Try Again

[FDM]

Hi Rali

it is just a matter of time for thought to reorganise – just keep on noticing what is actually here. Even that happens on its own effortlessly :)

Thanks for the encouragement!

Can there really be a sensation “connected with wanting”? Sensations are just that – feeling (a want to say sensing but unfortunately English is weird). Can sensations know anything about anything? That is only the field of thoughts ;)

No to both questions. (I didn't explain it well, but with the example I wanted to indicate that even the same sensations - as they are quite vague and not clearly delineated in my experience - could get a very different label.)

You keep saying “in DE”, is DE a special mode of seeing or is it where we look at what is actually here?

I realize I've been doing that. Probably because - from the habitual thinking mode's perspective - it takes some effort to take off the mental blinders temporarily, I label this as a special mode instead of simply reality.
Maybe I should turn the tables and - just in this post - start using TM whenever I'm not talking about reality but about the habitual thinking mode's perspective.

As you are not the thinker, can you will that thinking happens in a certain way?

No.
I notice that - superficially - there are two perspectives: DE and TM.
However, TM can only be a part of DE!
I appear to be looking for and returning to DE, but even when deep into mental constructs, I can never be out of it as they still have to appear in experience. It's just that I'm only suing a small portion of the available reality bandwidth then.

How are objects different from ‘others’? Why were objects easier? What about animals?

Thought differentiates between things, animals and people.
Without thought they're all sense impressions. No difference, really.

Objects are easier because - in TM - people are covered with a lot more thought-baggage.
Alone in nature, I might burst out in song or do one of Monty Python's silly walks. When people are noticed in the distance, I start walking "normally". Animals, trees, buildings don't have that effect. When other humans are noticed I immediately "know" myself as part of a human community with its norms to make life run smoothly.

However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

There is no person in actual experience: it's obviously a label, a thought composite, like the screen icons you referred to. Seeing, colour and shapes, thoughts and then possibly other sense impressions and related thoughts.
It's easy to see and observe from behind my desk as I'm typing this. In the heat of experience, TM takes the lead. (I'm encouraged that you said it's a matter of time before the not-I "virus" gets to this eventually.)

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just sensing? Are others outside of sensing? Where is the border that marks where sensing ends and "other" begin?

There is one total impression in which I and the other are carved out as positions to which a story is added in TM. So others are not outside of sensing.
Touching a piece of trash and touching another human being is still just touching - pressure on the body surface - and it's the story behind it (from TM) that makes all the difference. I probably touch a hundred things every day; with humans thought spins a lot of extra stories.
So in experience no border can be discerned. (Similar to the exercise of sitting on a chair you gave earlier this month.)

Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

Without thought, there is no difference between here and there; space (like time) is a thought category imposed on what we see.
(The irony is, as I'm writing this with full conviction, I see a heron flying by outside and I realize that even though I know, and I talk the talk, I still don't walk the walk. At least it only took me two seconds to realize that.)

Are others somehow outside of seeing? What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right?

Others are not outside of seeing either. Enemy, stranger and friend are all colour and shape, but they come with very different thought content.

How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

As thought divides seeing into seer and seen, it must also divide the seeing into colours and then shapes.
With the subject-object division, it's easy to see that there is no border in my seeing. This is not so with colours. My every-day looking (without magnifying it a 1000 times) discerns a difference. On this screen, the black letters and the white background allow me to read. (I can only magnify this 500 times.) Of course, to seeing, this makes no difference (the same as in touch).

When looking at this picture (...)
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour (seeing)?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘children’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

(1) So there is one seeing and the mind imposes the divisions and the labels.
(2) Between the children there is colour, no gap.
(3) Colours and shapes are so much part of my seeing, that I cannot see anything without them. So your instruction to ignore all colour labels is very difficult. So I keep seeing a dividing line. (I keep comparing it with the sitting exercise where I don't find a dividing line between the body and the seat in the sensation of sitting, but in seeing there remains a difference.)
What am I missing here?

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

Objects are easier because - in TM - people are covered with a lot more thought-baggage.

Yes!! Remember, anything that is a part of our lives takes on a certain objective form, and has a certain meaning based on our subjective relationship to and with it. People are usually more “relationship-heavy” than for example a “table”, so it is normal for them to be more often the subject of a thought. Obviously, there is also a lot of conditioning when it comes to “dealing with people” so it’s only fair if that takes the most time to see through, but generally becomes much lighter than before.

When people are noticed in the distance, I start walking "normally". Animals, trees, buildings don't have that effect. When other humans are noticed I immediately "know" myself as part of a human community with its norms to make life run smoothly.

And that is part of that interdependence on the cause and effect level. The fact, that they are not what thought describes them to be, does not mean that there is nothing there. Just watch for should’s and should-not’s when it comes to thoughts. This is what reveals usually the resistance to what is, so validity of these thoughts is worth exploring. Ultimately, though, all is perfect the way it is, because it can’t be any other way. It just is the way it is right now - THIS. Is there “good” or “bad” outside of thought?

