Help me see the absence of separate self

[Marceldesti]

Hello Tyler,

So I have been doing the inquiry. I have been meditating less these last days because I'm traveling to Sweden. I have nothing more to add to the answer I already gave. What is here that is not thought : the five senses. The impulse to give an answer is of course also a thought.

Sometimes I see clearly that there is no self, only selfing. But it is only during meditation and it is way shorter than the experience I told you about. I am a bit more ok with the fact that this experience is not here anymore and that it was only an experience. Even if I feel like a part of it was not an "experience" but some kind of recognition.
There is a clear difference between understanding this intellectually and "feeling it" (it is not a feeling but there is some kind of impact on the way I perceive myself and the world). And I often still feel like I am the doer or the feeler.

I've also finished the book "Gateless Gatecrasher" and I like the way Ilona is guiding people to this recognition.

[ty0]

There's no answer to the inquiry I gave you that isn't a thought. How have you been emotionally?

Thomas, you already believe that there is no self. If someone asks you "Is there a self?", you would confidently answer "No". By definition, you've already crossed "The Gateless Gate". But what does that do for you? You're still here because you're still suffering, no?

Is it correct to say you're here because you have doubts, unmet expectations, frustrations etc.? There's no point in looking for "no-self" anymore. It seems like it could be the antidote to all your pain and suffering, but it's not.

Is it correct to say you don't want "no-self", what you want is the bliss and joy you felt after your awakening? You say you want to "realize no-self" and you "don't see clearly" that there is no self. This is just a story of doubt. Maybe you have the expectation that you shouldn't suffer after realizing no-self, therefore you conclude that you're not there yet?

Tell me where you're at, Thomas. What pains you? Why do you suffer?

[Marceldesti]

How have you been emotionally?

I have been doing ok. Some frustration or doubts sometimes about the "experience" I had. And yesterday a great sadness because my vegan friend showed me what the food industry is doing to animals (so nothing to do with "spiritual stuff"), but I didn't resist it, I was ok with this sadness being here.

But what does that do for you? You're still here because you're still suffering, no?

Yes I have doubts. And like you told me before, I don't want to "believe" there is no self, I want to see it as clearly as I am seeing these words right now.
There is a difference between understanding intellectually and seeing it right ?

Is it correct to say you're here because you have doubts, unmet expectations, frustrations etc.?

Yes and because most of the time I am reindentified with thought.

There's no point in looking for "no-self" anymore. It seems like it could be the antidote to all your pain and suffering, but it's not.

It seemed like it was "taking of" the resistance. Of course there will still be inconfortable feelings but with no resistance it's not suffering anymore.

Is it correct to say you don't want "no-self", what you want is the bliss and joy you felt after your awakening? You say you want to "realize no-self" and you "don't see clearly" that there is no self. This is just a story of doubt. Maybe you have the expectation that you shouldn't suffer after realizing no-self, therefore you conclude that you're not there yet?

Yes maybe you're right. But it really seems like it changes something in my experience when I "see it clearly". It doesn't really change something but something is seen to be false or not me.
A few years ago I thought that I just had to believe in no self to realize it. But I saw that there is a big difference between believing it or "understanding it intellectually" and seeing it really. That's why I don't feel like I have seen it clearly enough.

Tell me where you're at, Thomas. What pains you? Why do you suffer?

Right now I feel a contraction in my chest and a little frustration.
And at other times it is just like before. Nothing has really changed in my life. I have some rare moments of clarity that disappear quickly.
I'm on vacation so there is not much to be sad or angry about. Just casual daily life going on.

[ty0]

Yes I have doubts. And like you told me before, I don't want to "believe" there is no self, I want to see it as clearly as I am seeing these words right now.
There is a difference between understanding intellectually and seeing it right ?

How can you "see" no-self? How can you "see" self? You can see these words and hear the sounds, but everywhere you look, is there a self or a no-self to be found? The thing is, there's no such thing as directly seeing no-self, because you can only believe it. It's like saying you want to directly see no-Santa Claus. You can't find Santa Claus or no-Santa Claus in your direct experience. I think you've imagined "no-self" to be a concrete thing you can see, but there's no "no-self" that you can ever see in direct experience.

