Looking for a guide

[laulund]

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.

Understood. Its very clear now.

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?

I think I have problem seeing/understanding what "undivded awareness" is?

How would you explain to a 12 year old child what it undivded awareness is?

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?

Again. I can explain what rain is. It is water falling from the sky. But i can not explain what awareness is. What makes the difference between an experience with or without awareness. Are animals aware?

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

I understand intellectually, but there is still some doubt if i have seen it.

Btw....when you say "separate self" do you mean the idea that awareness is divided into subject and object, or the the idea that there is an individual self that is separate from an universal self?

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

The urge to understand is strong, yes? Good, that is a big part of what brought us here!

Remember the exercises concerning intellectual vs experiential knowledge?

It is important to channel this urge to understand towards examining experience rather than searching for new ideas - "answers" that come in the form of a new idea do not satisfy for long, and they liberate not a jot.

I can explain what rain is. It is water falling from the sky. But i can not explain what awareness is.

I cannot explain what awareness is either, nor can I help you to explain it. I suspect that nobody can.

Fortunately, we don't need to explain awareness, or anything else for that matter - we need only see clearly the nature of experience, and specifically, to see clearly how the illusion of a separate self is created ... not to UNDERSTAND how it is created, but to actually WITNESS the creation of the illusion.

So you've asked a couple of times what I mean by 'separate self' ... OK, let's go into this a bit ... but remember that the reason for discussing this is to help direct attention to certain aspects of experience, not just to satisfy intellectual curiosity. I am here to guide, not teach, though sometimes a little teaching is necessary to the guiding...

The first thing, of course, is to remember that there is no separate self in reality ... the separate self is an illusion, a mistake, a fantasy. Discussing the 'separate self' is like discussing the unicorn. 'Separate self' is an idea people have, the idea of some singular entity that controls, thinks, owns.... and most people mistakenly assume that this idea must correspond with some real entity. Children have the idea of Santa Claus, and assume that there must therefore BE a Santa Claus, but at some point they realise that this is a label that points to nothing. The idea of a separate self is essentially similar, but a little more stubborn.

So why 'separate' self? Simply because the illusion creates a sense of 'me' separate from 'the world' - yes, as you say, subject from object. Separation is the essence of the illusion. This sense of separation is constantly being created, which is why investigating the sense of separation can be a gateway to witnessing the creation of the illusion.

This is not theory - this is available for discovery in immediate experience. Understanding this theoretically will not change much, but witnessing the process can be a very worthwhile discovery.

Enough background information for now - back to the enquiry!

A week or so ago, you realised that "I" was not an actual entity, but a label that pointed to a complex abstraction made up of experiences, memories, thoughts and understandings. Before this realisation, "I" unconsciously meant something more separate, more 'entity-like' than after the realisation, yes? So the illusion begins to crumble! Yet subtler versions of the same illusion remain.

Now let's investigate the remaining illusion, directly in experience. The questions that follow don't require answers, as such, but each can serve as the basis for some minutes' meditative examination:

What does "I" mean now? How has the meaning of "I" changed over the last couple of weeks? If the thought "I am awareness" arises, then explore this thought - can you make the thought arise at will? Does the thought create a sense of resolution? What thought follows?

When you consider "I", where is the boundary between "I" and "not I"? What lies between? Explore the sense of separation. Is it possible to make the separation stronger or weaker? Do you ever notice separation arising? Is there ever a 'before separation', even momentarily?

Experiment with what happens as you consider "I", "me", "self" ... settle into a relaxed, broad awareness, then bring one of these ideas to mind. The aim is not to pick apart the idea itself, but to notice how introducing and using the term affects the totality of thoughts and feelings, the 'shape' of inner experience.

Take it slowly, witness don't think, and enjoy!

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

The urge to understand is strong, yes?

Yes.

What does "I" mean now? How has the meaning of "I" changed over the last couple of weeks? If the thought "I am awareness" arises, then explore this thought - can you make the thought arise at will? Does the thought create a sense of resolution? What thought follows?

When you consider "I", where is the boundary between "I" and "not I"? What lies between? Explore the sense of separation. Is it possible to make the separation stronger or weaker? Do you ever notice separation arising? Is there ever a 'before separation', even momentarily?

