The Gate

I am new to the forum and was unsure where to put this, my first post, so I am putting it here.

Language itself relies heavily on the assumption of separation. If I say I am at one with X, then I and X are implied to be separate concepts by the language. Language itself is an obstacle as well as a tool.

That's why I wanted to call myself at1 here. I'm not at one with reality for the concepts I, I am, at one, and reality are not different.

Most words are the wrong words for inducing a spiritual awakening (in my experience) and I am fascinated to read some more of what takes place in the one-on-one and three-on-one forums to get a feel for what kinds of words are being used to facilitate an understanding of the way of non-separation. I have realized some things along the way. If you want same, then think and do same. If you want different, then think and do different. You are the author of your life from this point onward. But none of that implies directly that I have seen the light, whatever that means.

The key teaching of the Christian faith that falls right in line with what I believe is Luke 17:21 which has a couple of translations. The one I use states that the kingdom of God is within you. Again, the part of language that inhibits understanding comes through here. The point is non-separation. It stands to reason that the kingdom of man is contained in the kingdom of God; thus all kingdoms are within you is really a statement to the effect "separation is an illusion." This lesson is taught by many faiths.

This reminds me of the story of Indra's net, which is a statement about the holographic nature of reality. I believe that principle is just a way of saying separation is an illusion.

About 10 years ago when I was 25 or 26, I had suddenly gained the obsession of introspective/contemplative journaling. The quantity of words was immense compared to any other writing I had done prior to that. I got to know myself well over the next few years. I also began to write poetry again. I believe writing was my primary tool. (Again, the difficulties of language presents itself.)

In regards to the format suggested in one of the stickies, what changed after? Well, curiously, I can't pinpoint a moment where I was one way first and another way after. A few years passed and I realized that at some point in the last few years I had changed. I am reminded of a question "what did the monk say to the hot dog vendor after his enlightenment?" One presumes that the way the monk interfaced with the hot dog vendor was still essentially, "I'd like a hot dog." So what changed? I would say that my focus changed.

To explain self I cannot go without mentioning the three faces of self implied by the question "who am I" (language, again). There is the "self" asking the question, a "self" answering it, and a "self" watching the process of asking and answering. In my view, whatever self is, it is something that includes, at a minimum, the totality of the three "selves" involved in that dialog.

All events can be factored out by abstraction, like how a parabola can describe the path of a projectile. That parabola is fixed in time and all positions of the projectile are encoded somehow by that parabola. In this sense, reality is a single mathematical structure. I, being a self-aware structure as it were, cannot be separate from reality and if reality is a hologram and if the kingdom of God is within, then I cannot be separate.

Hey at1,

Here at LU, we assist clients to see through the illusion of the separate self. The process is not about arriving at the conclusion "there is no self" by analyzing and philosophizing and comparing religions. It is about seeing through a deeply rooted assumption that there is a "You" living life, that there is a "me" doing and choosing, and there is an "I" that is at the center of Experience. The process is built on Raw & Direct Experiential investigation, here and now. This process triggers the Awakening insight called no-self. This is the beginning of a truly Awakened life, and said to be the beginning of Enlightenment.

If this interests you, I can guide you through this process.

There are a few ground rules, please respond to confirm:

1. You agree to post at least every day.
2. I will post questions, and you will answer them.
3. When you answer you answer 110% honestly,
4. and when you do answer, you answer from your direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Long winded analytical and philosophical answers are not needed and may even hinder progress.
5. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this journey. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.
6. Please learn to use the quote function, instructions are located in the link below this line:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

Let me know if you would like to proceed,

with Love.

Let me know if you would like to proceed,

Interesting way to phrase it if there is no me but yes, I would like to.

Hey at1,

Interesting way to phrase it if there is no me but yes, I would like to.

Conventional language can and is still used even after Awakening :) It is just communication.

What the no-self insight triggers is the understanding that there is no separate 'You' that lives Life, types, reads, responds, thinks, etc... living, typing, reading, responding and thinking still occur but do so without anyone :)

Let's get started:

1) Outline your Expectations for Liberation. How will it feel? How will it change your life? What will the experience be like?

2) What comes up when I say * There is NO You... There NEVER was... and there NEVER will be * ? (write honestly, and thorough, but be brief)

With Love.

Thanks cosmiK.

1) Outline your Expectations for Liberation. How will it feel? How will it change your life? What will the experience be like?

I don't have any expectations which is not to be confused with expecting nothing.