It's actually quite funny when people talk about self and no-self. As if 1 is better than the other, but both things are just made-up ideas that can't be directly experienced. Sometimes it really sounds like people are looking for guidance and saying "Help me see no-Santa Claus! Help me see that Santa Claus doesn't exist!" Hahgahah

Let go of the belief that there is no self. What is between religion and atheism? What is between self and no-self? What is between Santa Claus and no-Santa Claus?

It seemed like it was "taking of" the resistance. Of course there will still be inconfortable feelings but with no resistance it's not suffering anymore.

Well, you told me about feeling sadness about the food industry and not resisting it. What kind of feelings do you resist? What causes your suffering?

Let's address your doubts and frustrations, since those seem to be recurring for you. What do you doubt? It sounds like much of your frustration comes from "not being able to see clearly like you did before". Without this story and without this frustration, who are you? What's left?

It seems like a lot of your suffering comes from doubts and frustrations about this awakening thing itself, which is pretty ironic hahah.

[Marceldesti]

How can you "see" no-self? How can you "see" self? You can see these words and hear the sounds, but everywhere you look, is there a self or a no-self to be found?

If I told you "Can you see that there is no Santa in front of you", you clearly can see it. That is the same for no-self.

I think you've imagined "no-self" to be a concrete thing you can see, but there's no "no-self" that you can ever see in direct experience.

Yet there is a very big difference between understanding it conceptually and "seeing" it. I'm sure of that know.
Do you agree ? What do you think is the difference between conceptual understanding and "gut understanding" ?

What kind of feelings do you resist? What causes your suffering?

Now I don't have a lot of example because life is very easy for me these days. But I will sure have some in a few weeks.

What do you doubt? It sounds like much of your frustration comes from "not being able to see clearly like you did before". Without this story and without this frustration, who are you? What's left?

I'll do this inquiry in a few minutes and come back to you.

It seems like a lot of your suffering comes from doubts and frustrations about this awakening thing itself, which is pretty ironic hahah.

Yes it is ironic and sad at the same time. One of the things that was very pleasant when I saw that there was no self was that I was left only with a pure curiosity for spiritual stuff and no grasping anymore.

[Marceldesti]

What do you doubt? It sounds like much of your frustration comes from "not being able to see clearly like you did before". Without this story and without this frustration, who are you? What's left?

It is seen during meditation that I cannot be something I perceive. Because I don't perceive the thought "from" the thought so to speak. Anything I can perceive I am not. There is still the sense that "I perceive" even if I can see that "I" is also an object of perception. It's hard because my mind immediately create some kind of concept I can easily return to (a space, or a void) and when I "come back" to this, it is hard to see that often I come back to a concept and not the seeing itself.
There is still the feeling "I am the experiencer, or the doer" though. And the thought "I am my body" is coming back again and again. "My body" is here in all my experiences so it seems like it must be something I am.

[ty0]

Yet there is a very big difference between understanding it conceptually and "seeing" it. I'm sure of that know.
Do you agree ? What do you think is the difference between conceptual understanding and "gut understanding" ?

I don't agree. The only difference is how sure you are of the thought/concept. This "seeing" you speak of is just believing in something so strongly that it feels like reality to you, not a thought. All "knowing" is, is strongly believing in something. Chasing this sure-ness will not get you anywhere, you want to dismantle this instead.

It's hard because my mind immediately create some kind of concept I can easily return to (a space, or a void) and when I "come back" to this, it is hard to see that often I come back to a concept and not the seeing itself.

You're on the right track. Try using one of the senses as your "home" to come back to. Even if your eyes are closed, you can still see the patterns behind your eyelids. If you don't wanna use that, try the ambient sounds. Is it even possible to see the seeing itself?

When everything drops and there is only the "seeing" left, can you see that the "seeing" itself is just another thought? The "seeing" is one and the same as the sense of an experiencer. It's the sense of being a subject in a world full of objects, which is just a subtle thought. Angelo Dilullo calls this a "perceptual overlay". Can you go deep enough that there is no see-er or hear-er, only the seen and the heard?

