Looking for a guide

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

Thank you for stocking me up with guidance ahead of your trip!

I take the experiencing subject to be self

And what is experiencing the experiencing subject to know it exists?

My initial reaction is to say: Is it not the experiencing subject itself that knows that it exsts? What else is necessary?

I'll pick this up tomorrow.

Paul

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

I've responded to your post as a whole although there were a couple of questions I couldn't really get started on because of confusion over terms. No worries if you don't manage to post for a day or two.

I take the experiencing subject to be self


And what is experiencing the experiencing subject to know it exists?

I think we need to clarify our definitions as this question doesn't make total sense to me.

I can see that sensations, thoughts and happenings in experience come and go but I can't see that this body comes and goes. It changes, yes, but it retains a high degree of persistence and consistency. Thoughts and feelings seem to reoccur and develop along very much non-random lines as well. All of this packaged together with awareness is what I assume to be me.


The question of a separate self is that there is an entity/soul/spirit separate from the body, controlling it, shaping thought.

I suppose I did believe for quite a while in a soul that was in a major and fundamental sense my essence and that exists before the birth and after the death of the body. There are still traces of this belief now and perhaps it is basically still there. Did I ever believe that it was this soul that was controlling the body and shaping thought? Not really. I suppose I have thought more of the self or the ego/s as doing that and that these may also outlast the body but are not as essential as the soul. Maybe, then, I have had a kind of higher self (soul)/lower self (ego) conception of self. This has been my metaphysics of me, you could say, but in recent years I think it has become much less of the solid edifice it once was.

Anyway, that reflection aside, in practice I have generally experienced what has been assumed to be a 'me' that is connected to the body but at least partially and significantly distinct from it, that has a significant ability to direct the body and choose what to think and believe. However, I think my behaviour has moved more toward a giving up of such control in recent years. For example, I find it harder to make myself to do things I don't want to do, I care less for controlling the behaviour of others, I can't seem to hold goals, I feel I am the product of natural and nurturing factors that were outwith my control, and that my thought and behaviour are driven and conditioned by natural survival mechanisms in conjunction with the social conditioning I have taken on.

However, whilst my assumptions about who I am have changed and my ability to direct my life has been compromised, I still do find there to be a me that actually exists. There is perhaps, then, less of a me in the big picture thinking, you could say, but in practice still the same me that takes itself to be happy, sad, wanting things, living a story, believing its thoughts, experiencing pride and embarassment and so on. And this me feels much like the one that was doing the rounds twenty odd years ago.

Anyway, that's maybe a bit 'off-piste' in terms of what this forum is for and as a response to your questioning, but perhaps it is useful for both of us in that it contextualizes the current focus and helps us know we're on the same page.

Look at Decartes famous cogito ergo sum - 'I think therefore I am'. Let's rephrase that without the 'I' in place - 'think therefore am'.

Does Descarte's statement need an 'I' in there to be valid?

If 'am' means something like 'be', then 'think therefore am' seems simply to say that thinking exists. We have previously said that thinking is actual so we can say that this is valid.

What about taking out 'think'?: 'I, therefore I am'. Is there such a thing as a non-thinking I? If there is an I, then would one not expect to find it separate from thought? Thought is one thing, I is another thing. For Descartes, the I would be the thing doing the thinking thing. Is an I really an I (something separate from thought) if I is only a thought? If I is only a thought then that I is not apart from thought. Why does Descartes conclude that I am rather than thought is? Afterall, the entire statement is entirely a thought. Where is the I in his statement? Nowhere: they are just words of a thought. The body called Descartes must have actually existed to think and write the statement. Was there a Descartes? There was a body called Descartes. That body somehow went together with thoughts that said 'I think therefore I am'.

Am I my body and my thoughts packaged together? My body and thoughts are already packaged together. What need is there for an I? What about awareness? What is awareness? Are thoughts not already aware? Is the body not already aware? It has senses of perception. To physically perceive is to be aware of the physical. What is it to be aware of thought? To perceive thought? What perceives thought? Thought recalls thought. Is there something that is aware of thought that is simultaneous to thought? Is there anything apart from thinking and sensing? Is there anything of which thinking and sensing are parts? Are thoughts sensed and senses thought?