It's easy to see and observe from behind my desk as I'm typing this. In the heat of experience, TM takes the lead. (I'm encouraged that you said it's a matter of time before the not-I "virus" gets to this eventually.)

Yes. The falling away of old beliefs happens whether you “do work on that” or just “rest in being”, the process takes care of itself. Sometimes it is intense, sometimes it’s gentle, but there is no landing, only falling deeper and deeper into peace. In the end, all that is left is surrender. Do you remember when you learned how to ride a bicycle? At first, you couldn't ride it. Then, there a was a moment when you suddenly succeeded in riding it. Then for the first two or three rides it might have been a bit awkward. Then, it becomes so natural that you don't care about how to ride it anymore. You simply ride it, and it's indeed simple!

Touching a piece of trash and touching another human being is still just touching - pressure on the body surface - and it's the story behind it (from TM) that makes all the difference. I probably touch a hundred things every day; with humans thought spins a lot of extra stories.

For me that was a big pointer – feeling the “energy” of another person as one with “your own”. I must have looked weird touching people and being excited :)))

(The irony is, as I'm writing this with full conviction, I see a heron flying by outside and I realize that even though I know, and I talk the talk, I still don't walk the walk. At least it only took me two seconds to realize that.)

Like I said, it doesn’t necessarily change how you see (the icons on the desktop)- it’s not as it can “physically change” – it is as it has always been. It’s not like the “I” and "others" existed before and they've been destroyed. They simply never existed. Just the description changes – the illusion is seen but that doesn’t mean it disappears. Even though you know that a mirage in the dessert is an illusion you still see it the same way, but you know that you won’t get water from it :).

My every-day looking (without magnifying it a 1000 times) discerns a difference. On this screen, the black letters and the white background allow me to read. (I can only magnify this 500 times.) Of course, to seeing, this makes no difference (the same as in touch).

But of course there is a difference, the question is though, are there colours and seeing them, or just seeing (verb) – a flux? Are colours an object of seeing or its attribute?

(3) Colours and shapes are so much part of my seeing, that I cannot see anything without them. So your instruction to ignore all colour labels is very difficult. So I keep seeing a dividing line. (I keep comparing it with the sitting exercise where I don't find a dividing line between the body and the seat in the sensation of sitting, but in seeing there remains a difference.)
What am I missing here?

Thoughts work with absolutes and opposites – black, white…If you actually look at the shirts or the skin of the children, are they solid colours or a whole spectre of colours? It’s only when the colours are contrasting we take them as borders, while it is just colour (seeing) taking all its possible “values”. Even in science, from physics point of view, colours are just light behaving differently, so shades of colour are still light. The same way a sensation has “up’s” and “down’s” in sensitivity, or hearing has “highs” and “lows” in volume. Does that make sense?

How is life these days? Is there still seeking?
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

Is there “good” or “bad” outside of thought?

No.

I have to say that I've been thinking a lot of how kindness and truth fit in. Those two, kindness (or morality) and truth have been like beacons in life. And part of me was afraid I would have to let them go.

I know that LU has something about not engaging in philosophical speculation or debate, so you don't have to read the rest of the answer, but it would be good to know if I'm seeing this correctly or not.

If "I" has become an illusion, then it seems that truth and morality also have to go.

While good and bad are only thought constructs, thought is part of reality and considering all the other constructs and ideas that are around, it's a very good thing to have ideas of good and bad as a scale for weighing other thoughts, without needing therefore to assign an absolute reality to them.
If you're living with an imaginary wild animal, it would be the compassionate thing to provide you with an imaginary fence to have around it.
And as long as there's a strong belief in the idea of "I", then it's a good thing that ideas of good and bad (and agency and freedom of choice) follow in its wake.

The same thing with truth. Truth is thought, as are lies. And the distinction between them only makes sense in thought. However illusory, it's a very good distinction to have to measure all the other thought illusions with. Once we start making divisions in thought, this is an excellent division to have.

I'm not sure if I'm seeing clearly or if I'm clearly trying to save some concepts and ideas that have meant so much to me.
(End of speculation.)

the question is though, are there colours and seeing them, or just seeing (verb) – a flux? Are colours an object of seeing or its attribute?

It's attribute, not the object of seeing.

If you actually look at the shirts or the skin of the children, are they solid colours or a whole spectre of colours? (...) The same way a sensation has “up’s” and “down’s” in sensitivity, or hearing has “highs” and “lows” in volume. Does that make sense?

That makes sense. The shirt, the skin, etc. show a whole spectre of colours.

How is life these days? Is there still seeking?

Life is much the same as before. I have to admit that recently there haven't been any occasions - no big or minor tragedies, no annoyance, fears, names, sticks or stones - to test this new perspective I'm slowly acquiring. That could be a reliable sign

As far as seeking is concerned: yes and no. I know I have found the "gate": I know exactly where it is (right here!), but I haven't walked through - while knowing that I needn't take one step to move through. Of course, since this is new territory, I wouldn't know how to evaluate this: but if I start running towards the mirage in the desert less than 50% of the time, that would be a valid indicator that something has shifted I guess.