And the thought "I am my body" is coming back again and again. "My body" is here in all my experiences so it seems like it must be something I am.

This is just more logical deductions. Thoughts with no foundation. If I cut off your hand, is a part of you gone? Stop running around in circles in thought, look in DE. What you seek is not an answer or an understanding, because those things can only exist as thought.

[Marceldesti]

Hi Tyler,

There has been emotions going on this morning. I was feeling sad for leaving my friend's house (not a problème at all, I just allowed it) and then a memory came to mind in which I had to deal with people letting me down a few months ago. I tried to just allow the feelings to come and go. But it looked like ruminating an old story about me. I had lots of thoughts about how they were unkind to me and how they shouldn't have acted the way they did. So just feeling the sensations brought me to live the memory again. What do you recommend doing when there are lots of thoughts about past events ?

Try using one of the senses as your "home" to come back to. Even if your eyes are closed, you can still see the patterns behind your eyelids. If you don't wanna use that, try the ambient sounds.

I like to use bodily sensations, that way I am sure I am not bypassing emotions (which I used to do a lot).

Is it even possible to see the seeing itself?

I don't think so or I maybe don't understand the question. It is not possible to me to see where does the seing come from or it feels like it doesn't come from anywhere.
I think I don't get what you mean by "see the seing itself".
When I say "come back to the seing" I mean a kind of awareness that thoughts are not me, sensations, and other perceptions are not me.

When everything drops and there is only the "seeing" left, can you see that the "seeing" itself is just another thought? The "seeing" is one and the same as the sense of an experiencer. It's the sense of being a subject in a world full of objects, which is just a subtle thought. Angelo Dilullo calls this a "perceptual overlay".

How could the seing be another thought ? Thoughts are seen. I don't know if it is what you meant but i see that the seing is not "a thing" it is some kind of happening (by itself).

Can you go deep enough that there is no see-er or hear-er, only the seen and the heard?

I cannot find the see-er that is for sure, because everything I find is another object which is seen. Even though, the sense of the see-er comes back very fast.

If I cut off your hand, is a part of you gone?

If I am honest, yes. It would feel like a part of me is gone. Same if I lose my entire memories. I would have the impression of being somebody else.

[ty0]

What do you recommend doing when there are lots of thoughts about past events ?

Nothing. Thoughts are not bad :). Don't try to get rid of them, just notice that they're thoughts. I'm glad you're able to feel the sadness without resistance to it.

and how they shouldn't have acted the way they did.

You can see that this is just a belief right? What does "should" or "shouldn't" mean? They don't say anything about DE/reality. They're just empty words.

I like to use bodily sensations, that way I am sure I am not bypassing emotions (which I used to do a lot).

[ty0]

I like to use bodily sensations, that way I am sure I am not bypassing emotions (which I used to do a lot).

Fantastic

When I say "come back to the seing" I mean a kind of awareness that thoughts are not me, sensations, and other perceptions are not me.

But do you see that this awareness that thoughts/sensations/perceptions are not you is also a thought?

How could the seing be another thought ? Thoughts are seen. I don't know if it is what you meant but i see that the seing is not "a thing" it is some kind of happening (by itself).

If water is flowing, you can see and feel it flow. If someone is talking, you can see their mouth move and hear the sounds. Usually when we speak, our words refer to something experience-able in DE. Anything that you cannot see/hear/touch/smell/taste is only a thought. So what is this seeing? Is there really seeing happening somewhere? Can you touch seeing? Can you see seeing? Or does it only exist when you think about it?
You are assuming that some kind of awareness or seeing exists, but do these things really exist outside of thoughts? Your entire experience is only made up of thoughts and the 5 senses. So if you can't experience the seeing through the senses, can't you see that it's only something you can think about?

I cannot find the see-er that is for sure, because everything I find is another object which is seen. Even though, the sense of the see-er comes back very fast.

So what could the see-er be? If it's not findable in direct experience, does it really exist outside of being a thought? Is there really a see-er, or is there only the belief/sense that there is a see-er?

If I am honest, yes. It would feel like a part of me is gone. Same if I lose my entire memories. I would have the impression of being somebody else.