There is the body-sensing thing and there are thought things. I can't find an I. Can I find awareness? Better said: Can the body-sensing and/or the thinking find awareness? Can something find itself?

^^Bit of a ramble but reference to DE was made along the way so I'm leaving it in.

Does awareness need a subject to be aware, or is the subject itself part of awareness/experience?

What is the subject? A body and thinking (plus awareness?).

We are agreeing that the body and awareness are intimately connected. Do I have experience/awareness without the body?

Again, I'm not clear on what we mean by the different terms: subject, experience and awareness, so I can't make headway in answering this at present.

Take a closer look at those thoughts and feelings in the moment -

Are they automatic reactions to what's happening in the moment (physical sensations, other thoughts, feelings, interactions with others), or are they being orchestrated by an entity separate from it all?

They are not being orchestrated by me. I am not choosing or controlling. There can be the experience of an attempt to control, but while I would conventionally have taken that attempt to be the effort of an attempter, ie. me, the attempt is also arising as an automatic result of previous happenings over which there was no control. Indeed, there was no me that ever decided to sign-up to be me.

To look at that more closely - think of a pink elephant - Was there an 'I' there choosing the exact shade of pink, size, species of elephant? (remember to look at the first elephant that appears).

No. The image just popped into my head from what I assume to be the latent memory of a particularly salient encounter with the image of a pink elephant that has been experienced previously. In this case, from a Pink Floyd album cover, if I'm remembering rightly.

Paul

[jupiter7]

Just noticed I missed this, and wanted to maintain daily posting regimen.

Maybe in DE such a me is not found but DE is not always happening.


Take a look at that statement more closely - does direct experience turn on and off, or does awareness simply shift to thought (indirect experience)?

That sounds like a nice way of puting it. One can feel a bit like one is turning direct experience on when one is not accustomed to that mode of awareness. Are you sugesting that even those moments of DE, which can seem to effortful, actually come about by themselves, and when they seem to go, that the subject has not lost focus, rather, an awareness which in a sense does not even recognise the existence of a subject, moves to thought?

Could it be that it's all happening by itself?

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Good to be back again in the world of wifi :) Thanks for posting regularly, but it's vitally important to look in DE in the moment, a lot of what you seem to have written is thinking ABOUT the moment, to figure it out. This process cannot be thought about, as thoughts can lead off to anywhere, and at the end of the day they are just thoughts - models OF actuality. Better to keep that discipline of looking AT actuality.

Could it be that it's all happening by itself?

That's an extremely important question - what did you find when you looked in DE in the moment?

Are you sugesting that even those moments of DE, which can seem to effortful, actually come about by themselves, and when they seem to go, that the subject has not lost focus, rather, an awareness which in a sense does not even recognise the existence of a subject, moves to thought?

You describe DE as effortful - What, other than DE is happening in the moment?

Again, I'm not clear on what we mean by the different terms: subject, experience and awareness

From here, experience and awareness are the same thing - there is no separation between what is experienced and the awareness of that. A car horn sounds on the street outside, awareness of that sound IS the experience of it.

What is your own understanding of experience and awareness?

As for 'subject' - in a dualistic worldview, the subject is that which experiences. From here, that which is thought to experience is also an experience. The key word here being 'thought', as in actuality there is only experience. But don't take my word for it -

What is your own understanding of the term?

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Good to have you back on board. Apologies for not posting yesterday.

Could it be that it's all happening by itself?


That's an extremely important question - what did you find when you looked in DE in the moment?

When I look in DE it can be as though I become an awareness of what is happening.

When attention is not so much to direct experience but to thought, it can be as if I assume I am the thoughts that are happening (or they are part of me) and also assume that I am doing the stuff that the body is doing at the time (albeit on autopilot much of the time).

