Request to be guided

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

you are having a hard time and I appreciate you not giving up :-)

Even though Zarina passed the gate, there is no hurry for you. Don't try to talk yourself into believing there is no ME.
That won't change a thing.

Let's get things straight with labels and direct experience.

"Stone" is the direct experience of thought, of the thought label.
The sensation that arises when touching a stone is the direct experience of the stone.

The way this is relevant to our dialog is that it seem you think if I found something called ME that I could see or touch, it would be more real than a ME that is composed of thoughts and sensations

Is there anything that is composed of thoughts and sensations? Are there not first only sensations which afterwards are labelled "stone", "storm"...."ME" by thoughts?

Is a thought aware of sensations? Are sensations aware of thought?

If there is a separate entity ME, you should be able to directly experience it like a stone or rain.


Let's look at the body and the feeling that the body is YOU.

Look at a foot. What makes it MY foot, ME?
What is it, in the experience of it, such that were that not there, it would be a foot, not YOUR foot, not YOU?
If you take these away, one by one - see if ANY have an impact on the experience of this being MY foot.

e.g. if the sense of touch wasn't there - would it still be MY foot, albeit a numb feeling one?
Ok - what you got for sure is a particular FEELING - and that feeling had been experienced AS MEANING 'ME'.

So - look again as the sense of this being MY foot, being ME.

Notice that feeling that feels like the foot is ME.

Be with the feeling, purely as a feeling. As subtle as it is. Hold it in attention, and feel it, watch it, like some strange tropical fish you've never seen before and know nothing about.

Can a ME be found?

Warm regards,
Ghata
P.S. I will not be able to make it for a real time exchange tomorrow at you suggested time. Please feel free to use all LU resources. I suggest not to read the threads as every process is very different.

[tfarrah]

Let's get things straight with labels and direct experience.

Yes, let's!

"Stone" is the direct experience of thought, of the thought label.

Agreed.

The sensation that arises when touching a stone is the direct experience of the stone.

Agreed.

The way this is relevant to our dialog is that it seem you think if I found something called ME that I could see or touch, it would be more real than a ME that is composed of thoughts and sensations

Is there anything that is composed of thoughts and sensations?

No. Nothing can be composed of thoughts and sensations. I misspoke. Let me rephrase:

It seems you think that if I found something called ME that I could see or touch, it would be more real than a ME that I cannot see or touch (because it is not within sight of my eyes nor within reach of my skin) but that is the cause of the sensations I label ME. This something may not be a single bodily organ but may be a collection of organs or parts of organs.

Are there not first only sensations which afterwards are labelled "stone", "storm"...."ME" by thoughts?

Yes.

Is a thought aware of sensations? Are sensations aware of thought?

No and no. Neither thoughts nor sensations can have awareness.

If there is a separate entity ME, you should be able to directly experience it like a stone or rain.

How do I know that the sensations I call ME are not a direct experience of a separate entity?

Let's look at the body and the feeling that the body is YOU.

OK.

Look at a foot. What makes it MY foot, ME?
What is it, in the experience of it, such that were that not there, it would be a foot, not YOUR foot, not YOU?

I did this inquiry with my hand. My answers are:
- it mediates sensory input -- when the hand touches something, the experience of touch occurs
- the memory of it being with me wherever I go
- the knowledge that, if it were severed from the arm, my well-being would be in danger

If you take these away, one by one - see if ANY have an impact on the experience of this being MY foot.

When I imagine that the sense of touch goes away, the sense of the hand being MY hand lessens, but does not disappear.
When I imagine that the hand is detachable without endangering my well-being, the sense of the hand being MY hand almost completely disappears.

Ok - what you got for sure is a particular FEELING - and that feeling had been experienced AS MEANING 'ME'.

I wasn't sure what you meant by this feeling, but I alternated between seeing the hand attached, and imagining it being detachable, and I did notice some sensations present when I saw the hand attached that disappeared when I imagined it being detachable. The sensations were a subtle vibration at the right side of the tongue and on the right side of the back of the throat.

So - look again as the sense of this being MY foot, being ME.
Notice that feeling that feels like the foot is ME.
Be with the feeling, purely as a feeling.