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

I have to say that I've been thinking a lot of how kindness and truth fit in. Those two, kindness (or morality) and truth have been like beacons in life. And part of me was afraid I would have to let them go.

I think you are overthinking it (pun intended) :)
“Kindness”, “truth” these are just concepts based on other concepts and yet they also describe sensations. When you “do something kind” – there is so much openness and love that you feel around the “heart area”, there is ease and lightness and peace – that kind of sensation. Then think of a time when you did something unkind and remember the feeling… Yes ultimately sensations are sensations and they don’t mean anything. There is also a general feeling of “flow” where everything goes smoothly and easily – the path of least resistance. Remember thinking is a tool. Think of a lie – like “the sun won’t show up tomorrow” or “I know everything about everything” (come up with something relevant) – feel the sensations… Then think of something “true” – like “The sun will come out tomorrow” … - feel these sensations. The fact that these concepts are empty does not mean that they are not pointing to anything. That has to be seen! Yes they don’t have an absolute meaning –what is true for me is not necessarily true for you, similarly with “kind”. That needs to be seen too. I would suggest starting with the beliefs that give you the strongest resistance in everyday life – the should’s and should-not’s – beliefs about how what is should or should not be like that. Truth on a general level could be anything and nothing. True is what is. Kindness comes from understanding that we don’t make decisions and “nobody” can be blamed. Do you see how the meaning shifts a bit? You will see many shifts while exploring all beliefs…Philosophy is just a fun exercise but somewhat impractical. Everyday life is where it all happens. In the end of the day “you” can’t get rid of anything it will reorganise itself around the DE :)

Here is the “Heart sutra”. Maybe it will help you answer your question:
Avalokiteshvara
while practicing deeply with
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore,
suddenly discovered that
all of the five Skandhas are equally empty,
and with this realisation
he overcame all Ill-being.

“Listen Sariputra,
this Body itself is Emptiness
and Emptiness itself is this Body.
This Body is not other than Emptiness
and Emptiness is not other than this Body.
The same is true of Feelings,
Perceptions, Mental Formations,
and Consciousness.

“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing.

“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.

The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
which are the six Sense Organs,
the six Sense Objects,
and the six Consciousnesses
are also not separate self entities.

The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising
and their Extinction
are also not separate self entities.
Ill-being, the Causes of Ill-being,
the End of Ill-being, the Path,
insight and attainment,
are also not separate self entities.

Whoever can see this
no longer needs anything to attain.

Bodhisattvas who practice
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
see no more obstacles in their mind,
and because there
are no more obstacles in their mind,
they can overcome all fear,
destroy all wrong perceptions
and realize Perfect Nirvana.

“All Buddhas in the past, present and future
by practicing
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
are all capable of attaining
Authentic and Perfect Enlightenment.

“Therefore Sariputra,
it should be known that
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
is a Great Mantra,
the most illuminating mantra,
the highest mantra,
a mantra beyond compare,
the True Wisdom that has the power
to put an end to all kinds of suffering.
Therefore let us proclaim
a mantra to praise
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore.

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!”

As far as seeking is concerned: yes and no. I know I have found the "gate": I know exactly where it is (right here!), but I haven't walked through - while knowing that I needn't take one step to move through. Of course, since this is new territory, I wouldn't know how to evaluate this: but if I start running towards the mirage in the desert less than 50% of the time, that would be a valid indicator that something has shifted I guess

Again, is there anything outside of life/THIS that can “walk through the gate” ? These are just thoughts about a “gate” etc. Is there any doubt that there is no self/”I”? Is it playing hide and seek? Where else can you look to find it? Doubt (doubtful thoughts) can be here for a while – swinging between “I get it” and “I don’t get it”. At the end of the day what is here to get it? Thoughts? …Once it is seen that these are just thoughts finding their way, empty thoughts, "doubt" disappear and only doubtful thoughts remain. Does that mean that there is an “I” in there?

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Good morning Rali

The heart sutra is wonderful. It used to be recited frequently by a Buddhist group I was involved with a long time ago. It makes a lot more sense now than it did then. It used to sound a bit mysterious, but I'm struck by how clearly it spells things out, repeatedly: no self entities.

Again, is there anything outside of life/THIS that can “walk through the gate” ?

Certainly not.

Is there any doubt that there is no self/”I”?

There is no doubt that there is no self/I.
There is still a "sense" of me most of the time - but I realize these are thoughts combined with some vague sensations. And throughout the day I question it with:
--> "Who is + verb" (Who is thinking; who is walking; who is hungry; etc.). This is almost a little ritual: sometimes I get to an answer like "conditioned thought patterns", but most of the time, the moment I become aware of a self-formation, the question, before I've even asked it, is already crumbling.
--> The other question I've been using frequently is "What is here". I like this one a little better because it doesn't have this useless detour to an "I" and it also immediately redirects to the senses (a fuller perspective than just thought).

