Happy 2013! Would be deeply grateful for a guide!

[Critterfan]

Dear cosMik:

There has been a lot of material in our several months of conversations to survey. I want to pull some quotes from you that were particularly powerful and respond to them.

there are no separate elements or things in consciousness. It's very important to see that 'things', 'parts' or 'separation' ONLY exist in thought. That's it. The entire house of cards, the self, others, things, places, the world... all exist in thought. When that is dropped there is just this. Simpler than simplicity.

I am starting to realize that this ultra-simplicity -- shall we call it Simplicissimo? ;) -- cannot be experienced (much as we try to) and is not experience or in experience, which is always multiple and complex. Looking for that deep clarity is like looking for God or seeking the Holy Grail -- a fermentation of mythic imagination and yearning for the blessing of authority and completion. Rather the clarity is foundational, the source of experience, like "Being-Itself" -- but I don't mean to put a label on it. It can't be felt or seen or known but somehow I do "know" it's there, here, everywhere, everything. And I "know" NOT as a matter of "faith" or belief. And, as you put it in the quote below, "basically no big deal." =:o

And let me be sure you understand that despite the foregoing, it is clear to me that THERE IS NOTHING BUT EXPERIENCE. Certainly there is no personal or cosmic self or Oversoul. The above thoughts don't mean to philosophize about the origin or source of experience, but they do help me contextualize my place in reality. But only in the most open-ended and undefined manner.

Some of your comments have alluded to apprehending the dissolution into essencelessness of time, space and objects, as well as the self -- and that is becoming more comprehensible.

the appearance of the person, the world are all just like ripples on a vast Ocean... basically, no big deal. Even the appearance of the person in Dukkha, is seen in perfect clarity, just another ripple.

I think you have been telling me that every thing and all things, processes, beings, including my representation of them, and my experiential apprehension of their "presence" are nothing more than a collection of neural impulses coded into labels, sign, symbols, tools useful for survival, but ultimately.... ultimately.... ripples within ripples beneath and on top of ripples. The waveform of the universe. It's ripples "all the way down."

there is no "internal" and "external" there is just consciousness. notice how thought creates this imaginary boundary, and stitches certain elements together to be self (internal), and others to be external. Investigate this. Just take a breath and notice. In all that appears, in consciousness... is there really an "in" and an "out". Are some (thought created) parts self, and some not? Look like a little baby. IGNORE any thought answers to this and just LOOK.

Often when I do that (in contrast to "thinking about doing it"), nothing reveals itself, but I understand that this is the nature of things, nothing is gained from "enlightenment/LOOKING." The fact that I cannot ever find "the answer" -- that is THE ANSWER.

The I/ME doesn't process information, because the "I" me ONLY exists in thought/as thought. The first person character (aka you) has ZERO awareness. He has never done anything, and isn't doing anything now. That character has much awareness as a rock, or a chair or table does. Just another apparent appearance.

One of the LU wall posters puts it so well that I have it on my facebook page: “The “I” is just another thought in the head, and thoughts cannot think.”

there is NO self whatsoever. the self, along with everything, is in thought. is there a separate "I" in any of this? does an "I" chop wood and carry water? or does chopping wood and carrying water just happen. look deeply at daily happenings and activities... is there an "I" experiencing these happenings? is there an "I" that does any activities? keep going back to this simple insight.

You have often gotten me back on track by reminding me that this "nothingness of self" is what LU tackles.

The self is like a disturbance in clear water. The agitation refracts light and shadow, creating the appearance of a real being at the heart, but like the imagelessness between two perfectly aligned mirrors, there is really nothing there -- but it's nothing there primarily in the sense that there is nothing unique, solid, or real, nothing independent from Everything else in its infinite abundance. In that sense, the dualistic "else" does not belong in that sentence. There is only Everything, not Everything else.

I focus on the "koans" of moment-by-moment existence throughout the day, as I wake up in the morning and fall asleep at night, but nearly every day after a workout at the local Y, I park by a nearby lake, surrounded by woodland preserves and sparkling with Florida sunlight, and I just FEEL how true this LU dharma is.

