Looking for a guide

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

You make your points very clearly, thank you! .... So, where shall we start?

how can I experience something if I don't exist?

Let's look at what we mean by 'existing' and 'not existing' ...

In order to communicate we use labels, words, to point to experience. "I" and "separate self" are two of these labels .... here are some other word labels:

• "the floor beneath your feet"
• "the internet"
• "the tooth fairy"

How do these labels relate to experience? Do they exist in experience? Take a moment to consider them ....

.... ok, so how do they compare?

The first label points directly to experience - physical sensations and visual impressions. The floor beneath your feet exists in experience. Do you agree?

What about "the internet"? Well, it certainly exists in a sense, and we can experience it in various ways, but really the label is just a way of talking about a whole set of loosely connected experiences. This label is an abstraction, it does not point to direct experience, but nevertheless, we can say that the internet does exist. Do you agree?

And how about the tooth fairy? This is a label we can use to make meaningful sentences, we can think about the tooth fairy, but (and I hope this does not come as a shock) the tooth fairy does not exist in experience, nor is the label "tooth fairy" an abstraction for some broader set of experiences .... the label, quite simply, points to nothing at all in experience, and so we say "the tooth fairy does not exist". If we find someone who believes in the tooth fairy, we might say that they suffer from an illusion, or that they have mistaken a mental construct for reality. Do you agree?

I'll assume you agreed with the above - it is not too controversial...

So coming back to the question quoted above: when you say "I experience something" what kind of label is "I" here? Your earlier answers imply that it is a label of the first kind (pointing to the experience of awareness), but look more closely at what "I" stands for when you actually think / say "I experience something" .... not when you consider philosophically what "I" could mean but what you actually mean when using the "I" word normally - does it point to some more complex mental construct than just 'awareness'?

To investigate this, it might help to witness what happens as the question arises ... sit quietly in awareness, and then bring the question to mind "how can I experience something if I don't exist?" .... notice the transition as the question takes form, and you may get a hint of what is meant by expressions like "creating the illusion of a separate self".

I still feel very strongly that i am the awareness that is watching life playing out

Can you investigate more closely the relationship between the labels "I" and "awareness"? When you say "I am the awareness...", do these terms mean EXACTLY the same thing as each other? Look closely at what you normally mean by each in turn ... Could you substitute one label for the other without changing the meaning of what you say? Or does "awareness" (as you normally use the word), really point to something other than what "I" (as you normally use the word), points to?

Have fun unwrapping the presents :-)

Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

I also feel you points are very clear.

In order to communicate we use labels, words, to point to experience. "I" and "separate self" are two of these labels .... here are some other word labels:

"the floor beneath your feet"
"the internet"
"the tooth fairy"


How do these labels relate to experience? Do they exist in experience? Take a moment to consider them ....

.... ok, so how do they compare?

The first label points directly to experience - physical sensations and visual impressions. The floor beneath your feet exists in experience. Do you agree?

What about "the internet"? Well, it certainly exists in a sense, and we can experience it in various ways, but really the label is just a way of talking about a whole set of loosely connected experiences. This label is an abstraction, it does not point to direct experience, but nevertheless, we can say that the internet does exist. Do you agree?

And how about the tooth fairy? This is a label we can use to make meaningful sentences, we can think about the tooth fairy, but (and I hope this does not come as a shock) the tooth fairy does not exist in experience, nor is the label "tooth fairy" an abstraction for some broader set of experiences .... the label, quite simply, points to nothing at all in experience, and so we say "the tooth fairy does not exist". If we find someone who believes in the tooth fairy, we might say that they suffer from an illusion, or that they have mistaken a mental construct for reality. Do you agree?

I'll assume you agreed with the above - it is not too controversial...

Yes I agree.

So coming back to the question quoted above: when you say "I experience something" what kind of label is "I" here? Your earlier answers imply that it is a label of the first kind (pointing to the experience of awareness), but look more closely at what "I" stands for when you actually think / say "I experience something" .... not when you consider philosophically what "I" could mean but what you actually mean when using the "I" word normally - does it point to some more complex mental construct than just 'awareness'?