I'm not using them like mantra's, but they come up occasionally and their simplicity seems to have the power to cut through the mental fog immediately.

Is it playing hide and seek? Where else can you look to find it?

Nowhere. So there is also no urge whatsoever to go on a useless quest for ghosts or to play hide and seek with nothing.
That doesn't mean that ghosts don't appear all the time, but I have my magic magnifying glass lying next to me to investigate closer and nothing is ever found when I use it.

Doubt (doubtful thoughts) can be here for a while – swinging between “I get it” and “I don’t get it”. At the end of the day what is here to get it? Thoughts?

Right. At the end of the day it makes no difference: both in getting and not getting there is still no "I".

Once it is seen that these are just thoughts finding their way, empty thoughts, "doubt" disappear and only doubtful thoughts remain. Does that mean that there is an “I” in there?

Of course not.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

The most recent "lessons", before they have sunk in, always seems the most difficult. So if this were a high school class, I would ask the teacher for more exercises on space.
And time. "THIS" is reality happening, now. But at the same time it's not static, so it needs time, even though it's only ever now. Obviously I'm overthinking and not over thinking again.

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

I can certainly say that the separate self is a thought-based illusion.
As to what it is, I have some ideas about where it originated and how exactly it functions and spreads.
But I haven't finished my investigation: I'm curious where it will show up next because it has been woven into everything (I hardly perceive without it). And it mysteriously multiplies: no sooner has one I-bubble been popped then a new - unnoticed - bubble already claims to have done the popping.

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

The heart sutra is wonderful. It used to be recited frequently by a Buddhist group I was involved with a long time ago. It makes a lot more sense now than it did then. It used to sound a bit mysterious, but I'm struck by how clearly it spells things out, repeatedly: no self entities.

For me this sutra is so descriptive. The way it puts it all into words. All these misconceptions straightened out...

--> The other question I've been using frequently is "What is here". I like this one a little better because it doesn't have this useless detour to an "I" and it also immediately redirects to the senses (a fuller perspective than just thought).

I'm not using them like mantra's, but they come up occasionally and their simplicity seems to have the power to cut through the mental fog immediately.

Again, can a thought do anything or just describes what is happening? I don’t think I’ve shown you this video that might be interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

Is it that you say "What is here?" and looking happens, or looking happens and thought announces/asks about it? Check it out.
Somehow we think of thinking as the naughty child gone completely astray (the enemy), but maybe this is also part of the story. Is it maybe because the senses are conceptualized to be separate and from this point a relationship between them could found (cause and effect)?!
Noticing of DE happens and noticing of thought content happens. Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

The most recent "lessons", before they have sunk in, always seems the most difficult. So if this were a high school class, I would ask the teacher for more exercises on space.

OK… Is there space where THIS is happening? A container of some kind? Or the illusion of space is created in “seeing” where different tones (values) of colour create the illusion of borders, things, here and there? What makes one colour “here” and another “there” without a reference point? Space (distance) exists only where there is a reference point – a center of some kind (me), or another “object” (“space between two trees”). So in DE are there objects or just seeing (verb; not colours as objects) labelled “object” (“apple”)? Is there such center? Focusing is the process of narrowing down/cutting out “something” from the whole and giving it the characteristics/describing it ;) as a separate thing. But can the bird be cut out from the sky while looking up? Where exactly is the sky (the background) contained?
The focusing goes both ways – it’s not just the object but it is also the observer/seer who is doing the focusing.
For every emerging “object”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary. So look in both “directions” – are there objects and is there a subject? Sit outside and listen to sounds and see if they are actually coming from a distance, or are they closer than that? Are sound and thought coming from different locations? Do the same with the view you are seeing. Are things at a distance or are they closer than close? Are seeing and thinking coming from different locations?

And time. "THIS" is reality happening, now. But at the same time it's not static, so it needs time, even though it's only ever now. Obviously I'm overthinking and not over thinking again.

When you say the reality is not static, what makes it dynamic – change? To assume “change” means that we have a beginning “state” and end “state”- a reference point. The “state” of what, “something” that looks different??? The “state” of THIS? THIS is THIS no matter what it “looks like” NOW. It’s THIS, it’s THIS, it’s still THIS… No change because whatever it is it’s still THIS - knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking. No seeing_hearing... of something but just seeing_hearing... So look! Is it maybe just a sequencing of thoughts (focusing) that creates the illusion, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement and time? Are there “still frames”? In seeing is there a change without the story – description of behaviour of different/separate colours, how they morph? For time you also need space – movement happens in space - that’s why physics calls it “space-time” – they do not exist on their own - one defines the other and vice versa. That should be hinting already of thought content, dependent origination of concepts.

Stay with this! It sounds like a lot but it’s all interconnected/interdependent - so seeing one, makes it easier to see the other. Please let me know how it goes

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

I'll post my answers tomorrow; I'm still watching this interesting movie about a familiar character struggling with space...

Cheers
Frank

[FDM]

Hi Rali

A very rainy weeknd (and summer) here. So great weather for investigation.