[cosmiK]

Hi Stan. Thanks for writing. Sorry o haven't gotten back to you yet. Please give me 2 days or so to respond as I'm away this weekend and will be back Monday. I'd like to sit with your response and give it a proper reply.
Lots of Love.

[cosmiK]

Hi Stan,

sincerest apologies in getting back to you.

I love listening to your reflections and indeed it seems this insight is gradually setting in.

A few comments here.

Rather the clarity is foundational, the source of experience, like "Being-Itself" -- but I don't mean to put a label on it. It can't be felt or seen or known but somehow I do "know" it's there, here, everywhere, everything. And I "know" NOT as a matter of "faith" or belief. And, as you put it in the quote below, "basically no big deal." =:o

Yes, in all that appears, or is experienced, the true nature of that is Beingness, so in essence while there appears to be multitudes, the many, the various, when all of that is investigated, all that remains is Beingness.

The insight of no-self, or no-INSERT-ANY-OBJECT-HERE, reveals the true nature of that assumed separate and independent object as that Life-itself, or Beingness-itself.

This insight is covered by the belief in the multitude, in the world, the body, and of course the self that resides in it. But the illusion is actually like being sucked in to your favorite drama. There is identification with the character, that character's life... "my life".. but when we look deeper at the nature of this character, it's apparent body and the world.... when investigated, no self can be found, no world can be found, just beingness itself. This is why it is often referred to as "waking up" because it is almost like waking up from a dream, the dream of separation, of playing a certain somebody who is separated from the world around them, but that separation is merely dream stuff.... the dream of being in a body, of being the doer and thinker, of being 1 of the multitude of beings... but it's the dreaming itself that IS, beingness itself. It really does sound silly putting words to it, but words appear to point to dream back to itself, and seem to serve an apparent purpose :) only apparently!

Some of your comments have alluded to apprehending the dissolution into essencelessness of time, space and objects, as well as the self -- and that is becoming more comprehensible.

Direct Inquiry leads to the realization that there is no actual essence or thing we call time, space, objects, self. It isn't that suddenly these things fall away. A more accurate way of saying it is that they never were!

I think you have been telling me that every thing and all things, processes, beings, including my representation of them, and my experiential apprehension of their "presence" are nothing more than a collection of neural impulses coded into labels, sign, symbols, tools useful for survival, but ultimately.... ultimately.... ripples within ripples beneath and on top of ripples. The waveform of the universe. It's ripples "all the way down."

Well I wouldn't speak about neural impulses only because I am not mixing any scientific models of reality with direct inquiry. direct inquiry (the style that I uses, and the style that LU uses (only for the self)) leaves no stone unturned - it deconstructs across the board. the idea of everything boiling down to neural impulses mean that there must be a brain existing independently, and that idea already comes with it an entire universe.... a body, a person, a world, a galaxy.... but all of that simply is in thought. it's a neverending kaleidoscope of a universe unfolding, infinite forms, a multitude of colors, sensations, sounds, thoughts... but there isn't an actual "you" in any of that, or an actual "anything" in any of that/

even these apparent ripples and waveforms too are subtle objects... we can say there is just this ocean, but even saying there is One is too much. it's a lot more subtle than labels can do justice to.

we can say there is just this ineffable ocean, and the "self" is just a presently appearing ripple, or a presently appearing form of the ocean.

you are not any of those ripples

just beingness-itself, as you say.

Often when I do that (in contrast to "thinking about doing it"), nothing reveals itself, but I understand that this is the nature of things, nothing is gained from "enlightenment/LOOKING." The fact that I cannot ever find "the answer" -- that is THE ANSWER.

Yes. "Looking" and "searching" and "getting it" also make less sense after a while. The search and seeking play their part (apparently), but nothing is ever accomplished, nothing is ever gained, nothing hidden is ever revealed! Where would it hide???

That sounds like it sucks ... but only from the perspective of a self! And if so, then Looking continues!

