Looking for a guide

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

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.

Superb, well done! You can see now in practice (which is most important) that attention sometimes lingers in thought/fantasy/illusion, and can result in all kinds of tensions and suffering, non of which is necessary as these 'daydreams' simply disappear in a puff of smoke when we actually look AT them, rather than FROM them.

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

No problem, we'll pick up on your point about separate self when you are free to post again.

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

Thank you for replying so promptly. Good to have you back on board as it were.

To pick up from my last post:

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.

I'm not sure I ever experienced anything comparable or similar to a separate entity viewing experience 'from a cloud in the sky somewhere'. I can't quite relate to this account.

What did/do I experience in terms of a self? It could be described as the sense of the one who is having the thoughts and sensations and who has the body. But this one would also have the sense that these phenomena were in some way constitutive of itself. In the former sense, it would be a separate self. In the latter sense it would be just a self. So, I seem to mean a bit of both. Bit confused here!

You say that for you the self is a character in a story. I can relate to the idea that the self is imagined by a continuity of thoughts that refer to 'I' in the internal monologue. In this sense the self would be a 'character' that was made up by I-referencing thought but that didn't actually exist beyond those thoughts. It would be thought that incorporated sensations and actual physical experience into the sense of self even though these happenings were occurring or originating outside of thought. The thoughts would be happening but the content of the thoughts (the self) would not be happening.

The behaviour of the body or actions would appear to be influenced by these thoughts and sensations or sense of self or content of thought. In this way, the apparent self/the imagined would appear to have real effects. There would be a synergy between the actual and the imagined.

Superb, well done! You can see now in practice (which is most important) that attention sometimes lingers in thought/fantasy/illusion, and can result in all kinds of tensions and suffering, non of which is necessary as these 'daydreams' simply disappear in a puff of smoke when we actually look AT them, rather than FROM them.

But looking AT them suggests an entity that is looking, like a separate self. Looking FROM them suggests just a self. How is what looks AT any different from that which looks FROM? Is looking AT just another looking FROM but from a different from as it were? ie. looking from the one who sees that there is no self in the original 'looking from', but now takes itself to be the one who is 'looking at'?

The 'looking AT' sounds to me a bit like the entity in the cloud that is separate.

Where does the confusion lie here exactly?

Just to clarify, in simple terms, I would describe 'my' experience of the gateless gate, as seeing that while there are thoughts, sensations and a body, contrary to unexamined experience, there is no further entity called self, me or I, that is associated with these.

Paul
Paul

[jupiter7]

I've just read through the entire discussion. Took ages! My fault!

Just wanted to quickly revisit this AT/FROM thing.

Where I do agree is in the sense that when we take the me to actually exist, we take ourselves to be the thoughts and sensations and/or the one they are happening to (looking FROM), whereas when we see that the me is only imagined, we see that there are just thoughts and sensations happening (looking AT).

Don't know if that's any clearer for us. Brain a bit frazzled.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for replying so promptly. Good to have you back on board as it were.

Likewise :)

So, I seem to mean a bit of both. Bit confused here!

And which one of those scenarios do you find to be valid in actuality/Direct Experience?

The thoughts would be happening but the content of the thoughts (the self) would not be happening.

Nice observation, keep it up.

The behaviour of the body or actions would appear to be influenced by these thoughts and sensations or sense of self or content of thought. In this way, the apparent self/the imagined would appear to have real effects. There would be a synergy between the actual and the imagined.

Indeed, in my experience too there is often a scenario in thought which precedes action and bears a similarity to actions and events that unfold in DE. For me this is analogous to a blueprint or model preceding the construction of a building. Neither the blueprint or the model ARE the building, but without them it would be difficult for that exact building to have been constructed.

The 'looking AT' sounds to me a bit like the entity in the cloud that is separate.

Let's look at that situation, not just thinking it through (more modelling of actuality, tsk tsk).

Observe what occurs next time you catch yourself daydreaming, or 'in' thought rather than DE. In my experience when I'm daydreaming I am looking FROM the thought itself and the imaginary scenario that's unfolding there. For me, looking FROM a thought is the same as being 'in' a thought (that different phrasing may help clarify). When you are looking FROM a thought it's all enveloping, even momentarily (esp. if there are strong emotions involved), and all the people and situations SEEM real, and the character 'self' acts 'as if' they are real. And so from that perspective they ARE real, but in actuality they are just thoughts - models of reality, not the real thing.