When looking in DE in a quiet moment where I am sat or laying still, I can become aware of the body and of thoughts but I am not so identified with them. When identity is withdrawn from the body-mind then it can seem as though body-mind stuff is happening by itself rather than through the intentions of an agent separate from that body-mind.

However, in DE it can also seem as though all I am is body and mind, or all that is happening is body and thought. I'm not sure if the awareness bit is a function of body and mind or in some sense separate from it.

I am also increasingly questioning the extent to which DE is actually DE, or how much of apparant DE is being filtered through concepts, eg. I can feel such and such a part of this body, I hear a sound coming from over there.

But when I asked the question in my last post: 'Could it be that it's all happening by itself?', it was from a sense that I have experienced, and also thought about, over the last few days that there is no I here that is required for everything to happen, that I am redundant in the happening of thoughts, feelings, bodily movements, environmental happenings. A bit like how a plant just grows in a responsive harmony with the rest of nature - there's nothing there trying to grow or effort that needs to be made.

Are you sugesting that even those moments of DE, which can seem to effortful, actually come about by themselves, and when they seem to go, that the subject has not lost focus, rather, an awareness which in a sense does not even recognise the existence of a subject, moves to thought?


You describe DE as effortful - What, other than DE is happening in the moment?

When I said that DE can feel effortful, I was referring to a sense of having to break and redirect the habitual mode of awareness where there is a kind of bodily autopilot and mental daydream going on.

You asked whether DE turns on and off or whether awareness simply shifts to thought (indirect experience). If either is the case, then there can be indirect experience happening in the moment, insofar that any mode of experience can be said to be a happening in the moment.

As well as modes of awareness, what can appear to be happening in the moment includes sensations, thoughts, and environmental happenings including objects and events.

From here, experience and awareness are the same thing - there is no separation between what is experienced and the awareness of that. A car horn sounds on the street outside, awareness of that sound IS the experience of it.

What is your own understanding of experience and awareness?

I'd agree with that definition to a large extent. Where the two terms differ for me is that 'experience' suggests the existence of an experiencer such that the environmental happenings can be happening to someone, whereas awareness suggests a degree of detachment from whatever is happening. Such a definition of experience doesn't seem so applicable to relatively non-impactful happenings such as the sound of a horn from outside, but rather to more engaging happenings such as driving a car. Awareness = sense of what is happening around me, versus experience = sense of what is happening to me or what I am involved with. Might be interesting to look at this distinction more closely.

As for 'subject' - in a dualistic worldview, the subject is that which experiences. From here, that which is thought to experience is also an experience. The key word here being 'thought', as in actuality there is only experience. But don't take my word for it -

What is your own understanding of the term?

Yes - subject is that which experiences, I would agree. There would be an experiencing subject as opposed to the objects of experience. So, for 'you', the experiencing subject is another object of experience? Or is it that both subject and object are dissolved into a singular experience? Or do you mean something different again?

Going back to the unanswered questions from your previous post now that we have articulated our definitions:

I take the experiencing subject to be self


And what is experiencing the experiencing subject to know it exists?

I'm not sure the question makes sense. If there is only experience, as you say, then there cannot be anything that is experiencing or anything that is experienced. The question seems to assume that there is an experiencing subject that can also be known as an object of experience. I'm just not sure there are two levels of experiencing going on.

What do we know for sure? Looking in DE, there's something/s going on. But it seems to take thought to say anything about what that is. We have already agreed that the content of thought is an imagining what's going on rather than what's actually going on. We have said that thought itself is happening along with bodily sensations such as sounds and sights, feelings. I think we're saying that experience/awareness is going on as well.

I'm not sure that there is something that is aware of thought other than more thoughts, eg. there is the thought of a car, and then there is the thought that that was the car that was thought of. Is that all that is happening that we call awareness? Is awareness always 'after the fact' or is it simultaneous with happenings? Is awareness a kind of longer drawn-out thought about what just happened? I don't know. It feels tricky to penetrate this in DE or it could be that it is this confusion that is clouding the clarity avaliable in DE.