I'm not sure how to be with that feeling. I get the feeling immediately after I ask myself, "Is the hand ME?" To sustain the feeling it seems I have to do some mental gymnastics.

Have to go now, will write more later!

Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

It seems you think that if I found something called ME that I could see or touch, it would be more real than a ME that I cannot see or touch (because it is not within sight of my eyes nor within reach of my skin) but that is the cause of the sensations I label ME. This something may not be a single bodily organ but may be a collection of organs or parts of organs.

I'll offer another claim: The sensations that are felt when loving are not simply arising. They are caused by an invisible entity with the name LOVE.

You can make all kinds of claims. But where is the proof to this?

How do I know that the sensations I call ME are not a direct experience of a separate entity?

As you say in both statements: These sensations are LABELLED "me". That is correct.

Labels can point to something that can be experienced: Water, stone.
Labels can point to a construct, that cannot be experienced: University. This construct points to many parts that can be experiended though: The building, teachers, students, books do exist. University doesn't exist, the parts do.
And then there are labels that point to something completely imaginary: Santa, unicorn, Batman.

Where does the label ME fit in?

If you say, the label is pointing to something real, then there must be a 'ME', a separate entity, that can be found in experience.

Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

So - look again as the sense of this being MY foot, being ME.
Notice that feeling that feels like the foot is ME.
Be with the feeling, purely as a feeling.

As I wrote before, I feel a subtle vibration at the right part of the tongue and the right part of the back of the throat. The feeling also includes a very gentle warmth that runs down the inside of the right torso.

Hold it in attention, and feel it, watch it, like some strange tropical fish you've never seen before and know nothing about.

Well, I'm not sure this is what you intended, but I sit and maybe every 5 seconds ask myself, "is the hand ME?" to bring to mind the feeling of ME. The feeling arises even before the words, "is the hand ME?" are silently said.

In an earlier post you distinguished between FEELING a feeling and WATCHING it. So I don't know which you intend here, or whether it matters, but I tried to feel more than watch.

A couple minutes ago Zarina was sitting on the couch with me, tickling me and talking to me. After a while a feeling of urgency arose to get back to my inquiry, and I asked her to go away. It took her some time to leave me alone and anger arose. The anger is still with me, distracting me from the inquiry.

I am somehow able to generate something very close to the feeling of ME from memory without asking "is the hand ME?" -- or perhaps the feeling is always there to an extent? -- so now I am doing the inquiry without asking the question periodically. Just feeling the feeling. I think this is better, because I am supposed to feel it as only feeling, without the concept of ME.

The anger has faded almost completely away.

I experience the feeling as just feeling, without any ME label / thought arising.

Love,
Terry

[tfarrah]

A question for you, Ghata.

There is an opportunity for me to go with Zarina to a weekend workshop led by Byron Katie to do what she calls The Work. If you are unfamiliar -- she leads folks to question their thoughts, especially repetitive judgmental thoughts. The workshop is in 3 weeks, April 23-24, and requires pre-registration.

My understanding is that while I am working with you it's best for me to not do any other awakening-related practices. So I think I shouldn't register for this workshop, but wanted to ask you what you advise.

Thank you, Ghata.
Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

you are right, it would be better if you don't mix this approach with the work Byron Katie is doing.

Did you see that I answered before your last post?


Warm regards,
Ghata

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

I just read your last longer answer.

Please STOP everything you are doing right now, including answering my last questions.Re-read our entire dialogue.

Share what is seen reading through the dialogue.

Is there a separate entity ME?


Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Dear Ghata,

Here is what arises for me as I re-read our dialog.

It is enjoyable to read the story of Terry. I like this exercise.

Ghata asks today, "Share what is seen reading through the dialogue." What does that mean? I'll just share whatever arises. But so many thoughts and feelings may arise; which should I share?

Ghata wrote in the dialog: "You already described that you had experiences where the self couldn't be felt but still was back afterwards." Thought: "She didn't understand--it's that I recognized certain phenomena were not self, but simultaneously, other aspects of experience were seen as self."

The expectations I stated at the beginning have all been realized.