The boundary between "I" and "Not I" seems to be fear. There is a feeling of fear associated with not being separate from the world. Fear of blending in with the world and being totally naked. Not being able to hide ones inner thoughts. Fear of letting go. The feeling of "Not I" gives the sensation of letting go, relaxing completely, surrender. The thought of a separate "I" seems to create tension that hold onto or hide something. A protection mechanism. I notice separation can rise in situations where you are asked a question that you don't want to answer. Tension is created, an attitude of rejection and separation is created.

Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

Very good observation - maybe not comfortable, but good! Fear is often a sign of looking in the right place ;-)

You've found a really good place to work, I suggest you spend a bit of time exploring here some more, and particularly investigating the fear itself ....

Some pointers to how to investigate:

• Don't work with a memory of the fear (dealing with memories usually just to lead to theoretical speculation) .... instead, learn how to create it, then it can be investigated directly. Retrace the steps you took last time, find out which thoughts and reflections actually provoke the reaction.
• how do you know to call it 'fear'? 'Fear' is a label ... strip away the label, and what are the sensations in direct experience that are left?
• explore that-which-is-feared (ie blending, nakedness, letting go and so on) ... recognise that these are stories, thoughts and feelings, nothing that can actually harm. What changes as they become familiar?

If "I" is just a thought, then in the absence of this thought, what is left?

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

explore that-which-is-feared (ie blending, nakedness, letting go and so on) ... recognise that these are stories, thoughts and feelings, nothing that can actually harm. What changes as they become familiar?

Below these fears are fear of being blamed, not accepted, pointed at, laughed at, judged, being made wrong, rejected etc....in short the fear of not being loved/accepted.

how do you know to call it 'fear'? 'Fear' is a label ... strip away the label, and what are the sensations in direct experience that are left?

The sensation is the pain of being hurt, beaten up both physically and emotionally. There is a sensation of sadness/crying/depression.

Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

A quick 'safety check' ... it is hard to judge from your reply whether you have been able to investigate these experiences without falling into dark emotional states ... I believe so, but best to check.

As you probably realise, it is possible to investigate quite difficult emotional states without identifying with them, without believing the story they are telling, and without being overcome by them ... in which case, although there may be be uncomfortable feelings, the exploration is safe and has the taste of freedom.

On the other hand, it is possible to uncover emotional states that trigger identification, and that therefore overwhelm, and can lead into a spiral of negative emotion.

Fear is very closely bound up with the illusion of self, and so can be a very valuable area to explore, but only if the exploration happens without spiralling into dark emotional states.... so before we go any further, could I just check whether you have been able to investigate these feelings without identifying with them?

In other words, after doing these exercises, have you ended up feeling depressed, for example? If so, then we'll find another tack - don't bother reading the rest of this post.

OK, so I'll assume that you were able to experience the fear and other feelings without becoming overwhelmed, in which case, let us look a little more.....

The boundary between "I" and "Not I" seems to be fear. There is a feeling of fear associated with not being separate from the world. Fear of blending in with the world and being totally naked. Not being able to hide ones inner thoughts. Fear of letting go. The feeling of "Not I" gives the sensation of letting go, relaxing completely, surrender. The thought of a separate "I" seems to create tension that hold onto or hide something. A protection mechanism. I notice separation can rise in situations where you are asked a question that you don't want to answer. Tension is created, an attitude of rejection and separation is created.
...
Below these fears are fear of being blamed, not accepted, pointed at, laughed at, judged, being made wrong, rejected etc....in short the fear of not being loved/accepted.
...
The sensation is the pain of being hurt, beaten up both physically and emotionally. There is a sensation of sadness/crying/depression.

So "no-separation" seems to be dangerous, exposed, risking the pain of attack and rejection, yes? And creating a sense of "separate I" serves to protect, to create security?

OK, so let's explore these two poles (separation/protection and no-separation/threat). Take some time to explore each in turn, entering into each state as fully as possible (in the case of 'no-separation' this may be limited to exploring the fear that comes up when imagining such a state)

First, in each case, make sure you are clear about what direct experience is involved in that state ... direct experiences like 'tense stomach muscles' or 'long spaces between thoughts', ie the basic components of raw experience by which the states are recognised.