To investigate this, it might help to witness what happens as the question arises ... sit quietly in awareness, and then bring the question to mind "how can I experience something if I don't exist?" .... notice the transition as the question takes form, and you may get a hint of what is meant by expressions like "creating the illusion of a separate self".

Can you investigate more closely the relationship between the labels "I" and "awareness"? When you say "I am the awareness...", do these terms mean EXACTLY the same thing as each other? Look closely at what you normally mean by each in turn ... Could you substitute one label for the other without changing the meaning of what you say? Or does "awareness" (as you normally use the word), really point to something other than what "I" (as you normally use the word), points to?

Interesting points which made me see or realize that the label "I" is a kind a label similar to "The internet". It points to an incredible complex abstraction made up of my awareness plus the sum of all the experiences, memory, thoughts and understandings that i ever have had. Its a mental construct.

The difference between "I" and "Awareness" is that "Awareness" is just aware while "I" is a label that also include all the memories of past experiences, thoughts, conditioning, conclusions etc.

So yes i see now that "I" is a mental construct and only exist as a mental construct.

What can be difficult is to distinguish between pure awareness and awareness mixed up with thoughts and labeling. Not even sure if i have ever experienced that.

My understanding is that awareness is the void in which the relative world exist and experiences are taking place within awareness (not the other way around). So does "awareness" exists?. My understanding is that things exist within awareness and awareness is the only absolute thing in reality. I guess you can compare it to a song that is played in silence. Without the silence in between the notes there would be no song. So does the silence exist? I guess you can say that the silence is the absolute reality and the sounds is the relative existence taking place in silence.

One question that come to my mind is "did the seeing or realization take place in pure awareness" or whats thoughts a part of it?

It feels like awareness was looking, saw something and the realization taking place in a split second and then afterwards followed all the thoughts, conclusion, understanding etc. It took me a while to express it in words and write it down here. So was the "seeing" done by pure awareness alone or a mixture of awareness and thoughts?

Can awareness only see or can awareness also know, understand and realize before the mind gets involved?

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

i see now that "I" is a mental construct and only exist as a mental construct.

That sounds promising!

My understanding is that awareness is the void (.....)

I wouldn't disagree, but let's avoid packaging this up in thought too soon. In the work we're doing here, it is best to stick to what can be verified by direct experience ... questions like whether awareness is the only absolute thing in reality are a bit too far removed from immediate experience to be useful right now.

awareness was looking, saw something and the realization taking place in a split second

So is this realisation still present? Or is it now dulled in a layer of thinking? Retrace the steps you took, take yourself back there, extend the split second, bathe in what was seen...

Also, can you also revisit the fear from earlier? What do you make of your concerns about free will and destiny now?

Very best wishes,

Perry

[laulund]

I wouldn't disagree, but let's avoid packaging this up in thought too soon. In the work we're doing here, it is best to stick to what can be verified by direct experience ... questions like whether awareness is the only absolute thing in reality are a bit too far removed from immediate experience to be useful right now.

Yes i agree that its more a intellectual speculation that direct experience.

So is this realisation still present? Or is it now dulled in a layer of thinking? Retrace the steps you took, take yourself back there, extend the split second, bathe in what was seen...

The realization of the difference between the label "I" and "awareness" is still there.

Also, can you also revisit the fear from earlier? What do you make of your concerns about free will and destiny now?

There is not really any fear about this anymore. It doesn't really matter if its one way or the other.

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

I would like to get a better sense of where you are at right now...

How would you describe what, if anything, has changed since we started? Is your perspective on life and experience any different from when we started? Or have we only been clearing things up on an intellectual level?

Do you have any questions still burning? Or doubts about what we have been doing?

How would you now respond when you hear the classic Liberation Unleashed line "there is no separate entity self in real life at all"?

If "I" don't exist, who is it that seeks liberation?

Can you answer your own question now? If so, how?