As I was about to read the following, some kind of excitement arose:

"There is no I, no self, nobody who is doing anything. There is nobody acting, creating or controlling. The seat behind the steering wheel is empty."

As I read it, it seemed there was no self, and prominent in my attention was the image of trees reflected in the glass of the monitor.

I wrote, "I went to facebook..." and Ghata replied, "Who/what is the I referring to?" I then responded that "The I right now is a broad sensation of tension in the throat." What? The sensation went to facebook -- that's ridiculous.

Upon reading detailed description of a series of I-sensations, the thought arose, "How tedious and unnecessarily complicated."

Terry wrote, "Then I would ask, Can the 'I' be found? Usually the answer was, yes, there is a sense of I that includes sensations." That's ridiculous. The answer is that I cannot be found. A "sense" of I is not I!!! Who cares about sensations?

Ghata wrote "This is not hard work, it is an exciting exploration." I certainly have made it into hard work.

Ghata wrote, "The question you want to answer is: Can an I be found in the direct experience of what is?" The answer is no.

Terry wrote, "The I right now is a broad sensation of tension in the throat". That is not "the I", that is a sensation that is associated with the label "I".

There is clearly a belief operating that this investigation needs to be super detailed and a lot of hard work.

What? On Day 3 the thought already arose, "I am already way behind!"

On that day Terry also wrote, in response to Ghata's "Can an I be found in the direct experience of what is?", "The answer to that is clearly no".

OK, I've been reading and commenting for 30 minutes and I've only gotten through the first page. I'll stop for now and head into the office.

Love,
Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

it is lovely to read your spicy comment to our dialogue :-)

The expectations I stated at the beginning have all been realized.

Great!

Ghata wrote "This is not hard work, it is an exciting exploration." I certainly have made it into hard work.

There is clearly a belief operating that this investigation needs to be super detailed and a lot of hard work.

Yes, well seen!

I wrote, "I went to facebook..." and Ghata replied, "Who/what is the I referring to?" I then responded that "The I right now is a broad sensation of tension in the throat." What? The sensation went to facebook -- that's ridiculous.

Ha! :-)

Terry wrote, "Then I would ask, Can the 'I' be found? Usually the answer was, yes, there is a sense of I that includes sensations." That's ridiculous. The answer is that I cannot be found. A "sense" of I is not I!!! Who cares about sensations?

Ghata wrote, "The question you want to answer is: Can an I be found in the direct experience of what is?" The answer is no.

Terry wrote, "The I right now is a broad sensation of tension in the throat". That is not "the I", that is a sensation that is associated with the label "I".

Strong statements! Are you sure? What made you see this?

Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Terry wrote, "Then I would ask, Can the 'I' be found? Usually the answer was, yes, there is a sense of I that includes sensations." That's ridiculous. The answer is that I cannot be found. A "sense" of I is not I!!! Who cares about sensations?

Ghata wrote, "The question you want to answer is: Can an I be found in the direct experience of what is?" The answer is no.

Terry wrote, "The I right now is a broad sensation of tension in the throat". That is not "the I", that is a sensation that is associated with the label "I".

Strong statements! Are you sure? What made you see this?

Reading my words highlighted their absurdity. The real question is, what ever made me talk so much about sensations? And why it still not immediately obvious to me that "I" is as illusory as Santa Claus?

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

Reading my words highlighted their absurdity. The real question is, what ever made me talk so much about sensations? And why it still not immediately obvious to me that "I" is as illusory as Santa Claus?

Yes, reading it again can make things much clearer.

In the last sentence the verb is missing. Would it be "is" or "was"?
Go ahead with the reading.

Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

why it still not immediately obvious to me that "I" is as illusory as Santa Claus?

I meant, why IS it still not obvious.

I asked Zarina if it is completely obvious to her that there is no "I". She said yes. I'd seen this in writing, but I'd never heard it spoken by anyone I knew. Hearing her say it, it was clear this was obvious to her in a way that it still is not obvious to me.

[tfarrah]

Dear Ghata,

Yesterday I reflected from time to time on the absurdity of answering the question, "Who is the I that went to facebook?" with, "The I is a set of sensations." I hoped that this would help make everything more clear.