One of the LU wall posters puts it so well that I have it on my facebook page: “The “I” is just another thought in the head, and thoughts cannot think.”

Yes, I like that quote apart from the materialist assumption embedded in it. The idea that a thought occurs "in" a "head" sets up the very person/body/container that was initially the very structure that created suffering, alienation and separation in the first place. The idea of a physical world and physical body is fine to speak about, it is just another beautiful story, and can be honored, but direct inquiry let's us see that there is no body, or head, or self there to be caged in... all of these are just more ripples, giving a convincing illusion of separation.

The self is like a disturbance in clear water. The agitation refracts light and shadow, creating the appearance of a real being at the heart, but like the imagelessness between two perfectly aligned mirrors, there is really nothing there

Yes, it helps to conceptualize things like this at first... but take it a step further as well. Agitation for Who?

Yes... there isn't anything there. We assumed that these appearances pointed to a real substantial separate being, a self, but upon investigation there isn't anything substantial there at all.

but it's nothing there primarily in the sense that there is nothing unique, solid, or real, nothing independent from Everything else in its infinite abundance. In that sense, the dualistic "else" does not belong in that sentence. There is only Everything, not Everything else.

Yes, exactly,
there is no "everything else" ... where would that "everything else" be anyway?

Just look around, That is Everything, That is the Universe,

and there is no self there experiencing a portion of the universe,

just the Universe.

I focus on the "koans" of moment-by-moment existence throughout the day, as I wake up in the morning and fall asleep at night, but nearly every day after a workout at the local Y, I park by a nearby lake, surrounded by woodland preserves and sparkling with Florida sunlight, and I just FEEL how true this LU dharma is.

That is wonderful. Spending time in nature and just observing and allowing, as you say, the moment's koans reveal themselves is a great way to go about this.

Keep it up and write when you have a few more insights or concerns. I think the more spaced out communication is good, but feel free to write more often if there is the inclination.

I hope you are keeping very well!

I have been LOVING the latest 3 episodes of Game of Thrones! WoW! Drama! Dragons!!!

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi cos,

Thanks for the input. I'm going to keep my oven on high and let myself bake some more, but will get back to you in due time as you suggested. I may look up the standard questions from other LU dialogues and take a fresh shot at answering.

Yes, Game is getting intense. My wife and I continue to expose innocent neighbors to the addiction. So tragic what the rogue Black Watchmen did to the Lord Commander, who was a good man and great leader. Poignant goodbye from Arya to the young blacksmith (eldest surviving bastard son of King Robert whose name I forget) who fled King's Landing with her. And I wonder if Dany will turn out to be an Abraham Lincoln freeing slaves or just another Napoleon Bonaparte, spreading destruction and empire in the name of revolution. In any case, she and her RAF (Reptilian Air Force) may be the only way to stop the white walkers.

Love back at ya

[Critterfan]

Hi cosmiK

Hope things are going great with you and your loved ones.

I feel that I have reached the point of momentum, where "the stream" tugs at me gently whenever I slack off. It doesn't carry me along passively because I can see that the journey onward continues and always calls for consciousness and intention. One could say "effort", but that implies a burden and I don't feel like there is anyone who could carry "a burden", just carry on.

I'd like to return to the set of questions that are asked late in these dialogues to gauge progress.

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

There is no 'me' or 'I' at all. In the "real" time and space of the mind, there are thoughts, feelings, sensations, responses to stimuli, and direct experience, but these are sequences of impressions, labels, stories, but not the creations of a "thinker", "feeler", "experiencer", "storyteller". Self doesn't exist now nor in the past (nor in the future) other than a means of classification, boundary management, or transactional practicality.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

It happens that evolution and culture have shaped a set of responses that humans take to be self (and others), setting everyone apart. It can serve us well, or be very toxic. Our present "sense of self" is perhaps an emergent product of multitudes of competing inputs and processes -- those that dominate in a given moment are what we feel like we own and recognize as ourself -- like Daniel Dennett's explanation of consciousness as the outcome, through a form of natural selection in the mind, of many draft inputs and impulses competing for attention and dominance as a final version. But "we" are helpless within this struggle, despite our belief in free will.