Does awareness need a subject to be aware, or is the subject itself part of awareness/experience?

Are you asking 1) whether the subject is itself an object of experience, albeit an experiencing object, or 2) whether the subject is in a sense just one with, or part of and at the same level as, or made of the same stuff as, awareness/experience?

We have said that awareness is intimately connected with the body. From there it seems correct to assume something like that it is a body that has a faculty of awareness. Although I would not say that the body alone constitutes a subject (I think we would need mind as well to conventionally speak that way), it seems a short step from saying that the body has a faculty of awareness to say that awareness requires a subject, because we have localised awareness to a particular location.

I don't know. I've a sense that in 'pure' DE there may be some kind of an inpenetrable oneness but I'm not sure that I actually find this in DE, or if I'm just imagining pure DE, or that I am even capable of pure DE.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll help to cut through the fluff here with some more of your incisive questioning!

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

But when I asked the question in my last post: 'Could it be that it's all happening by itself?', it was from a sense that I have experienced, and also thought about, over the last few days that there is no I here that is required for everything to happen, that I am redundant in the happening of thoughts, feelings, bodily movements, environmental happenings. A bit like how a plant just grows in a responsive harmony with the rest of nature - there's nothing there trying to grow or effort that needs to be made.

A wonderful insight, in my experience too, when sitting quietly perhaps, and simply being aware of what's happening, it all just happens, no 'I', separate from that experience controlling it.

Awareness = sense of what is happening around me, versus experience = sense of what is happening to me or what I am involved with.

Consider, in your own experience, if this distinction is one of looking 'AT' what's occuring (in the case of awareness), and looking 'FROM' what's occuring (in the case of experience).

Reading your last response there were a lot of 'if' propositions, and lots of 'thinking about' actuality, and you really can't get anywhere here by thinking this through logically - afterall, that's codifying what IS into a model of what IS, and the map is not the territory. Here it's the territory we look at. It's probably prudent at this point to have a look where we are in this process -

Based on your experience, where do you stand on the idea that what we commonly call 'I' or 'me' is an illusion?

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Awareness = sense of what is happening around me, versus experience = sense of what is happening to me or what I am involved with.


Consider, in your own experience, if this distinction is one of looking 'AT' what's occuring (in the case of awareness), and looking 'FROM' what's occuring (in the case of experience).

I think I mean that there are different degrees of experience in terms of how involving that experience is, eg. a sound from the street outside is experienced but it is only a sound and doesn't go any further than that, whereas the experience of eating is something that I am engaged in with through all of the senses and much more intimately. Thus, I might be more inclined to say that I am aware of the sound from outside rather than that I am experiencing it, and that I am experiencing eating rather than that I am aware of eating. I'm not sure there is any fundamental difference between the two sorts of experience/awareness because they are both based on sensory phenomenon.

I'm not sure what you are getting at in your distiction between AT and FROM. You have said that for you, experience = awareness. I don't therefore understand why or in what way you are now suggesting a distinction between what is going in each. I suppose that in the case of eating there could be a looking FROM what's occurring in the sense that the experience is so sensorily intimate and engaging that there is little room left to distance perspective away from it, and in the case of hearing a distant sound there could be a looking AT what's occurring because the rest of the senses are disengaged and thus have a distance from which to look.

Anyway, I'm not sure what it is that's significant that we might be getting at with this particular line of inquiry, although it's interesting that there could be different sorts of things going on in actual experience that we don't commonly pay attention to.

Based on your experience, where do you stand on the idea that what we commonly call 'I' or 'me' is an illusion?

As I said, in recent days there seems to have been a swing such that 'I' can see in a significant way that the I is a fiction that is unnecessary for whatever is happening to continue happening. There are thoughts and feelings, bodily sensatons and environmental happenings. There is an individual body and mind, even. But is there an I that is essential to any of it? 'I' am generally liking this perspective because previously troublesome thoughts and feelings are more like water off a duck's back - there isn't anything for them to 'soak into'. Nevertheless, I am cautious because there are still times when there is the apparent or assumed experience of an entity that has a stake in what's happening and the associated anxiety about what might or might not come to pass in the short, medium and long term. But when there is a rememberance that even that is just what's happennig, rather than something that I have caused to happen or that I am responsible for, then there is a relief and freedom to carry on through.