Then, in each state, look at what it is that is either protected or threatened. 'Protection' is more than just preventing an event from occurring - it implies that there is something protected ... so what is it that is protected?

Can what is protected/threatened be found in direct experience? Is it an assumption, a reality, or something else?

Look really carefully, and look again - spend a bit of time over this. Intellectually, the answer may be obvious, but we are looking for experiential knowledge

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

so before we go any further, could I just check whether you have been able to investigate these feelings without identifying with them?

Yes I don't feel that identify with the feelings or are affected by them. Its just a very subtle sense.

So "no-separation" seems to be dangerous, exposed, risking the pain of attack and rejection, yes? And creating a sense of "separate I" serves to protect, to create security?

It funny, when i look now, i see a fear below the other fear which has more to do with fear of loosing. Fear of loosing others accept which mean loneliness, fear of being separated. So paradoxically the fear of being separate creates separation.

Then, in each state, look at what it is that is either protected or threatened. 'Protection' is more than just preventing an event from occurring - it implies that there is something protected ... so what is it that is protected?

What is being protected/threatened is the feelings or the heart. Like in the expression "a broken heart" or "hurt feelings."

Can what is protected/threatened be found in direct experience? Is it an assumption, a reality, or something else?

It can be felt as feelings/sensations in the heart area, but when looking closer it is mixed up with images/thoughts/pictures of a crying baby, which does not exist in reality.

Regards,
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

the fear of being separate creates separation

Indeed! The sense of separation is created through a kind of dance, a play of thoughts, feelings, hopes and fears about "self" and "other" ... the sense of separation is not given, not fundamentally real, but created

Do you agree that 'separation' is created rather than discovered? Has this been witnessed?

Do you agree that the separation of experience into "self" and "other" is an ADDITION to the wholeness of direct experience? Has this been witnessed?

If "self" and "other" are created, then is believing in "self" any less deluded than believing in Santa Claus?

x
Perry

[laulund]

Do you agree that 'separation' is created rather than discovered? Has this been witnessed?

Yes i have witnessed that separation can be increase and reduced.

Do you agree that the separation of experience into "self" and "other" is an ADDITION to the wholeness of direct experience? Has this been witnessed?

Yes if you mean the experience of things flowing without thinking.

If "self" and "other" are created, then is believing in "self" any less deluded than believing in Santa Claus?

No.

Regards
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

We've been looking into some very raw and delicate areas - existential feelings of nakedness, vulnerability, fear ... exploring the very basis of your sense of being in the world. It takes courage to look here so honestly - well done!

This is a very fruitful area to look into clearly ... but at the same time, we need to be gentle and to allow space for these experiences to be, not to push to hard...

The last few days I've been directing and questioning quite pointedly - perhaps it's time to take a break from that for a while, to leave some space and see what emerges into the space

... so how are you feeling about the journey right now? Is there anything you'd like to bring up? Maybe you could allow yourself to just 'ramble' a bit about the process so far and where you feel "you" are at?

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

I got sick from food poisoning so I am fine with taking a break for some days. How do we communicate when to start again?

... so how are you feeling about the journey right now? Is there anything you'd like to bring up? Maybe you could allow yourself to just 'ramble' a bit about the process so far and where you feel "you" are at?

i feel that i have a good understanding what is meant by no separate self, but I still think that it is more intellectual that direct experience.

Regards
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

I didn't actually mean pausing the dialogue, but just a bit of a change of gear, an opportunity to open out, review, check whether anything had been left behind or needed attention... I'd rather not break off from daily communication altogether if possible

... that said, if you're ill and don't feel up to writing, then of course, take a break, and I hope you feel better soon!

I'd still like to respond to your last post, though:

i feel that i have a good understanding what is meant by no separate self, but I still think that it is more intellectual that direct experience.

good - intellectual clarity is very valuable, you know what you're looking for!

So how does intellectual clarity become knowing in experience?