Doesn't that show that who you are is really just who you think you are? Without memories, you wouldn't be the same person, because the belief of who you are would change. So is there anything solid about who you are? Or is it totally thought-dependent?

[Marceldesti]

You can see that this is just a belief right? What does "should" or "shouldn't" mean? They don't say anything about DE/reality. They're just empty words.

When I am lost in the story, it is really hard to see. So no I don't. I can maybe afterwards. But even then it is not so easy since it has triggered me so much.

But do you see that this awareness that thoughts/sensations/perceptions are not you is also a thought?

No I don't see that. You keep on trying to point this to me but I really don't get it. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe could you give me some videos of other people pointing to this ?

Usually when we speak, our words refer to something experience-able in DE. Anything that you cannot see/hear/touch/smell/taste is only a thought.

I have a question about that. Of course the concept of "value" or "State" or "Santa" doesn't refer to anything real. But I feel like even the concept "water" or "air" or "tree" doesn't refer to anything real in the sense that every tree is different. And the word "tree" refers to very specific images or sensations that will be actually different each time in direct experience. So it seems like every words doesn't actually refer to something experiencable. When I touch a tree for example, I don't touch exactly "a tree" I touch a part of wood, but I don't really even touch "a part of wood", I experienced unique sensations in my hands. Do you see what I mean ? So following this logic, any word is only just a thought and doesn't refer to anything real at all.

So what is this seeing? Is there really seeing happening somewhere? Can you touch seeing? Can you see seeing? Or does it only exist when you think about it?

It is here at anytime, just "hidden" (not really hidden) by thoughts. When I start to believe thoughts, it gets clouded. And that's why I was interested in "understanding" what happens when "I believe something" or when I get "mind identified". We could call it presence, and it is the only thing that is here in all my experiences. So that is why I really don't get why you tell me it is only a thought. And it goes against everything I heard from different teachers as well (it is ok of course, but I am even more surprised and lost).

So what could the see-er be? If it's not findable in direct experience, does it really exist outside of being a thought? Is there really a see-er, or is there only the belief/sense that there is a see-er?

I would say that the see-er is only a thought but it is a very heady answer. 99% of the time it feels otherwise.

Doesn't that show that who you are is really just who you think you are? Without memories, you wouldn't be the same person, because the belief of who you are would change. So is there anything solid about who you are? Or is it totally thought-dependent?

My body seems pretty solid to me. Even though in meditation I can feel that "body" is more like a boiling soup of sensations constantly changing with no clear boundaries. But when I open my eyes, the image and sight of the body is so strong that I immediately believe I am it.

[ty0]

We could call it presence, and it is the only thing that is here in all my experiences. So that is why I really don't get why you tell me it is only a thought. And it goes against everything I heard from different teachers as well (it is ok of course, but I am even more surprised and lost).

You use your energy to uphold this thought of "presence" in your mind. Even to say that it is always here, you must refer to memories that are thoughts. There is no entity or awareness there. You're maintaining this all the time and creating this thought all the time. Your experience only consists of thoughts and DE (5 senses), so what is this "seeing" you speak of?

No I don't see that. You keep on trying to point this to me but I really don't get it. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe could you give me some videos of other people pointing to this ?

https://youtu.be/qJW7lIzZl34?si=HslyPIe0PKAGy6Ta

Do you see what I mean ? So following this logic, any word is only just a thought and doesn't refer to anything real at all.

I see what you mean. So why should awareness be different?

It is here at anytime, just "hidden" (not really hidden) by thoughts. When I start to believe thoughts, it gets clouded.

Which spiritual teacher told you this? Why would you assume that something is here when you can't experience it? Why assume something is clouded instead of not there at all? Many different teachers can tell you things that you can't experience and ask you to believe them. I'm saying, LOOK! Verify through your own experience.

I can see that "I" is a thought. There seems to be nothing there more than thought stuff. And this thought arrives always after something "more real". For example, I feel right now the tips of my fingers. A thought is appearing "These are my fingers". But "My" doesn't refer to anything except other thoughts. The fingers are just sensations and don't seem to be owned by anybody. Although when I write that I immediately have another thought saying "That's bullshit, you know these fingers are me". But again, the me in this thought does not refer to anything except other thoughts. It is fooling "me". It seems circular.
Now there is another thought saying "I'm trying to convince him".
Do I believe this thought ? Who is the "I" who can believe ? Can a thought believe in something ?