I will continue reviewing our dialog, but first I will share with you something else I did yesterday.

I was looking at the LU app, Enlightening Quotes, and saw a suggestion to examine cherished beliefs. I don't really feel like doing that, but I do feel like entering the gate. So here are some cherished beliefs. These are things that I know intellectually are NOT true, but I see the beliefs operating strongly in my life:

- It is possible to achieve perfection, to find a way to do the right thing all the time, and I am on a path to get there. This path includes going back to the past and getting it right. To do the right thing all the time means to receive little external criticism and NO self-criticism, and to thereby feel safe and finally be able to rest.
- At heart, I am a good person who is always kind to others and puts the well-being of those who are suffering deeply ahead of my own comfort and pleasure. I am on a path toward living out this value 100% of the time.
- It is possible for any human, even under the most dire circumstances, to avoid deep suffering by simply making the right choices, exerting effort, and adopting the right mental attitude.
- I am never going to die.

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

thank you for the clarification that it is not obvious for you that there is no I.

The insights into the cherished beliefs are very valuable.

- It is possible to achieve perfection, to find a way to do the right thing all the time, and I am on a path to get there. This path includes going back to the past and getting it right. To do the right thing all the time means to receive little external criticism and NO self-criticism, and to thereby feel safe and finally be able to rest.
- At heart, I am a good person who is always kind to others and puts the well-being of those who are suffering deeply ahead of my own comfort and pleasure. I am on a path toward living out this value 100% of the time.
- It is possible for any human, even under the most dire circumstances, to avoid deep suffering by simply making the right choices, exerting effort, and adopting the right mental attitude.
- I am never going to die.

Do you hope to reach this superideal state by passing the gate?
I am looking forward to your next comments on our dialogue :-)

Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Continuing to review our dialog ...

I notice many things you guided me to see that I had not seen before:
- The difference in experience between saying/writing "I am seeing/hearing/doing" vs. just "seeing", "hearing", "doing"
- The fact that my thoughts still contain this "I" even though I'm extremely practiced at omitting "I" when I do noting practice.
- The very detailed composition of the experience of "I" -- the constrictions, their location, the sequence of thoughts/sensations
- The very loose correlation between a thought, "I am going to do X", and the actual doing of "X". That it is non-causative.
- That there is no choosing. Only thought and action.
- That effort is not a doing, but a set of sensations and thoughts

About one month ago I wrote that my experience of life was different than before I started working with you -- for example, "thoughts seem less compelling than they used to before I started this work. They really seem hardly worth paying attention to. There is still a habit of paying attention to them, but it's more easily dropped" -- but now life just seems normal. I wonder what is true. Is life still different but the label "normal" arises? Or was it different for a while, then changed back? Is it even possible to answer these questions? My thought now is that none of this matters at all. There is just experience.

On 5 Mar you wrote, "Where is the story of 'I' written down and chapters are beeing added? Is it a book, loose papers, a computer file?" I responded at length with some imagery. Now I think you were not asking for imagery, but were asking for my direct experience. In my direct experience, I cannot see where the story is written. My direct experience of the story is that it consists of some thoughts that arise from time to time. The story is not always present.

On 7 Mar we said this:

In the course of unmindful daily life, the thought "I am a person that won't be pushed around" never arises but the defensive reactions do arise. How do I know for sure that this thought is there if I typically do not perceive it?

Very good observation! If you don't perceive the thought, it isn't there. It looks like the thought doesn't have anything to do with the reaction.
Maybe things are happening in a different order and a self-image isn't the cause of it?

For example: Something happens -> uncomforable sensations arise -> reaction comes.
And then afterward a thought might say, "I am a person that won't be pushed around".

When I first read your reply, I didn't think you were right. My view was that some thoughts exist at an unconscious level and that they operate to generate action. This view seems consistent with Freudian psychology. But now I see your view and perhaps it is more true: that whatever happens to generate action is different from thought. When we use the word "thought" in the LU/Buddhist worldview, we are referring only to the voice in the head. Anything that is not the voice in the head is not called thought.

I will send this now, then continue.