a small difference, an "object" (or an "I") that we experience or only the act of experiencing happening, but it is what sets apart illusion from reality.
Sit down, grasp any kind of object and close your eyes. Feel it. Is there a you feeling an object? Or would it rather be correct to say that there is a constant stream of sensations happening - experiencing happening - and not some static self doing something to experience another static it.
If all that can be found - EVER - is the changing flow of experiencing, what can be said about separation, what about a separate self? Where are the lines of demarkation that are so clearly defined in conceptual thought? These physical sensations of holding the apple, are they inside, outside, contained or in any way restricted by any borders? Are you?

[placebo8]

Great! Nice list - pretty accurate :-)

It's also pretty accurate to say that the colour red is what the brain interprets when processing a stimulus from the retina after the latter is hit by an electromagnetic disturbance with a wavelength of around 700 nanometers... However, this information is useless for really knowing redness, and analogously I think my logical deduction of "no-I" doesn't do that much better as far as being able to see a "no I".

I was wondering today if perhaps the uncompromising logic that has protected me so well from believing in nonsense by constantly being on guard and separating what is true from what is false, has become so skilled at what it does that it also became one of the obstacles for seeing the ultimate truth, i.e simply seeing what is prior to labelling it with true/false attributes.

Do you ever experience an object, something solid, unchanging or is there always only experienc-ing happening?

Objection! leading the witness! :-)

Seriously though, I think I'm slowly beginning to understand what you mean. There are all these happenings, only they are not happening "to me". This thought about the things happening to me - that too is just another happening which isn't happening to me. Even the recognition itself of the happening - that's also a happening, and not "my" recognition.

So at this point I can start testing this understanding with some hard questions - hopefully I'm not too far off...

Q: If that is so, why are the things that are happening limited only to my body/mind experiences?
A: The question is misguided as it assumes it is my body/mind experience. The experience does not belong to anyone as there is no one for it to belong to.

Q: Why can't I experience other people's experiences?
A: You can't even experience your own! How can something that does not exist experience anything?

Q: How can you say I don't experience anything? If there's one I know for sure, it's what I experience!
A: The experience is real. You are not.

Ok, Still feels very far from being a solidified knowing, but I'm going to just keep at it until something gives...

[Alexw]

Ok... the theory is not too bad, but do theory/thought and direct experience really ever meet?

Thought wants a no-self or liberation - experience... or it wants no "self/me/I" experience anymore, pretty much the same, right?
But is the experience itself the problem or is the problem hidden in conceptual thought?
There could be any kind of experience and if thought has no pre-fabricated label/concept for it then... what?
Would it still be an experience of a "me/self"?

Thoughts nature is to think, it doesn't want to end, it wants to continue, but at the same time it wants to get rid of this experience of a "separate me" - there is the belief that there is a way to change the experience so a "me" is not experienced anymore. But the experience is just fine, there never is a me experienced in the first place, it's really only about getting rid of the idea, of the belief that an experience is not ok or that it maybe describes a "separate me"... if its seen that any kind of experience never describes a "me" anyway... its just a thought stating that this is so... then... voila... no experience of a "me"...
That's why we look at direct experience and when you are perfectly honest with yourself you will never be able to find an experience that defines really any"thing" - no thing will be found, ever (that includes a me)!

If you don't believe me, have look yourself. See, hear, taste, feel... any "things" that you experience? Maybe a separate self? Or is there really only seeing, hearing, tasting and feeling happening... to who? Anyone?

If you look deep enough then are there even thoughts, sounds, feelings..? Yes, we label them thoughts, sounds, feelings just like we label a specific colour red or green, but the real, direct experience is not like that, is it?
It really is indescribable, isn't it? Can thought ever really know/grasp what is going on? Or are all theories about the nature of thought, experience or awareness just a thought structure that seems to relate to "what is", but when really looked at, there simply is no description that can capture or contain *what is*?
The acceptance of this fact is what changes everything - thought will gradually become less important and this moment will start to shine.

[placebo8]

He Alex,

Sorry it has taken me this long to reply, but I'm a bit at a loss as to what to do at this point. I feel that if there was any guaranteed method to find liberation then I would do it, no matter the effort or investment required. As it stands any attempted observations just yield more thoughts and thoughts about thoughts. Any experience of discomfort is mostly interpreted as something bad that should be changed by the sufferer experiencing it, no matter how many layers of theoretical knowledge are poured on it. It's obvious you're trying to point me in the right direction while I'm obviously too entrenched in thought patterns to be able to see what you're pointing at.

do theory/thought and direct experience really ever meet?