Yesterday and this morning was very very joyfull. I was laughing and dancing. I didn't care about awakening and was left with a very simple curiosity for the "fabric of my experience". But this afternoon, it calmed down and I see that there are doubt thoughts again. Like "I am afraid I will lose this". But when I look into the body to see where is the afraid feeling, I find only sensation. And when I question "what would I lose" there is a thought that says "the clarity".

Go back to the questions you were asking yourself here. All that changed between that experience and now is thought. There was nothing happening then that isn't happening now. All there was was your 5 senses. You've just created this fiction about "clarity" and "seeing" and "trying to find answers". You had the thought "I'm afraid I will lose this" and you let that story grow and grow even though there was no you and nothing to lose. That thought itself IS the losing of this, metaphorically speaking. Go back to the "What's not a thought?" practice I gave you. Everything you were so happy with is right here in the senses. Stop trying to find answers in thought, even the trying is a thought. Look. What's here that's not a thought?

You know the thoughts aren't you because they're appearing TO what you take yourself to be. The thoughts are just objects to the subject. So keep looking. What IS this sense of you that you take yourself to be? Where is the subject? It should be find-able outside of thought if it actually exists. Can you touch/see/hear/taste/smell it? Look with precision

[Marceldesti]

Hi Tyler,

It has been a long time since I didn't write.

You use your energy to uphold this thought of "presence" in your mind. Even to say that it is always here, you must refer to memories that are thoughts. There is no entity or awareness there. You're maintaining this all the time and creating this thought all the time. Your experience only consists of thoughts and DE (5 senses), so what is this "seeing" you speak of?

I think I get what you mean. There is only the five senses and to create a "knowing of it" is too much for you. Is that what you mean ? The senses and the knowing/awareness are the same thing ? So it is pointless to create a concept for "awareness", isn't it ?
It is quite confusing though because a lot of teacher uses the words "presence", "awareness", etc.

https://youtu.be/qJW7lIzZl34?si=HslyPIe0PKAGy6Ta

I have trouble understanding due to the quality of the sound. If you have other resources, I would love to see them.

I see what you mean. So why should awareness be different?

Good point. All we can say are concepts. The "reality" is unspeakable.

Which spiritual teacher told you this?

Like almost every single one of them ^^. I can relate to something I would call "presence" but I agree that I don't know if it is something other than simply the five senses (and thoughts etc.).

You had the thought "I'm afraid I will lose this" and you let that story grow and grow even though there was no you and nothing to lose. That thought itself IS the losing of this, metaphorically speaking.

Yes it makes a lot of sense.

Thought saying : I thought that the peace/bliss would stay forever.
"Who is I in this sentence?"
Hearing sounds. Feeling knot in my stomach.
Mind in 404 error.
Thought saying : maybe the "state" of bliss was also temporary.
Clinging to this memory.
Who is clinging ?
Feeling a bit sad
Who is sad ? There is only sadness. No need to find someone who owns it.

So keep looking. What IS this sense of you that you take yourself to be? Where is the subject? It should be find-able outside of thought if it actually exists. Can you touch/see/hear/taste/smell it? Look with precision

I don't know what I am. I really don't... The "great unknown" if I had to put it into words.

I have a question Tyler : what is the sense of "I AM" ? Some teachers talk about it.

[ty0]

Hi Tomas,

You were one of the first people I guided and it seems that the way I guided you was kind of misleading you to adopt this belief system that there are only 5 senses and thought, and there's no such thing as awareness etc.. As I read my older messages to you, this is the feeling I get and I don't want to continue using that approach with you.

I think I get what you mean. There is only the five senses and to create a "knowing of it" is too much for you. Is that what you mean ? The senses and the knowing/awareness are the same thing ? So it is pointless to create a concept for "awareness", isn't it ?
It is quite confusing though because a lot of teacher uses the words "presence", "awareness", etc.