Again, can a thought do anything or just describes what is happening?

A thought cannot do anything, it describes what's happening (7 seconds after the brain has already set something in motion according the video).

Is it that you say "What is here?" and looking happens, or looking happens and thought announces/asks about it?

No, no: looking happens. The question wouldn't have appeared without seeing first. The question formalises/ritualises it and acts as a sort of reinforcement of a perspective change which already took place.
Thanks for pointing out these instances where a "me" could be subtly recuperating what's going on. I didn't even see that.

Is it maybe because the senses are conceptualized to be separate and from this point a relationship between them could found (cause and effect)?!

Yes, I can see how what I thought of as an innocent practice, once again subtly introduces a number of assumptions I'm trying to see through with that practice.
And this has also answered a question about cause and effect I hadn't even formulated yet.

At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

Yes, just like with a movie, one suddenly snaps out of it. No effort is involved in this. You asked to observe how it happens, but one is always too late and only aware after it has happened or shifted.
And yes: believing the story is also a story. I keep tripping myself up here (even in this very sentence, which is also creating a story once again).
It's amazing, and - from one perspective - beautiful how the mind keeps recuperating and co-opting everything.

The next questions are about space. It took me some time before I had exhausted some dead ends. (E.g. I was thinking of the difference between two- and three-dimensional as a composite of the sense of seeing and touching and touching as a measure of distance, etc. Anyway, they didn't lead anywhere.)

Is there space where THIS is happening? A container of some kind?

Your first question clarified one problem: there cannot be space where THIS is happening, space is "part" of this. So space has been "parted" - by thought - from the whole of THIS.
Once space (or anything else) is carved out from the totality of experience, we have introduced separation, different "positions", entities and a thousand and one subdivisions that thought is capable of.
So space is a thought-based distinction (just like "me" or "I", subject and object, entities, etc.)

Or is the illusion of space created in “seeing” where different tones (values) of colour create the illusion of borders, things, here and there? What makes one colour “here” and another “there” without a reference point?

Yes, space follows on seeing. The very idea of space (and causality) is predicated on separation that is imposed on reality. I'm slowly starting to absorb this.

So in DE are there objects or just seeing (verb; not colours as objects) labelled “object” (“apple”)? Is there such center?

Just seeing. The objects (and the space they appear in) is how thinking divides up the seeing. There is no centre that would allow for such a division and a separation.
So it hangs together: if the "I" falls away as an illusion, then space has to go too, as there is no position in experience, reference point for space to start from or build on.

But can the bird be cut out from the sky while looking up?

No bird can be separated from the sky. No sky, no bird.

Where exactly is the sky (the background) contained?

Nowhere but thought.

So look in both “directions” – are there objects and is there a subject? Sit outside and listen to sounds and see if they are actually coming from a distance, or are they closer than that? Are sound and thought coming from different locations?

Sounds/hearing occurs. It's immediately here/there/present. Distance is added by thought - possibly based on volume, speculation of its origin and other thought schemes.
Sound/hearing occurs location-less. Location is added by the divisions of thought.

Do the same with the view you are seeing. Are things at a distance or are they closer than close? Are seeing and thinking coming from different locations?

Same thing with seeing. Looking in the direction of the object: where does the object end and the seeing begin? Looking in the direction of the subject: where does the seeing end and the subject begin? If that cannot be established, then distance and closeness make no sense.
So in experience these divisions cannot be found while they seem so obvious in everyday looking that is filtered through habitual mental frames.

The “state” of THIS? THIS is THIS no matter what it “looks like” NOW. (...) No change because whatever it is it’s still THIS

This was not a question, but I just want to thank you for explaining this. I was in awe and sat staring outside for a while, looking at everything "moving", trees, birds flying, people walking by, etc. All still just THIS, always THIS. Wow! Thanks.

Is it maybe just a sequencing of thoughts (focusing) that creates the illusion, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement and time? Are there “still frames”? In seeing is there a change without the story – description of behaviour of different/separate colours, how they morph?

Right; without the story no change.
There are no still frames. Different frames would allow, well, difference and change. Thought could well constantly make snapshots (reality-selfies) and then compare them.
(Funny: Zeno's arrow paradox tired to prove there was no change by using frames.)

Everything always points back to the fullness of here and now. I should remember that when questions come up: immediately go to experience, the totality of experience, reality, THIS. And then, any concept or idea will turn out to be derived or carved out from that by the mind. (Just noticed I wrote "go to" - as if it isn't here and needs going to.)

In one of the previous posts you cited the heart sutra. Are there any other texts of which you think they express all THIS rather well too?

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

It’s so exciting to see a shift. There is so much lightness in your answers :)

A thought cannot do anything, it describes what's happening (7 seconds after the brain has already set something in motion according the video).

Yes and no. Because that will still presuppose a time line. I just showed you a different perspective ;). But yeah once things are separated you can start seeing relationships among them.