So maybe I'm starting to get it. But as you keep urging, I think I see that more DE is the way to consolidate the perspective. But DE is being resisted less than it used to be. It is more something that I want to do rather than something I have to do or feel I ought to do. But even if there is no DE, the seeing of the illusion feels strong enough such that non-DE or any activity can also be taken to be just what's happening rather than any failure or success on my part.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

As I said, in recent days there seems to have been a swing such that 'I' can see in a significant way that the I is a fiction that is unnecessary for whatever is happening to continue happening. There are thoughts and feelings, bodily sensations and environmental happenings

So, in a word - have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

If there are any doubts please share them here.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

So, in a word - have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

I think that it needs a little more time, as before when I have felt as though I have made significant breakthroughs in terms of a change in perspective, in many ways the changes were not found to be lasting.

Why exactly do you use the term 'SEPARATE self' rather than just 'self''? Is it to allow for the possibility that an expanded inclusive identity may be experienced? Or does it mean that the sense of self is just one thing out of many things happening in awareness rather than separate from it? Or something else?

In terms of doubts, it could just be that I've taken on another idea or belief that there is no I/me. I suppose that to the extent that there is thought about the experience of no I/me, then you could say there is idea or belief operating. But I don't see that such thoughts are incompatible with an actual seeing. However, I would like to spend some more time in DE so that I can see actuality as well as think about actuality.

I'd also like to encounter a few more situations that will 'test' whether there has been a seeing that will constitute a lasting fundamental change in perspective. For example, when returning to work yesterday following a week off, there was identification with typical thought and feeling patterns that wasn't too different from how it has been in the past. But I found that there has been a slightly easier 'bobbing back to the surface' from these.

I understand that in a sense nothing will change in such regards - that the same thoughts and feelings will continue to arise. But I am finding that because I see that they are not arising for anyone, that there is more of a lightness to their passing.

I think it is because that in a very real sense nothing has changed (the seeing of an illusion does not necessarily constitute any change beyond itself) that this is such a subtle matter, and one can be left wondering whether one has really seen, or at times forget that seeing happened.

But in other ways this does feel like something wonderful and profound and with big implications has actually happened.

So, let's see how it goes. I'm happy if you're happy either to continue with or wind down the guidance as you see fit.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Firstly, allow me to address your query re: separate self. In my experience there is no separate entity, an actual being, that's separate from experience and viewing that experience from a cloud in the sky somewhere. For me, the 'self' is a character in a 'story' that models reality, the self IS an experience in itself, and in that sense not separate from anything else that's experienced.

I think that it needs a little more time ...

Indeed, it can take some time for old habits to fall away, or a new perspective to settle in and be tested in different situations. That's perfectly understandable.

You are correct in your assessment that nothing will change - life has been happening without a separate self as the centre of volition anyway. All that occurs when seeing through the illusion of a separate self is that there's no longer such a clinging to the stories about that self, but it differs for everyone in it's impact and implications.

So, let's see how it goes. I'm happy if you're happy either to continue with or wind down the guidance as you see fit.

To be honest, from this point on I could only really offer you more of the same, small pointers just to keep you on track. You seem pretty savvy and I'm pleased to see you're testing your new understanding in different situations - ultimately of course it's your own experience that is your greatest guide.

So, my advice on how to proceed consists of three choices. The first is that you continue independently testing your understanding in the light of day, you could do this for a week or a month and come back for a 'top up', or simply use what you have learned here to work happily by yourself. The second is that I ask you the 'final questions' we ask all clients and you use these as a springboard for further work and understanding. Your responses to these final questions will be seen by other guides who may have further questions also. The third choice I would suggest is to request a new guide on the forum. Each guide has a particular focus/guiding style, and perhaps a fresh perspective will give you an additional clarity. I can certainly recommend a guide for you depending on which aspect of your experience needs additional work.