Lastly, here's a very famous, and very ancient, bit of advice as to how to live without the delusion of self, given to someone called Bahiya - you may well have seen it before... I wonder what you make of it? Can you relate to it?

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.

That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that.

When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there.
When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

Looking forward to hearing from you

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

Damn...it took me long time to write up the reply and when i finished and hit the "preview" button it all disappeared and i had to login and start all over, so here we go again.

How would you describe what, if anything, has changed since we started? Is your perspective on life and experience any different from when we started? Or have we only been clearing things up on an intellectual level?

First of all your question assumes that there is an "I" that can describe something which is not really the case, so in that sense the question is meaningless. Same with "Is your perspective on life....". It assume that there is someone that can have an perspective. However putting that aside with the understanding that we are using these words to keep the illusion alive, there was 2 major realizations that took place:

1. I saw the difference between the label "I" as it normally is used and "Pure awareness", which i before thought was the same. "I" is a label we use for "pure awareness" + past experiences etc. That is what makes the difference between you and I, since our awareness is the same

2. I have not seen any evidence, that my awareness takes any decisions and in any other way have any control over my thoughts, actions or my life. It made me open to the idea that life is happens without my control which created a subtle sense of peace which still seems to be there.

I am not 100% sure if this realization is only on the intellectual level.

Do you have any questions still burning? Or doubts about what we have been doing?

Yes. Why are we doing this? Who is trying to liberate who and from what?

What is this thing called awareness?
What is the nature of awareness?
What can awareness do?
Can awareness only see or does it also know and create?
Why does it exists in the first place?
Why can't life take place without awareness?

How would you now respond when you hear the classic Liberation Unleashed line "there is no separate entity self in real life at all"?

Yes i understand what you mean. Its the same as saying that the company "Apple" does not exist as a separate entity in the real world. Its just a name that Steve Jobs wrote on a paper somewhere.

If "I" don't exist, who is it that seeks liberation?

Can you answer your own question now? If so, how?

There is no separate entity the seeks liberation. There may be thoughts and desires about liberation caused by suffering, but those thoughts and desires are not owned by a separate entity. Suffering may happen and awareness can experience it, but the pain is not owned by a separate entity. The feelings of suffering, creates desires for liberation, but again these feelings and desires are not owned by a separate entity. The awareness is the silent witness that watch the whole liberation process taking place which is a natural part of life.

Lastly, here's a very famous, and very ancient, bit of advice as to how to live without the delusion of self, given to someone called Bahiya - you may well have seen it before... I wonder what you make of it? Can you relate to it?

Yes. In that state seeing, hearing, sensing and even cognition is happening effortless. Life is flowing.

Am I on right track or have i misunderstood the whole thing?

Regards
Henrik

[laulund]

One more question....

You are talking about seeing without a seer and thinking without a thinker etc.

Can there also be a realization with anyone realizing and liberation without anyone being liberated?

What exactly is liberation without anyone being liberated?

Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

it took me long time to write up the reply and when i finished and hit the "preview" button it all disappeared and i had to login and start all over

Ouch! On behalf of The Internet ... sorry!

First of all your question assumes that there is an "I" that can describe something which is not really the case, so in that sense the question is meaningless. Same with "Is your perspective on life....". It assume that there is someone that can have an perspective. However putting that aside with the understanding that we are using these words to keep the illusion alive

There is no intention to keep the illusion alive, quite the reverse! However, avoiding personal pronouns (I, you, me etc) is inconvenient and can sound a bit stilted, so we really just have to get used to taking them a bit less literally.

1. I saw the difference between the label "I" as it normally is used and "Pure awareness", which i before thought was the same. "I" is a label we use for "pure awareness" + past experiences etc. That is what makes the difference between you and I, since our awareness is the same

2. I have not seen any evidence, that my awareness takes any decisions and in any other way have any control over my thoughts, actions or my life. It made me open to the idea that life is happens without my control which created a subtle sense of peace which still seems to be there.

Good stuff!

Look really carefully at what arises in experience when you use the terms "my awareness", "my thoughts", "my life" and "my control" ....