There is only THIS, meaning everything in your experience. If you experience the thought of a "knowing of it", it's just important to recognise that this is a view. It's not wrong, but it's something created by thought. You can believe "there is knowing/awareness" or you can believe "there is no knowing/awareness" or you can believe "there are unicorns in my bathroom". Nothing wrong with any of these if you can recognise that it's totally arbitrary. Any view you hold, you could one day believe the opposite. Which is right? Even right and wrong are views, no?

But yes, it is useful to have the concept "water", because it refers to something in your experience. But you see how the concept of "awareness" or "presence" or "knowing" doesn't refer to anything, and is just a stand-alone concept, yes?

Like almost every single one of them ^^. I can relate to something I would call "presence" but I agree that I don't know if it is something other than simply the five senses (and thoughts etc.).

I also can relate to it. I think they are referring to an experience wherein thoughts fade to the background or there are just no thoughts at all. But I don't like the use of the term in teaching/guiding because it misleads people to believe there is some THING called "presence".

I have trouble understanding due to the quality of the sound. If you have other resources, I would love to see them.

I'm not sure but I think you get the point hahah

Thought saying : I thought that the peace/bliss would stay forever.
"Who is I in this sentence?"
Hearing sounds. Feeling knot in my stomach.
Mind in 404 error.
Thought saying : maybe the "state" of bliss was also temporary.
Clinging to this memory.
Who is clinging ?
Feeling a bit sad
Who is sad ? There is only sadness. No need to find someone who owns it.

But using the view of "there is no one to feel sad" doesn't REALLY help, does it? It's just some bypassing used to not fully feel the emotion. That's why adopting the view "there is no self" is not very useful, it's just the opposite of "there is a self". The only thing between you and peace now is the resistance to what IS. There is a thought about your current experience saying it's not good enough and you want something better, something like the memory you have of bliss, and so you resist the experience and you long for something else, BELIEVING that something else exists.

Use this as a point of inquiry. Does anything apart from THIS exist? Can you find anything apart from THIS? Even when you fantasise about a blissful state, don't you see that what's here is just a thought of a blissful state and there is no actual blissful state to be found? Let's take practical steps to get your attention away from thoughts and more towards the senses. In the senses, no resistance can be found.

First, try this:
Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like).

When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

DE is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, and sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in DE?

While the thought 'apple' is present in your experience, what the thought talks ABOUT can't be found in DE.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ CHECK
Color labeled ‘apple’ CHECK
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ CHECK (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ CHECK
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ CHECK

However, is there an actual apple apart from these?


Now for further practice:
Sky Gazing: Gaze at the sky. Let the labels come and don't divert your eyes. Don't look away no matter how strong the eyes' tendency to do so gets. It might be slightly uncomfortable, don't forget to blink if your eyes are getting dry. As you gaze longer and relax, the labelling too will start to relax. Explore the tiny details, isn't it beautiful? There's so much intricacy and beauty all the time that we don't see because we just see "sky".

Instead of engaging on all this thought and discussion, I think it will be more helpful for you to stay with the senses and see for yourself how little resistance is there and how enjoyable it is when the senses overtake you. Do some sky gazing everyday and let me know how that works for you.

I don't know what I am. I really don't... The "great unknown" if I had to put it into words.

Is it okay that it's unknown? Do you need to know?

I have a question Tyler : what is the sense of "I AM" ? Some teachers talk about it.

It's the sense of "being", the belief that "I exist". During meditation or self-inquiry, when all gross thoughts cease for some time, it can become the most prominent thing in experience. It exists but I don't see the reason for many teachers' over-emphasis of it. The naming of it and over-emphasis is quite misleading. It's a part of your experience, so why should you be that as opposed to the sensation of your foot? I prefer pointing to the senses because I find it much more enjoyable. I think many teachers talk about it a lot because they're stuck at the stage of identifying with the "I AM" sense. If you listen to/read more deeply realised teachers like Angelo Dilullo, UG Krishnamurti, Frank Yang, etc., you'll find that they rarely point to the "I AM" sense.

Hope you're doing well Tomas, try Sky Gazing and see if you like it. If you do, I have other things of the same spirit :)