When the focus of awareness shifts back to DE, or even when there is a thought ABOUT the initial thought then the experience shifts to looking FROM another perspective AT the first one. Awareness has changed and extracted itself from the first scenario to another one, hopefully actuality/DE.

So in brief - in my experience there is always a FROM - a perspective in experience, rather than an entity separate from experience itself. For me, the FROM is part of the experience too - it's ALL just experience.

That has been my experience, but don't take my word for it - observe your own experience and see if it's valid from the perspective on experience labelled Paul. Share your findings and observations if you wish.

Just to clarify, in simple terms, I would describe 'my' experience of the gateless gate, as seeing that while there are thoughts, sensations and a body, contrary to unexamined experience, there is no further entity called self, me or I, that is associated with these

Wonderful, and we will focus more closely on this when you have addressed the few questions above.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thanks for your post. Bit of a busy day today so I look forward to responding tomorrow.

Paul

[Paulo]

No problem Paul, thanks for taking time to check in.

Looking forward to your next posting, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

So, I seem to mean a bit of both. Bit confused here!


And which one of those scenarios do you find to be valid in actuality/Direct Experience?

Okay. So the question is: do I find sense of self as thought and sensation or that which has thought and sensation?

Trouble with answering that seems to be that it is difficult/impossible to examine IE in DE other than through reflection on (thought about) IE, and that reflection consists of the content of the thought that is happening presently.

I think, as you say, that in IE there is a looking from sense and sensation and so at that moment there is no awarenes of or looking at that.

In DE it seems to be possible to look at thought and sensation. But it can also seem that thought and sensation can be looked at by another thought that 'looks back'.

In my experience when I'm daydreaming I am looking FROM the thought itself and the imaginary scenario that's unfolding there. For me, looking FROM a thought is the same as being 'in' a thought (that different phrasing may help clarify).

Yes, this 'from' thought and 'in' thought that you describe, seem to be what I meant by sense of self being 'constituted by' thought and sensation (from thought) and 'having' thought and sensation (in thought). So it's two ways of describing that sense of self in IE. Being 'in it' and 'from it' are pointing to the same type or mode of perpsective/experience.

When you are looking FROM a thought it's all enveloping, even momentarily (esp. if there are strong emotions involved), and all the people and situations SEEM real, and the character 'self' acts 'as if' they are real. And so from that perspective they ARE real, but in actuality they are just thoughts - models of reality, not the real thing.

Yes. This is taking the content of thought to be real.

When the focus of awareness shifts back to DE, or even when there is a thought ABOUT the initial thought then the experience shifts to looking FROM another perspective AT the first one. Awareness has changed and extracted itself from the first scenario to another one, hopefully actuality/DE.

Yes. A thought about the initial thought or about a previous actual happening is another looking FROM and is taking the content of the current thought about the past to be real.

How is DE different from these? In DE there is (supposedly) perspective on the actual. This can be perspective on current physcial/sensational happenings. Can there be a similarly direct perspective on the content of thought or is it that when the content of thought is happening that there is a looking from, or being in, that content? I seem to find that I can't look at thought other than from thought, although I seem to be able to look at physical happenings/sensations without thought.

So in brief - in my experience there is always a FROM - a perspective in experience, rather than an entity separate from experience itself. For me, the FROM is part of the experience too - it's ALL just experience.

There's no doubt. Obviously everything that appears to happen, appears to happen 'in' experience.

And also, this 'thing' we are pointing to with the word 'experience' is not the bounded thing that any linguistic or mantal defining/limiting/marking off, would imply. Because in actuality there is no getting out of experience. In other words, in experience, experience is not found to be bounded.

There is no getting out of experience (that can be experienced, at least) but there is a shifting to another point of view within experience.

That has been my experience, but don't take my word for it - observe your own experience and see if it's valid from the perspective on experience labelled Paul. Share your findings and observations if you wish.

The perspective on experience is a perspective in experience. There can be perpspective on previous experience that happens within experience, but there is no experience of standing outside of experience. Previous experience can appear as the content of thought in present experience.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

There can be perspective on previous experience that happens within experience, but there is no experience of standing outside of experience.

Is there an entity called 'self' that experiences, or is 'self' just a label for the experience of experiencing?

Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

There can be perspective on previous experience that happens within experience, but there is no experience of standing outside of experience.


Is there an entity called 'self' that experiences, or is 'self' just a label for the experience of experiencing?

I have not found an entity called 'self'. I would perhaps call 'self' a label for the experience that there is something that is experiencing that is more/other than the sum of thoughts and sensations or more/other than experience.

Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

I have looked and not found an entity called self. I found thoughts and sensations (including body, environment, happenings). Before there was an assumption and experience that a self pertained to these or that these constituted a self, but I see that all these have gone on and continue to go on without a self.

I still experience a sense of self when I am daydreaming which has been most of the time even over the last couple of weeks since I thought I first saw. But the experience of this sense of self is more diffuse in that there is a kind of underlying knowing that it is not really there and indeed it does evaporate from time to time in DE, or even in thought can be reasoned not to be real.

I'm still not sure why the word 'separate' might point to a significant feature of the illusion that I have seen through or that I am to see through. Perhaps this has something to do with a clearer seeing that is open to me.

Perhaps I have not fully seen what is being pointed to. Can you tell from my writing?

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

I would perhaps call 'self' a label for the experience that there is something that is experiencing that is more/other than the sum of thoughts and sensations or more/other than experience.

And what exactly is that something?

... but I see that all these have gone on and continue to go on without a self.

Yes indeed, my experience too has been that life pretty much just goes on with or without a belief in self, or any self there controlling it all.

Perhaps I have not fully seen what is being pointed to. Can you tell from my writing?

All I can tell is that you write ... and write ... and write :) (just teasing!) What we do here is simple look at the belief that there is a separate self that controls life, makes decisions, and exists separate from experience.

What we're doing at this stage is just tidying up loose ends, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

I would perhaps call 'self' a label for the experience that there is something that is experiencing that is more/other than the sum of thoughts and sensations or more/other than experience.


And what exactly is that something?

Seems to be just more thoughts and sensations or another aspect of experience.

All I can tell is that you write ... and write ... and write :) (just teasing!) What we do here is simple look at the belief that there is a separate self that controls life, makes decisions, and exists separate from experience.

Well, I wanted to show my working as it were and I want to be able to express from my own experience and in my own words rather than reproducing or agreeing with those of others. I hadn't been editing my posts much at all until a few posts back where I stripped out about half of what I'd written after re-reading it and seeing that it was superfluous thought. Until re-reading the entire discussion I hadn't realised how much stuff I was giving you to wade through, so thank you for your patience with that. :)

I'm still a little puzzled by this matter of seeing through 'separate self' v. seeing through just 'self'. I see that with a belief in the existence of self comes the belief that that self is a contoller or decision-maker, but I'm not sure I would say that that self would necessarily be believed to exist seperately from experience.

Possible explanations for this discrepancy:

1. I was already accustomed to the idea/experience that experience is all, even though I still believed in actuality of self as a special part of that experience.

2. I was/am believing self to be separate from experience but not recognising that assumption. I am not fully seeing.

3. I did believe self to exist separately from experience in the sense that I believed in a soul (as essensce of self) that outlasts the body, even though I didn't believe in contoller and decision-maker outlasting the body.

Sorry to go on but I want to address these loose ends.

Although I think I have seen through the illusion of self, my experience is still in large part not dissimilar from the experience which was before the seeing, ie. experiencing a sense of self. However, I expect that as time goes on and as more DE happens that this will become less so and the sense of self will not be taken to imply an actual self.

These two things:

1. the 'separate' issue
2. the ongoing experience of sense of self as indicating actual self

are what I see as the loose ends.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

I'm going to ask you the 'final questions' soon, but want to make sure these loose ends are tidied up - nothing lost in being thorough.

I'm still a little puzzled by this matter of seeing through 'separate self' v. seeing through just 'self'

What, in your experience in the moment, is the difference between 'separate self' and 'self'?

Maybe a re-read of the FAQs, particularly those sections on what LU is and isn't would be useful - http://liberationunleashed.com/faq/

but I'm not sure I would say that that self would necessarily be believed to exist seperately from experience.

Are you saying that 'self' is just another experience, like 'hot' or 'bright'?

However, I expect that as time goes on and as more DE happens that this will become less so and the sense of self will not be taken to imply an actual self.