... is there separation between the owner and the owned? Is there really an owner in experience? If so, what is the owner?

I am not 100% sure if this realization is only on the intellectual level.

Well, either way, it well worth while investigating some more:

Consider these two kinds of knowing:

• knowing/understanding (intellectual eg "lightning is electricity")
• knowing/seeing (experiential eg "this chair is hard")

Think of a real example of each kind of knowing. Explore what each is like in experience, how they are similar and different, how each kind of knowing is recognised for what it is, and how each kind of knowing affects the rest of experience.

.......

Take each of the questions raised in the last couple of posts:
- feel the urge to understand, and explore the urge itself.
- Which kind of knowledge is yearned for?
- How does it feel not to know?
- What would come from achieving knowledge?
- If it could be answered in experience, could it be liberating?

Here they are, for convenience:

Why are we doing this? Who is trying to liberate who and from what?
What is this thing called awareness?
What is the nature of awareness?
What can awareness do?
Can awareness only see or does it also know and create?
Why does it exists in the first place?
Why can't life take place without awareness?
Can there also be a realization with anyone realizing and liberation without anyone being liberated?
What exactly is liberation without anyone being liberated?

Having examined each question, put aside any questions that yearn for an intellectual solution, or which would not be liberating to answer in experience.

Which questions are left?

x
Perry

p.s.

Am I on right track or have i misunderstood the whole thing?

yes ;-)

[laulund]

Look really carefully at what arises in experience when you use the terms "my awareness", "my thoughts", "my life" and "my control" ....

... is there separation between the owner and the owned? Is there really an owner in experience? If so, what is the owner?

What arises is this thought of "I". I can see that it is a thought more than a separate identity.

The separation between the owner and the owned seems to be created by the mind.

The owner of the experience is just a thought.

Consider these two kinds of knowing:

knowing/understanding (intellectual eg "lightning is electricity")
knowing/seeing (experiential eg "this chair is hard")

Think of a real example of each kind of knowing. Explore what each is like in experience, how they are similar and different, how each kind of knowing is recognised for what it is, and how each kind of knowing affects the rest of experience.

Examples of intellectual knowledge:
The sun is the center of our solar system
Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen
Vegetarian food is healthy

Examples of experiential knowledge:
The sun is bright
Water is transparent
Vegetarian food is lighter to digest

Experiential knowledge is based on first hand experience and leaves no doubt. Intellectual knowledge is second hand and always leaves doubts up for discussion and speculation, like is it really true?

Take each of the questions raised in the last couple of posts:
- feel the urge to understand, and explore the urge itself.
- Which kind of knowledge is yearned for?
- How does it feel not to know?
- What would come from achieving knowledge?
- If it could be answered in experience, could it be liberating?

I think the urge is for direct experience.
Not knowing, creates never ending thought and speculations
It doesn't feel liberating not to know
If direct knowledge from experience was achieved liberation would follow

I somehow feel that all my questions are related to the same knowledge. I think they would be answered if i could get a direct experience of pure awareness without any thoughts involved. I guess that is the goal for yoga, also called Samadhi.

I know i shouldn't compare with out teachings, but taking about yoga, I wanted to ask you if you agree with the yogic view on The Self and the five bodies that covers the Self:

http://www.swamij.com/koshas.htm

My understanding is that according to yoga, the Self is also not considered a separate entity and the mind and intellect which thinks and takes decisions is not a part of the pure Self. However it is said that all thoughts and manifestations originate from this universal Self which others call God.

[laulund]

Hi Again,

I like to make an additional comment to your previous question:

How would you describe what, if anything, has changed since we started? Is your perspective on life and experience any different from when we started? Or have we only been clearing things up on an intellectual level?

I am not sure if I am tricking my self here with intellectual thoughts, but it seems that nothing has changed except that life has been going on with less effort the last few days. Like all efforts has been dropped. Its like, why bother with effort when you are not in control anyway. A friend of mine came to me with a problem. He was quite stressed out over it, and as I was looking at it i started laughing inside. I saw that the real problem was that he really thought it was him that was in control. Weather it is true or not that we are not in control, just looking at the world from this point of view makes quite a difference. I feel a bubbling laughter in my tummy. I see why its called the cosmic joke.