The next questions are about space. It took me some time before I had exhausted some dead ends. (E.g. I was thinking of the difference between two- and three-dimensional as a composite of the sense of seeing and touching and touching as a measure of distance, etc. Anyway, they didn't lead anywhere.)

Yup! Peace/surrendering comes when thinking exhausts itself trying to explain THIS :)

(Funny: Zeno's arrow paradox tired to prove there was no change by using frames.)

That works too. When frame rate is slowed down the illusion of movement is lost – it just THIS, THIS, THIS, still THIS…

In one of the previous posts you cited the heart sutra. Are there any other texts of which you think they express all THIS rather well too?

The Bahiya Sutra comes to mind. You can find the whole text here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html
But what the main part is this:
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

It is also quite to the point and no BS :)

I really enjoy our conversations but I think you are ready to continue the exploration on your own – whenever resistance appears in one form or another you go exploring…
Of course I’ll be always around – you can continue on the thread or contact me personally (I’ll give you my details). We can continue exploring together if you still have questions. It’s entirely up to you, no rush here.
So:
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those?
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

I also found the sutta you referred to on my bookshelf. Here's the funny thing: the exact part which you quoted was already underlined in pencil in my copy. When I read this 15 or 20 years ago, I must have seen it was important advice, but I'm sure I didn't grasp it then.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

There is no confusion at all about the illusion of a separate self.

At the same time, I feel I have hardly started dealing with the implications of this. I want to explore the edges of this, if it has any, its nooks and crannies.
I'm not yet anywhere near your grasp of the implications of this, as your replies to my questions make clear.
At this moment, there is nothing I need to address, but I imagine things might pop up later and then it would be great if could still get some of your feedback.
(And I'll try to keep my philosophical bent in check by remembering the only two other lines I underlined in Bahiya: "He practised according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma.")

We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those?

Something doesn't want this fascinating time of exploration to end. But since "failing" them would provide another great learning opportunity, why not. (Just noticed the co-optation of this by a new storyline: "I" am here then.)

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hey Frank

At the same time, I feel I have hardly started dealing with the implications of this. I want to explore the edges of this, if it has any, its nooks and crannies.
I'm not yet anywhere near your grasp of the implications of this, as your replies to my questions make clear.

Yes, “crossing the gate” is only the beginning of the exploration. The “tools” are here so anything could be explored. Of course, having the final questions doesn’t have to be the end of our exploration together. You can always just continue writing on your thread or contact me personally (I’ll give you my details). Also there are Facebook groups where you can discuss with others that have “crossed the gate”. What you might find interesting for further exploring is the Ten Fetters. There are a lot of groups that help with that. There are some videos too on YouTube. Let me know if you want them and I’ll send them to you. I find it a good way to inspect beliefs in a structured way. I try to cover most important beliefs with my guiding, but it’s a good reference of what else can be explored. They say that LU inquiry covers the first 3 and some guides actively point only to these, but for me it covers all of them if you question everything. And I always try guiding a bit further.

But since "failing" them would provide another great learning opportunity, why not.

There is no such thing as “failing”, only what is true for you at this moment.
Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

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

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

I'm happy that this doesn't have to be the end of exploration. I'm just beginning to see.

What you might find interesting for further exploring is the Ten Fetters.

Definitely interested. I like the structured approach and from my Buddhist roots I'm familiar with the ten fetters. So, yes, please do send me the links you mentioned.

Here are the answers to the questions you asked. I took a long time with question 5 because I was trying to write something different each time. But they are all variations of the same question. Question 5 felt more like a group of go-to questions if the answer to question 1 had been "yes" (to find out which aspect of "I" is providing most reistance).

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

No, there is no such thing as a separate self, an "I" or a "me", and hence no "mine" either. (And the verb "is" in the sentence means "existing", having some kind of referent outside of thought.)

There is, however, a, idea, a fiction, a thought construct called "I". It is fictional in the sense that it doesn't exist, it has no concrete referent, but as a thought it refers to plenty of other thoughts and ideas.

It is the constant confusion and blurring of these levels that causes all the problems.
Because, as a thought, this "I" is constantly here and functioning, just like superman, the Marlborough cowboy, Indiana Jones or Santa Claus might function in a culture as powerful images, myths, ideals or ideas. But that doesn't mean they are not entirely fictional. But the "I", which is equally fictional, is somehow believed to have a reality outside fiction. Just a belief, no reality.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The separate self is an illusion because it has no reality, as explained in the previous question. It is a fiction, a label that has no concrete referent when one looks closely.
I'm not really sure when it starts, but probably at a very young age. A symbolic moment for this could be when, for the first time, the baby/child makes a connection between a sound it hears all the time and its own name. Then a "me" is born in language and the confusion starts as the fiction gains momentum.

This I/me is part of the fabric of language, so every time I say something, I grammatically reinforce this illusion and so does everybody else. (Even in this post, otherwise I would have to write in very convoluted sentences and put not only every "I" and "you" between quotation marks, but also every single concept that is used.)