Can you see that this is just an expectation, an imagining of what will happen in a non-existent 'future'.

my experience is still in large part not dissimilar from the experience which was before the seeing, ie. experiencing a sense of self

And what is behind this 'sense of self'?

the ongoing experience of sense of self as indicating actual self

What's the difference between 'sense of self' and 'actual self'?


If I'm not mistaken, there's a recurring theme here, an uncertainty around what 'self' actually is and isn't.

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

What, in your experience in the moment, is the difference between 'separate self' and 'self'?

You are asking me to describe the difference between one apparently non-existent thing and another. I don't seem to be able to do that.

I believe that I have seen that what I previously took to be self does not actually exist. I do not want to say that I took that self to be separate from experience as such a description doesn't seem to properly reflect my experience. I am happy, however, to describe it as in some way separate from thought, sensations and body as this description does seem to reflect my experience.

but I'm not sure I would say that that self would necessarily be believed to exist separately from experience.


Are you saying that 'self' is just another experience, like 'hot' or 'bright'?

I would perhaps say that now that I believe self not to exist. I wouldn't say that about how I experienced sense of self previously. Rather, I might say that self was taken to be a uniquely special part of experience.

However, I expect that as time goes on and as more DE happens that this will become less so and the sense of self will not be taken to imply an actual self.


Can you see that this is just an expectation, an imagining of what will happen in a non-existent 'future'.

Yes, but I am trying to articulate my experience that a sense of self is still experienced but that this is perhaps becoming less so. I quote the FAQ:

Seeing self for what it really is – a story – does not mean that your life is suddenly upgraded in every conceivable way. Old habits, beliefs, programming and conditioning will very probably remain in place. Awakening from the story of you allows old patterns to drop away quickly. The foundation upon which these patterns were based is gone.

An expectation, yes, but what I am saying is that while there remains an experience of sense of self (albeit more 'diffuse' as I have put it), I don't see how this will continue to happen in the same way indefinitely now that self has been seen not to exist. But I don't know - maybe it will. I am trying to account for the discrepancy between the experience of having seen through the illusion of self and the somewhat persistent experience of sense of self.

my experience is still in large part not dissimilar from the experience which was before the seeing, ie. experiencing a sense of self


And what is behind this 'sense of self'?

Looking from thought and sensation rather than at it or from DE.

the ongoing experience of sense of self as indicating actual self


What's the difference between 'sense of self' and 'actual self'?

Mmm - perhaps I was a little sloppy in my wording of that. What I mean is that because there can be the experience of a sense of self (looking from thought and sensation), that would seem to indicate belief in the existence of an actual self. That would be in conflict with a belief in the non-existence of self, hence the loose end as to whether self really has been seen through.

If I'm not mistaken, there's a recurring theme here, an uncertainty around what 'self' actually is and isn't.

I would agree. It occurs now that it could be that I'm just using the label 'sense of self' for the experience of looking from thought and sensation. There was looking from thought and sensation before seeing and there is looking from thought and sensation after seeing. Before seeing this was taken to be a sense of self that indicated existence of actual self, and after seeing it's the same! The difference is that there is intermittently (DE dispelling story and thinking about thought) and also concurrently (although of lower intensity) the awareness that actual self does not exist, hence the overall more diffuse sense of self/experience of looking from thought and sensation.

Paul

btw: I don't know if you guys are aware there has been an 'intenrnal server error 500' and short periods of downtime on the site a few times in the last couple of days.

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

I would agree. It occurs now that it could be that I'm just using the label 'sense of self' for the experience of looking from thought and sensation. There was looking from thought and sensation before seeing and there is looking from thought and sensation after seeing. Before seeing this was taken to be a sense of self that indicated existence of actual self, and after seeing it's the same! The difference is that there is intermittently (DE dispelling story and thinking about thought) and also concurrently (although of lower intensity) the awareness that actual self does not exist, hence the overall more diffuse sense of self/experience of looking from thought and sensation.

Eureka!!! Now you've got it :) That 'sense of self' was just a perspective 'in' experience mistaken for a 'something' having that experience.

Now you're ready for the 'final questions'. Answer them in your own time, and keep your responses succinct and focused (no workings out - just your experience in the moment please).

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 with some examples.

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

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?


I will catch up with you when you have responded to all 6 questions, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you very much for your further help over the last week. I have a couple of relatively busy days/evenings ahead and expect to post after that once I have given the questions the appropriate attention.

Paul