It's not too difficult for many people to acknowledge that the past self is no more, just present memories. It's virtually a truism of popular culture -- forget the past, move on with your life, live in The Now. The present self appears as a slender and evanescent flicker in that insubstantial "Now". However, if one has the good fortune of coming across dharmic teachings or a process like LU, and with courageous looking and reflection, the self in its present moment can be perceived mindfully as no more than simulation, computation, a persistent, shifting blend of thought and feeling -- and therefore nothing.

The notion of a self in the future is a bit stickier. One of the things that keeps us in bondage is the story that somehow, by effort or spiritual seeking, a self ("True Self") will emerge in the future that will infinitely satisfy and save us. That is the hardest self to see through, the false hope, the dream hardest to release.

In the course of development, realizing the subjective and empty nature of time itself can be help in being freed from the "future."

3) How does it feel to see this?

It starts out as an enormous sense of relief, or safety, and almost rescue. And yet it also comes as no surprise because it builds upon, verifies and validates the spiritual teachings and practices that I have studied and pursued -- that is, the rare subset of spiritual teachings (mostly in Buddhism, as far as I'm concerned) that are not myths, wishful thinking in disguise, tribal identity markers, etc. It renews commitment to mindfulness and compassion.

It's clear that it's the way things have always been, thus no big deal. Life goes on in its ordinary wonder and simple abundance. I feel more peaceful, tolerant (but not indifferent) of discomfort or pain (which are after all life-giving and protective), and happy, loving, compassionate. Compulsions no longer operate. Habits are more like options. But it's also clear that I have much to do: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep." [R. Frost]

4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.

I might say that once you glimpse it, you'll wonder why you didn't notice it ever before -- or that it will be like coming home, but never having left it in the first place.

In a way, however, the old Zen approach may be best: drink the tea and smell the blossoms, nothing is hidden.

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

While these realizations are infinitely simple, they occur in a reality that is infinitely complex. It's more like I have been transiting a living network of thoughts, ideas, conversations, everyday events, and recollections of things understood throughout life.

I can't say that a single phrase or nudge from you or an experience during this process can be isolated as primally causal. Everything you communicated was helpful. In some of my past responses I have cited words of yours that really resonated, particularly when they pertained not just to my psychological processes but to the larger (much larger) context of reality. It helps me to open up to the vastness and defuse the minor urgencies of what seemed to be my "personal existence" -- a phrase which now strikes me as referring to something quaint and fanciful, even slightly absurd -- but in a good way!

I may be entirely wrong in thinking I have sufficiently progressed to get a "blue" alias, and in many ways I don't want this dialogue to end, so I hope we can stay in touch via Facebook or whatever, if that's appropriate. If it's ok, I'll send you a friend request from "LStanChappell" or "Stan Chappell" (not sure how FB identities me) once you have vetted my development. In any case, I will be eager to connect with the Facebook aftercare group. I notice there are some interesting conversations in the "home" forum which I'd like to peruse.

Get in touch if you decide to bring your son to Orlando.

Love,
Critterfan

[cosmiK]

Hi Stan,

it was wonderful to read your responses.

The pressing question before I review this with other guides is to make sure about your clarity on the lack of self.
Please just write about your clarity on this process? Has the process achieved its "goal"? Just a few closing words.

And we can definitely continue communicating on FB! I will accept the request.

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi cos,

Please just write about your clarity on this process [of realizing the lack of self]. Has the process achieved its "goal"? Just a few closing words.

The so-called personal essence, the “I”, does not exist in any reality, even if mental phenomena create the superficial impression of a central self. Here is the desk, here is the screen and keyboard. There is surrounding air, light, texture, sounds of the morning. There are shifting thoughts and images that struggle to be expressed. There may be a persona, like the mask of a character in a play (particularly when someone else calls or enters the area), but not a person. I am not an essence or person. Never was, never will be. Not only that, but there are no self-entities or self substances on earth, among the stars or anywhere in the multiverse of reality. The existence of selves might be compared to the existence of a mono/polytheistic god or gods. It just ain’t so, Joe.