Now i really see the meaning in the famous quote:

When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

Why get stressed out. There is nothing to be done, yet everything is happening. There is nothing to control, yet everything is in control.

Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

What arises is this thought of "I". I can see that it is a thought more than a separate identity.

The separation between the owner and the owned seems to be created by the mind.

The owner of the experience is just a thought.

lovely!

Experiential knowledge is based on first hand experience and leaves no doubt. Intellectual knowledge is second hand and always leaves doubts up for discussion and speculation, like is it really true?

Yes, exactly.

I am not sure if I am tricking my self here with intellectual thoughts, but it seems that nothing has changed except that life has been going on with less effort the last few days. Like all efforts has been dropped. Its like, why bother with effort when you are not in control anyway. A friend of mine came to me with a problem. He was quite stressed out over it, and as I was looking at it i started laughing inside. I saw that the real problem was that he really thought it was him that was in control. Weather it is true or not that we are not in control, just looking at the world from this point of view makes quite a difference. I feel a bubbling laughter in my tummy. I see why its called the cosmic joke.

Now i really see the meaning in the famous quote:

When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

Why get stressed out. There is nothing to be done, yet everything is happening. There is nothing to control, yet everything is in control.

Wonderful, joy floods up reading this :-)

So, as you know, Liberation Unleashed has one aim: to help people to see through the illusion of self, to see that there is no separate entity behind the word ‘me’.

Would you say that there is now experiential knowledge that there is no separate entity behind the word "me"? Has this been seen directly in experience? Is there any doubt this has been seen this directly in experience?

When you were very little, you probably believed that Santa Claus was real. Once you discovered there was no Santa Claus, could you ever believe in him again? Now, how about 'self' - could you ever believe in 'self' again?

If so, notice how the doubt arises - is there any 'self' doing the doubting? Or do doubting thoughts simply arise and pass?

You say you are not sure whether you are tricking yourself with intellectual thoughts - within this play of thought and counter-thought, is there really any "I" doing the tricking, or any "self" to be tricked? Or are there just thoughts and feelings arising and passing?

Over a lifetime of believing in "self", mental and emotional habits build up based around this illusion. These habits do not instantly evaporate once the illusion is seen. Observing these habits returning, people often wonder whether they have really seen. Check, check, and check again - is there any actual self, or just a habitual idea of self? Even though the familiar FEELING of 'self' may return, look carefully, is there actually any self, or just a feeling? Re-examining in this way, the liberating effect of the original insight is gradually unleashed.

I somehow feel that all my questions are related to the same knowledge. I think they would be answered if i could get a direct experience of pure awareness without any thoughts involved. I guess that is the goal for yoga, also called Samadhi.

I know i shouldn't compare with out teachings [...]

Comparing teachings can be very interesting, but it is essential to enter fully into each one before making the comparison. Following one path, while making comparisons with the other along the way, will tend to create obstructions. Awareness-centred approaches (eg advaita vedanta) are different from no-self approaches .... perhaps they ultimately arrive at the same place, but their methods and stated goals are sufficiently different to make it very difficult to try to pursue both at the same time. Seeing through the illusion of self now will not prevent you from returning to an awareness-centred path later, but for now, let's stick to investigating the illusion of self.

For the purposes of this process, it would be helpful to look closely at this:

It doesn't feel liberating not to know

Can you investigate this feeling of non-liberation? How does not knowing become a sense of not being liberated? Is there really something that is not liberated, that is still 'bound', or is there just a sense of not knowing? There are many things not known, many things that may never be known ... is it possible to be liberated while knowing that some important things are profoundly mysterious?

What exactly is liberation without anyone being liberated?

I suspect that this can probably be answered directly from experience now - give it a try!

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

Would you say that there is now experiential knowledge that there is no separate entity behind the word "me"? Has this been seen directly in experience? Is there any doubt this has been seen this directly in experience?