If you are intellectually convinced that there is, in reality, no actual separate entity "I", but you still believe on some level that there is an "I", then there is a 'cognitive dissonance', an unresolved tension, a quandary, and this is the energy that can drive your investigation. Do you feel this?

Of course, the nature of this investigation is a bit odd, in a way ... the aim is to discover that something does not exist, but how is it possible to have a direct experience of the absence of something?

By searching exhaustively for "I", and seeing clearly the nature of anything that claims to be "I" ... you have already dismissed a few candidates (eg 'the decider') ... is there anything in experience that is not "just happening"? Thoughts and feelings ... just happening! Decisions .... just happening! Sense of separateness .... just happening! Awareness .... just happening! Where is the "self" that is making any of this happen?

If you're laid up sick for while, this might be an opportunity to play a bit of a game - track down anything that claims to be "I" or "self", and look carefully into the actual experience ... investigate every belief that there MUST be a "self" or "I", and ask if it is true in experience .... what is left?

get well soon!

x
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

Ok i am also feeling well again now.

If you are intellectually convinced that there is, in reality, no actual separate entity "I", but you still believe on some level that there is an "I", then there is a 'cognitive dissonance', an unresolved tension, a quandary, and this is the energy that can drive your investigation. Do you feel this?

Yes.

Of course, the nature of this investigation is a bit odd, in a way ... the aim is to discover that something does not exist, but how is it possible to have a direct experience of the absence of something?

Yes agree.

By searching exhaustively for "I", and seeing clearly the nature of anything that claims to be "I" ... you have already dismissed a few candidates (eg 'the decider') ... is there anything in experience that is not "just happening"? Thoughts and feelings ... just happening! Decisions .... just happening! Sense of separateness .... just happening! Awareness .... just happening! Where is the "self" that is making any of this happen?

I still feel stuck in the sense that there is an "I" that experience my awareness and separation. There is still the witness that experience that experience, even if there was no separation.

Regards,
Henrik

[perrym]

Hi Henrik,

I'm glad you're feeling better!

I still feel stuck in the sense that there is an "I" that experience my awareness and separation. There is still the witness that experience that experience, even if there was no separation.

There are a few things that stand out here... none of this is new ground, but let's look again:

First, the trick language plays by forcing us to think in terms of subject-doing-action ... so to revisit an example from a week or so ago, we say "it is raining" even though the "it" is meaningless. With that particular example, there is no illusion - nobody nowadays really thinks that there is an "it" that is doing the raining.

However, can you imagine what it would be like to assume that there must really be an "it" when "it is raining"? Maybe "it" is a sky god .... ok, so nobody has ever seen this sky god, but rain cannot just happen ... if there is rain, there must be a rainer! It's obvious, isn't it?

So what is the sky god "it"?

Take a bit of time to enter into these two perspectives - "rain arising in dependence upon conditions" and "it [unseen sky god] is raining" .... notice the difference in feeling between these two perspectives, even though the direct experience in either case would be exactly the same.

What about human experience, "your" experience ... if there is experience, then there must be an experiencer! It's obvious, isn't it? Or is it? So what is this experiencer?

.... Or is experience simply arising in dependence upon conditions?

Can you enter into these two perspectives - "experience arising in dependence upon conditions" and "I am experiencing" ... notice the difference in feeling between these two perspectives.

By force of habit, "I am experiencing" is, of course, more familiar, and in that sense, perhaps, more convincing ... however, can you find this "witness" separate from "witnessing", or is it as elusive as the sky god?

If this 'witness' can be found apart from 'witnessing', then what qualities does it have? Is it personal or impersonal? Changing or unchanging? Boundless or contained?

I had intended to draw out more strands from the quote at the start, but that's enough for now!

best wishes,
Perry

[laulund]

Hi Perry,

I can understand how it can rain without there being a rainer, but i can not really understand how there can be an experience without an experiencer.

If this 'witness' can be found apart from 'witnessing', then what qualities does it have? Is it personal or impersonal? Changing or unchanging? Boundless or contained?

It feels personal all though i intellectually can accept that it may not be personal, in which case me witnessing would be the same as you witnessing, just like there are several fingers on the same hand.

The witness is unchanging and boundless.

Regards
Henrik