I will leave the choice on how to proceed to what feels right for you. You could even take some time out to have a think about it, or just let your current understanding settle, and then come back with a decision.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you for your message.

I will leave the choice on how to proceed to what feels right for you. You could even take some time out to have a think about it, or just let your current understanding settle, and then come back with a decision.

I think I will take it day by day at the moment and then in a few days to a week I will come back with a clearer idea on how to proceed. When I do, I take it I can just post again in this thread and you will pick that up.

Thank you for everything you have done over the last few weeks. This is no small matter for me, to say the very least, and it still seems amazing and a little unbelievable that this website and forum exists, that something with such importance as well as mystique can play out so readily and straightforwardly as the process through which it seems to.

Looking forward to catching up with you soon.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response, and for engaging with this process so fully. Always remember to look in the moment in DE, and you can't go far wrong in differentiating fantasy/illusion from reality/actuality.

When you feel ready simply post into this thread once again, and we will see how things have been progressing for you.

Thanks once again, it was a pleasure to have you here, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Hope you're well.

It's been a week since my last post. Nothing unusually dramatic has been happening. Benefits seem to be that I am generally markedly more relaxed with other people and in good spirits more of the time. There is a slight sense of frustration creeping in as there are still things that I want that I am none the wiser about or any the more motivated to get, in fact possibly less so. DE type awareness happens now and again and is powerful for instantly dispelling stories that are gaining momentum. Still experience myself as a separate self much as before but probably best described as being generally a little more diffuse in that regard.

Possibly seeking a little 'aftercare' but less willing to take on guidance of others who appear to be giving a version of 'how it is' or worse 'has to be'. Can I join any of the LU aftercare groups?

Anyway, I will take the 'final questions' if I may. Sounds serious, but what have I to lose?!

Paul

[Paulo]

Hello Paul, and welcome back!

Anyway, I will take the 'final questions' if I may.

We'll take a quick look at where you are at the moment before moving on, you've had a week to 'fly solo', so how has it been? Were you able to differentiate between DE and imagination? Do you have any examples you wish to share from your daily life?

Still experience myself as a separate self much as before but probably best described as being generally a little more diffuse in that regard.

What is the self in this context, and what is it separate from?

Can I join any of the LU aftercare groups?

You're saying that you still experience a separate self, it's only when clients have seen through the illusion of a separate self that they join the aftercare groups.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

We'll take a quick look at where you are at the moment before moving on, you've had a week to 'fly solo', so how has it been? Were you able to differentiate between DE and imagination? Do you have any examples you wish to share from your daily life?

It's been roughly as I outlined in my last post. Something that has stuck is the saying that we looked at earlier in our discussion: Thought is real but the content of thought is not. There have been times when there has been DE and there seems to be an increasing tendency to turn to DE. Mostly there is still imagination but this has less of a hold as a version of what is actually going on. Some times at work I have been in a story about what is happening eg. thinking this person is like that, I am like this, they are thinking such and such about me, and then there was more of a lightness as it occurred that all that was happening in actuality was the 'physical facts' of the situtation.

Still experience myself as a separate self much as before but probably best described as being generally a little more diffuse in that regard.


What is the self in this context, and what is it separate from?

I was speaking pretty casually when I wrote that so thanks for flagging it up. I suppose I actually meant that I experienced a sense of self much as before. To be honest, I didn't fully grasp your description of a separate self that you gave in response to my question a few posts back. You wrote:

Firstly, allow me to address your query re: separate self. In my experience there is no separate entity, an actual being, that's separate from experience and viewing that experience from a cloud in the sky somewhere. For me, the 'self' is a character in a 'story' that models reality, the self IS an experience in itself, and in that sense not separate from anything else that's experienced.

Sorry, but I'm out of time for now. Will pick this up later today.

Paul