I think I have seen it. However there is still this strong sense that I am the awareness. Not an acting or thinking awareness but a witnessing awareness. Within this awareness there is a constant rise of the thought of "I" but i can see that it is a thought. I can understand that what creates the feeling of separation is the memory of experiences which are all related to this body. I don't have any idea about how it would be to be aware without the memory of experiences related to this body. Without the thought of "I" involved.

When you were very little, you probably believed that Santa Claus was real. Once you discovered there was no Santa Claus, could you ever believe in him again? Now, how about 'self' - could you ever believe in 'self' again?

I think it will be hard to believe it again. By pure habit i quickly forget it when i return to my daily activity, but every time i am reminded of it and i check and look, i see that the "I" is just a thought that is there most of the time.

If so, notice how the doubt arises - is there any 'self' doing the doubting? Or do doubting thoughts simply arise and pass?

The doubting thoughts simply arise and pass. I get again this bubbling feeling of laughter in my tummy. A feeling of release.

You say you are not sure whether you are tricking yourself with intellectual thoughts - within this play of thought and counter-thought, is there really any "I" doing the tricking, or any "self" to be tricked? Or are there just thoughts and feelings arising and passing?

Its just thoughts and feelings arising and passing. Its so funny to look at.

Over a lifetime of believing in "self", mental and emotional habits build up based around this illusion. These habits do not instantly evaporate once the illusion is seen. Observing these habits returning, people often wonder whether they have really seen. Check, check, and check again - is there any actual self, or just a habitual idea of self? Even though the familiar FEELING of 'self' may return, look carefully, is there actually any self, or just a feeling? Re-examining in this way, the liberating effect of the original insight is gradually unleashed.

Yes i can related to this now. It makes good sense.

Can you investigate this feeling of non-liberation? How does not knowing become a sense of not being liberated? Is there really something that is not liberated, that is still 'bound', or is there just a sense of not knowing? There are many things not known, many things that may never be known ... is it possible to be liberated while knowing that some important things are profoundly mysterious?

I am looking and yes, it looks like it is just a sense of not knowing. Another chain of thoughts rising and passing. Of cause you can't know everything.

What exactly is liberation without anyone being liberated?

I suspect that this can probably be answered directly from experience now - give it a try!

Ok I will give it a try. Liberation is seeing that the thought of "I" or "separate self" is just another thought arising in awareness.

Then another though arises. But who is it that is seeing this?

Is it pure awareness that is seeing this or is the seeing taking place without a separation between the seer, the seen and the seeing?

I have one more question.

My understanding is that seeing through the illusion of "no separate self" should lead to freedom and end of suffering. But even with what i currently have seen, if I get hit by a car, i can hardly say that i would not suffer. I will still feel the pain even though i may be able to see that it is just feelings, sensations and thoughts arising in awareness. It will take some time for the pain it to pass. So how do i related to that?

Regards
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

Good progress!

Within this awareness there is a constant rise of the thought of "I" but i can see that it is a thought.

So the crude story of "I" is now recognised as a thought - good!

there is still this strong sense that I am the awareness. Not an acting or thinking awareness but a witnessing awareness.

This is a subtler sense of "I", this is where we need to investigate.

What is the difference between "I am the awareness" and "there is awareness"? Explore how experience restructures as you consider each. Which is more direct? Which involves more separation? Does "I am" add complexity to the experience or strip the experience back to something more fundamental?

Where is awareness? Listen.... where is awareness in sound? Notice the sensations in your feet ... where is awareness? Consider the vastness of space in all directions .... where is awareness then? Is awareness anywhere or everywhere or nowhere?

Is it pure awareness that is seeing this or is the seeing taking place without a separation between the seer, the seen and the seeing?

Look and find out!

If there is evidence of both in experience, then investigate: which comes first? Seeing, without separation, followed by the separation into labels 'awareness' and 'seen'? Or separate entities 'awareness' and 'the seen' which then join? Has there ever been awareness as a separate component of experience, or is awareness always in/of some content?

x
Perry

[laulund]

What is the difference between "I am the awareness" and "there is awareness"? Explore how experience restructures as you consider each. Which is more direct? Which involves more separation? Does "I am" add complexity to the experience or strip the experience back to something more fundamental?