This fiction must have served a necessary function, but it wasn't discarded at one point (like Santa Claus). All kinds of other fictions assemble around this. And if this fiction had only helped survival, for example, there would be nothing wrong with it. But this fiction brings with it a lot of unnecessary suffering. Because, whatever is happening, is now happening to "me" - "me" as opposed to "you". So now the "me" needs to be protected from everything opposed to it (the whole world), it needs to be secured again all kinds of threats in the present and in the future.
Lives are spent and ended protecting and propping up this fiction.

These are just the first random thoughts. A book could be filled with the answer to this question.

So. It's a powerful fiction. I realise I'm not at all rid of it, just the belief in it. It keeps showing up and I'm currently very interested in when and where it shows up and the thoughts that are associated with it.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

There is not one single thing that tipped me over, so there was no "revolution" or a spectacular change in how I feel.
More like: more and more puzzle pieces falling into place.
If I have to restrict myself to the last couple of days, the main feeling that has emerged is one of curiosity. Curiosity without any urgency, if that makes sense. (Compared to when I started this dialogue: then it was doubt, urgency, driven, almost greedy.)
I don't want to falsely attribute a certain lightness in my step to this, so I'm simply observing it.
A few days ago a local newspaper had a headline about the weather, that we're having an unusually horrible summer. To me, it feels like great summer. (I still got rained on like everybody else, though.)

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

There hasn't really been a last bit.
I think it was more your relentless questioning which left me no room for escape.
It's a bit like drops of water in a bucket, or a snowball which gained a lot of momentum over the past month. I couldn't tell what the first snowflake was and every single post added more snowflakes. Sometimes the rolling picked up speed (Kanizsa triangles) sometimes it went a bit slower (colour, space). But I was happily rolling along collecting snowflakes left and right when you suggested it was time for these final questions.

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

There can be no decisions as there is no decider.
Of course, it seems as if there are all kinds of decisions being made in my life all the time. (When to get up, what to wear, what to read, where to go, what to point out and what to let go, what to eat and drink, etc.) I just went into the kitchen for a drink. After a moment's hesitation "I decided" to make myself a coffee. But if we scratch the surface of this, there was no decider and no decision point anywhere. There was thirst, which had its own conditions for appearing, there was availability of certain drinks, there were tastes, preferences and habits that have their own conditions for being present, there were plenty of thoughts floating around (health, memories, availability of time, etc.) and all of them mysteriously combined in thoughts and a hand reaching out for coffee.
Habitual thought framing add the "I" everywhere so it seems as if this "I"-character was doing all of it: "I" making a decision.

Yesterday I went to bed and decided to get up later to so I wouldn't be tired today. I wasn't surprised when I woke up at the usual early hour. So much for decision but then "I decided" to have a nap later to compensate for the lack of sleep. So here the "I" is once again added to the tired body.

So, whatever happens, in thought it is all added to the account of "I". A neutral impulse (neutral as in: without known or apparent motivation) becomes "my intention", at any apparent fork in the road an "I"-thought is added as the decider, and after that the "I" as doer is added. So the account of this imaginary "I" becomes a rich and important account in the mind, something to be reckoned with.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Just like there is no decider there is no "intender".
Underneath what is commonly referred to as intention, there are sensations and thoughts which are then constructed as an intention from an I. Both are fiction.
For example, a memory of my parents appears (and there are reasons for that memory appearing too, of course: an image, a taste, words that are heard at that moment), followed by a thought about how long ago I last saw them, followed by a thought-sensation combination that could be construed as guilt, followed by a thought to visit them this evening which is then regarded as intention of a fictional "intender", me: and so "my intention" to visit them is born.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

All these questions in 5 start from same wrong assumption of an existing "I". Who is there to will anything, let alone "freely" will something, which would require an imaginary empty unconditioned space isolated from the context and connections or influences of the rest of the universe?

Of course, in habitual perception, this "I" who has been credited by thought with everything that is done, is also assigned the role of a free agent. So this "I" must have freely chosen to have coffee or visit his parents.
So another fictional story is added to what was already happening without this I, but now the "I" gets the credit for this too. Thus this fictional character - me! - seems to become more and more important in the tale that is told: all these actions and responsibilities, intentions and choices, plans and problems, all these things that have to be willed to get done, etc. How can the world keep on turning without him? To be continued, for sure.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

No "I": hence no decider, no "intender", no "willer", no chooser.
The above examples could be used here as well, but let's take another one. A few weeks ago I had to decide which book to take along on a trip. First the presence of the available "choices": the books I had were already pretty determined by my interests which were determined by past interests, events, experiences, thoughts, etc. Conditions were such that not a lot of space was available and for reasons that have so many other reasons behind it, travelling light is a priority: so the physical size and weight also had to be taken into account. In the end a book was put in my bag. The story ignored all of the above and simply reads "I chose" this book.

This "I" is starting to resemble some politicians, collecting a extensive portfolio of mandates, commissions an wallets

Describe control & give examples from experience.