The existentialists said that “existence precedes essence,” but only meant that an individual’s essence or identity or value is not causal but contingent, emerging from the intentions and actions of life, and certainly not eternal. However, one could say more bluntly and radically that existence precludes essence (and definitely including the special case of conscious existence). Existence is impermanent, unstable and continuous with everything everwhere (which Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh called “interbeing”). That leaves no room for discrete little packages of identity, no soul-moths fluttering on their cute little wings through eternity, circling the flame of an adorable, heavenly creator or destroyer or sustainer.

There are observations, phenomena, experience, sensations, intentions, etc. but there is no ghost in the head looking out through the eyes and pulling the strings of any particular existence. The acts of will I seem to perform are more conscious (i.e., noticeable) than the beating of my heart, but not any more voluntary -- if I just pay honest attention to them. The beauty of it is that I have never felt farther from any feeling of being a robot or benign zombie (which some people may naively assume not-self is about). Indeed, I feel more consistently sensitive, empathetic and alive than ever before. I realize that I do not pull my own strings, and never did. Infinite nature is the driver, but I am a direct extension of this whole Big Production, not a helpless output.

Operationalizing this insight is a process that does not happen overnight, but it seems irreversible. There are plenty of times every day that I drift into the unconscious habit of being someone, since that is the persistent and pervasive message of society throughout my own and everyone ‘s upbringing. The illusion may operate through the thought sequences of interior monologue or under in the emotional impressions that "I" am suffering or enjoying or wanting some outcome or other. Nevertheless, if I allow myself to settle into the present moment of experience, and dwell in the bare present before labels and descriptions populate the mental landscape, the clarity returns.

After studying Buddhism for many decades (and learning some of the ideas of David Hume, Baruch Spinoza, and contemporary neuropsychology), I was intellectually aware of “no-self “ as a convincing and evident concept. However, the process of LU has made this universal absence of any self-nature clear in my own life and direct experience.

LU describes itself as a way to enable what the foundational teachings of Buddhism called "the entering of the stream" by perceiving reality (specifically, the absence of essence) through "direct pointing" (as it happens, the basic definition of Zen).

According to Buddhist tradition, the first "bondage" from which a "stream-enterer" is released is "identity belief." This begins to topple the "house of cards," as LU guides sometimes describe it. Further liberations (from the remaining nine bonds or “fetters” such as doubt, reliance on rules and rituals, ill will, agitation, etc. -) follow from that first step.

[Critterfan]

Hey there,

Woops! Once again, while still reviewing "my few closing words" (LOL), I pushed the submit instead of preview button, but only wanted to add (after the last sentence ending in "that first step"):

- - - - -

There are more steps to come, more doors to unlock. I have plenty of work ahead of me, but look forward to it. I will always be open to guidance and suggestion.

Lots of Love,
Critterfan

[cosmiK]

Hey Stan!

Awesome! I have given your responses to the other guides to review your progress so far. I want to see if they have any further questions or points of clarification for you. I will be in touch shortly my friend.

Lots of Love <3

[cosmiK]

Hi Stan!

Thank you for your patience.

The guides have reviewed our conversation and are very satisfied with your progress and your insight(s) so far! We would all like to welcome you to our online groups (@FB) where there is further discussion, sharing, after-care, and chatter. I will still be available to continue chatting with you, and we can do that on Facebook directly.

It was a pleasure guiding you on this journey. Don't stop.

Lots of Love my friend,

cos.

[Critterfan]

Hey Neil,

That's awesome. Hoorah! I'm glad that your folks took plenty of time to review -- it demonstrates thorough and conscientious dedication to the mission. I'll check out the LU page at FB and look forward to continuing my travelsand staying in touch.

Lots of love back at ya!
Stan