I don't think so. If they did then realisation would have occurred already. Perhaps they meet when thought itself is also seen as more experience - another happening like any other that is perceived, but then again, this itself just more theory and thought.

There could be any kind of experience and if thought has no pre-fabricated label/concept for it then... what?
Would it still be an experience of a "me/self"?

No, I'm quite convinced there can be no experience of a self without thought. What I'm not convinced about is that this attainment is possible, i.e that this particular self-believing pattern I call "my experience" can be dismantled - at least not while this body is alive.

As an example, when I sit and meditate, at a certain point pain and discomfort appear due to the length of motionless sitting. I then try and focus on using the discomfort to answer the questions: who is it occurring to? what would it be without the thought about it? If I do something to change it, is it really my decision or is it another thing that is happening? If I decide to continue in this posture in spite of the discomfort, is it the strength of "my" willpower allowing it? Do all these thoughts, including this one belong to anyone? What is really here right now? Where is it really? etc. Even though concentrating on these questions can lead to a short relief from the thought about the discomfort, ultimately it always comes back to "ok, that was interesting, but I've really had enough of this"...

The bottom line is that my test for knowing liberation has been achieved would be when fear/suffering are no longer seen as a threat and any situation can be contained without wishing it were different. Until that occurs, I feel nothing would have been learned, no matter how deep my theoretical knowledge goes.

[Alexw]

The bottom line is that my test for knowing liberation has been achieved would be when fear/suffering are no longer seen as a threat and any situation can be contained without wishing it were different. Until that occurs, I feel nothing would have been learned, no matter how deep my theoretical knowledge goes.

What you are trying to achieve is a certain control over thought - its like saying that liberation is only possible or believed in when no negative thoughts show up anymore - there should only be happy thoughts - all the time!
This is simply not possible.
As long as there is experience - and this includes thought - there will be black and white, wet and dry and there will be good and bad. Yes, the conceptual differentiation is in thought only, but it's a good tool when used properly. You wouldn't want to abolish all conceptual thought, you want to abolish some of it - you want to abolish the parts that describe this separate I/self, but you want to keep the rest... This doesn't work. What will work is to see (again and again) that the only problem is your investment, the belief, in certain thought-stories. The story is not the problem, the investment in the story is. How do you reduce or drop this investment? By looking at it, by inquiring into it and by seeing that it has no truth to it. Its just a story, a story that has its value in certain situations, but can also lead to great suffering and despair.
Its not about will power, its not about sitting in a certain position, its only about honest looking. You don't have to make up a new story, a new conceptual structure, of what you might have to see for liberation to occur. It doesn't help to invent a "test for knowing liberation". There is no test, it will run its own course no matter if you invent a point scale of how far you have come. Its not about progressing on a scale from 1 to 100, its always only about looking now.
You haven't progressed on a scale from 1 - meaning no belief in a self - to 100 - meaning fully established belief in self, when this belief was established, have you? It simply happened without your knowing - its the same with the dismantling of the belief. You look and look and it disintegrates - but every time you test the progress by judging it against your invented "liberation meter" you will only add more baggage to the belief... Its not about crossing a finish line, its about life, its about change, its about here/now. Its a new and fresh discovery every moment, its not a stale, old controlled state of no thought about a self.

[placebo8]

What you are trying to achieve is a certain control over thought - its like saying that liberation is only possible or believed in when no negative thoughts show up anymore - there should only be happy thoughts - all the time!

Well, that's not really what I meant in my description of a "liberation test" - I was referring to the ability to contain any situation without wishing it were different. This includes both "positive" and "negative" situations. Equanimity regardless of the situation is the meter which I use to know whether this has happened to any degree. Ironically, I assume that as long as "I" am here to judge it, it will remain out of reach...

You haven't progressed on a scale from 1 - meaning no belief in a self - to 100 - meaning fully established belief in self, when this belief was established, have you?

It happened too long ago for me to recall, but I assume the process was gradual and not sudden, just like slowly losing consciousness or a decline in perception.

but every time you test the progress by judging it against your invented "liberation meter" you will only add more baggage to the belief

hahaha "liberation meter" is a good one :-) Need to patent it - this is a startup waiting to happen :-)
I understand you point. Currently I'm invested in this story called liberation, and as such I measure my effectiveness using the same tools I use in the dualistic realm, i.e define the goal, find most promising paths to achieve it, test whether you're getting closer and change your tactics or even strategy if you're not. This will necessarily keep alive the concept of a goal and a "me" that has to get to it. Funny how I can see the fallacy in this and yet at the same time believe it is real and struggle to "get there".