The idea of a controller also presupposes some existing "I" that does the controlling. No such thing. The controller, one of the masks the "I" likes to wear, is simply added to the story of what happens.
The things I am asked to take care still get taken care of. But that doesn't mean I control events. And I have stopped taking credit for them.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

Things happen, things get done. I'm not sure about the how, but you can't take the thing that happens out of its total context as a separate thing (and by separating a "what" as an origin from it).
Let's say I get a nectarine from the kitchen. A whole cosmos needs to be in place for that to happen, but to pick out a few things: sensations of hunger, a thought about an apple, muscles, climate conditions for the nectarine to grow, and a host of other things. What was not needed was the "I" idea. Whatever happened, happened without an "I".
(Of course, this politician "I" that was mentioned in the choice question will also write whatever happened on his account and take credit for it - preferably in cash.)

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

I could keep it simple and say "nothing". As there is no "I", except as a thought construct, there is no "I" who is responsible either. Life flows and situations will be responded to for a variety of reasons, but not because there is an "I" that is responsible for them. Responsibility is one more claim thought adds to the account of "I".
There's also an inclination to say the opposite: there is a responsibility for everything. Since nothing is separate, everything "responds" to everything else, everything is responsible for everything else. Affect one little thing and everything else is affected: there are no isolated entities.

6) Anything to add?

Not at this point. Let me just say thank you again Rali.
This message board looks so innocent, its question and answer format so casual. But worldviews vanish or are turned upside down here. This site is the Bermuda triangle for self-illusions.

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank
Welcome home!

Thank you for your beautiful answers! It has been such a pleasure to walk beside you through the gateless gate! Your openness, determination and willingness to look were simply awesome and made guiding you a joy.

You will receive an email notifying you of a PM from the forum, inviting you to join LU's Facebook groups. It also has other information that might be of interest to you. I will inbox you my contact details if you want to stay in touch. If you have any questions, just ask, or you can drop a line on your thread here and I will respond.

Your username will change from green to blue which indicates that you have had the realisation of no separate self. This thread will be moved to the ‘Archive’ section of the forum, but you will be able to access it.

Please don’t forget that this is just the beginning of exploring. It’s the beginning of cleaning up of all sorts of old beliefs. Emotions and feelings can show up to be seen and felt, so don’t stop looking! Please feel free to contact me, so we can have a look together, if you like.

I also think that you would make a wonderful guide, if you’re willing to explore it, when you feel ready. It can be very rewarding and it help you deepen your understanding.

Also, if you want further exploring, I'd suggest these teleconferences:
There are 3 meetings & a set of 5 videos you're invited to attend:
Thursday Meetings

Hi Guys,
we are Luchana & Lubo, guides at LU.
Here is an invitation for you:
Join us each Thursday, 6 pm CET, UTC+1
and let's explore together what is already here.
Let's enjoy together this beauty called Life
MEETINGS ARE ON ZOOM and LIVE on YouTube.
To participate in the meetings, send a request to luchanauzunova@gmail.com
You will receive an e-mail confirming your participation and a link to join.
Looking forward to seeing YOU!
Luchana & Lubo
__________________________________________________
Meet up with Vince (For LU seekers & guides)
Monday August 14
Sydney (EST) Australia. 6 am right now
Every 2 weeks after that.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86991485768?p ... 12Um5DQT09
Meeting ID: 869 9148 5768
Passcode: 083035
Let him know if you want email reminders.
vinceschubert@gmail.com
__________________________________________________
Ilona's Meetings
Next group meeting on Zoom is on the 4th of September. (There was one October 9. Not sure when next one is. )
To register send Ilona an email to
admin@ilonaciunaite.com
Looking forward 🙂
__________________________________________________
(videos)
Hi everyone.
Starting on 15th of October for 5 weeks I will post a new video of guiding sessions we had with Jim.
Here is a link to the first one.
https://youtu.be/gb6FwZ6PlI4
Liberation Unleashed Direct Pointing - The Gateless Gate
Ilona
Write to them for the next meeting. Ilona’s is April 9th.


For Fetters:
Todd has teleconference group that meets - I think every 2 weeks.
There is also www.findingawakening.com but Christine has a waiting list.
And Kevin Shinilac has https://www.simplytheseen.com/ but I don't think he is guiding any more, although there are instructions on his site.

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

It felt strange to receive a post without questions.
Thanks for all the useful information!
I deleted my facebook account some time ago, so I'm happy with the other means to contact you should I get myself tied up in knots.
I will never be able to thank you enough for your expert guidance.

With deep gratitude & love
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

I deleted my facebook account some time ago, so I'm happy with the other means to contact you should I get myself tied up in knots.

Whatever feels convenient. You can even just keep on writing here.

I will never be able to thank you enough for your expert guidance.

It was really my pleasure talking to you. The thing about guiding is, that it goes both ways. This is why I encourage people to consider guiding. It could really deepen your seeing and in a way it keeps the momentum going. So whenever you feel ready please have it in mind. It could be really rewarding.

Keep well and don't stop looking! If you ever need help with anything, I'm around :)

Love
Rali