Of cause "there is awareness" is more direct. "I am the awareness" involves separation between the seer and the seen, between object and subject.

Yes "I am" add complexity to the experience as there are 2 things involved instead of 1.

Where is awareness? Listen.... where is awareness in sound? Notice the sensations in your feet ... where is awareness? Consider the vastness of space in all directions .... where is awareness then? Is awareness anywhere or everywhere or nowhere?

Awareness seems to be everywhere. But I only experience a small part of it i am limited by my sense organs and mind.

If there is evidence of both in experience, then investigate: which comes first? Seeing, without separation, followed by the separation into labels 'awareness' and 'seen'? Or separate entities 'awareness' and 'the seen' which then join? Has there ever been awareness as a separate component of experience, or is awareness always in/of some content?

It seems more logical that "Seeing, without separation" comes first, followed by the separation into labels 'awareness' and 'seen'.

Has there ever been awareness as a separate component of experience, or is awareness always in/of some content?

I don't know but its difficult to imaging awareness without some content.

Regards
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

I have one more question.

My understanding is that seeing through the illusion of "no separate self" should lead to freedom and end of suffering. But even with what i currently have seen, if I get hit by a car, i can hardly say that i would not suffer. I will still feel the pain even though i may be able to see that it is just feelings, sensations and thoughts arising in awareness. It will take some time for the pain it to pass. So how do i related to that?

This is probably worth going into a little, since unrealistic expectations can get in the way, so let's take a short break from the investigation to fill in a bit of background...

Sometimes the distinction is made between primary and secondary suffering, or between pain and suffering. Liberation cannot prevent the arising of physical bodily pain, so you're right about being hit by a car still hurting.

Considering physical pain: the suffering that results tends to be much worse when compounded by fear, resistance, and the turmoil that comes from trying, ineffectually, to escape from one's experience. All of these secondary phenomena are bound up with self-view. Without self-view, it becomes possible to tolerate physical pain as pure sensation without mental and emotional turmoil. You might say that there is pain, but not anguish or suffering.

Then there are whole classes of emotional, mental and existential anguish (aka secondary suffering) which are also bound up with self-view, and which therefore eventually fade once the illusion of self is seen through.

It is also worth mentioning that seeing through the illusion of self is, really, the start of liberation rather than the end - it can take a long time for all the habits built up while under the illusion of self to fully unwind... so one should not expect seeing through the illusion of self to instantly transform all one's experience.

sooooooooo .... after that quick diversion, back to the investigation!

The replies to the last set of questions were 'correct' .... except that, of course, coming up with 'correct' replies is not the point - the intention is to see into direct experience with a fresh eye, which didn't really come across in the replies ("of course", "seems more logical", "difficult to imagine" .... a bit removed). We've been looking at really quite subtle subtle aspects of experience, so it is not surprising to find experience and interpretation influencing each other.

If you feel inclined, you might like to look again at yesterday's questions and confirm whether the answers can be found in direct experience - but don't force it if it does not feel fruitful.

____________________________

Let's review and see where we are up to:

Thoughts do not require a thinker, this was known before the investigation begun

Decisions to not require a decider - this was discovered early on in the investigation

"I" is a thought not a real entity - this was realised a few days ago

There was still a strong sense that "I am awareness", yet it seems that this separation (between "I" and "awareness") is created from undivided awareness ... though perhaps this is just logically accepted, not experienced... can this be answered from experience? "Awareness is impersonal and unowned" ... "I am awareness" ... do either of these resonate with direct experience?

If a question arises like "but who is it that is aware?" .... is this a real question with a real answer? If it is raining, can you point to the "it" that is raining?

Thoughts, feelings, awareness, sensations ... all are real components of direct experience. However, is there really an "I" or "self" in any shape or form?

Does any doubt remain about seeing through the illusion of a separate self?

x
Perry