2) What comes up when I say * There is NO You... There NEVER was... and there NEVER will be * ? (write honestly, and thorough, but be brief)

With Love.

If you were to use the word YOU in reference to me, then I would understand what you are talking about but the word itself is pretty hard to define in a way that would be universally acceptable (say, the same way that 'chair' has a universally acceptable definition).

I'm sure you get this question a lot: what is it that is being liberated? I'm tempted to call that ME or my true self. What's wrong with giving into that temptation?

With curiosity.

Hey at1,

If you were to use the word YOU in reference to me, then I would understand what you are talking about but the word itself is pretty hard to define in a way that would be universally acceptable (say, the same way that 'chair' has a universally acceptable definition).

See, you are just thinking about this intellectually... I am talking directly to you.

i want you to really FEEL the response when you digest this, when you face this. Try it again...

There is no YOU!
there never was,
there is no YOU controlling, living, choosing, doing, reading...
and there never will be.

What comes up?

I'm sure you get this question a lot: what is it that is being liberated? I'm tempted to call that ME or my true self. What's wrong with giving into that temptation?

I ask the questions around here :) and anyway... you can ask yourself this question. Let's focus on your response to the above statement, and then we can take it from there,

with Love.

i want you to really FEEL the response when you digest this, when you face this. Try it again...

There is no YOU!
there never was,
there is no YOU controlling, living, choosing, doing, reading...
and there never will be.

What comes up?

Curiosity. You said "I want you" yet seem to contradict yourself later by saying there is no YOU. Are you meaning two different things when you use 'you' first and then YOU second? I know what you're getting at and it makes perfect sense, even if (or because if) there is the implication of a dissociation-type mode.

Perhaps this touches upon the limitations of language that was mentioned earlier.

I ask the questions around here

Hey At1 :)

Curiosity. You said "I want you" yet seem to contradict yourself later by saying there is no YOU. Are you meaning two different things when you use 'you' first and then YOU second? I know what you're getting at and it makes perfect sense, even if (or because if) there is the implication of a dissociation-type mode.

Perhaps this touches upon the limitations of language that was mentioned earlier.

Curiosity is good. Remember to channel that curiosity deeply in to this investigation, and in to direct experiential investigation :)

I am just using conventional language . Even after seeing through the illusion of the separate self, there will still be a 'sense of self', which is just a function of life, yet it will be clear that there is no self. You can still use I or me, yet it is only done communicatively. :) I am not implying any modes, I just want to know your reaction to how you digest the statement on a visceral level. Thank you for your response :)

----

So, let's begin our investigation:

When you use the word "I" or "me"... what in Experience, here and now, does it point to?

is there an experience-er that is Experiencing?

with Love.

So, let's begin our investigation:

When you use the word "I" or "me"... what in Experience, here and now, does it point to?

is there an experience-er that is Experiencing?

with Love.

The body experiences sensory input inasmuch as a thermostat experiences sensory input.

I do not identify myself with the body which is, among other things, typing this out.

The body is a modem of sorts for that which is called at1, the thing that is (or isn't) liberated.

Hey At1,

the process works by you answering each questions directly. So please question 1, then answer, then 2, then answer. It directs your own investigation and keeps speculation to a minimum. This is a very important pat of the process.

So, this is the last time i'll do this, but I think your response meant that "I" or "me" points to the body? and that the body itself is the experience-er?
** IF this is what you meant, please Confirm, if not, please answer those 2 questions directly, 1 by 1.

I am a real hardass as you can see, yet the process and it's effectiveness is undeniable, and my main goal, always is to trigger this insight for you (yes I said "for you".... just language) :)

with Love.

So, let's begin our investigation:

When you use the word "I" or "me"... what in Experience, here and now, does it point to?

When I use the word I or me, I tend to be referencing the body. But as I said, I do not identify myself with the body.

is there an experience-er that is Experiencing?

Yes but only inasmuch as, say, a thermostat experiences temperature.

Hey At1,

Thanks for your direct responses.

When I use the word I or me, I tend to be referencing the body. But as I said, I do not identify myself with the body.

is there an experience-er that is Experiencing?

Yes but only inasmuch as, say, a thermostat experiences temperature.

So now... leave all theories, speculations, science, etc behind and look directly at Experiencing, here and now...

does Experience come from the body?

or

is the 'body' just a part of Experience that is selectively and habitually labelled 'body'?

with Love.

does Experience come from the body?

or

is the 'body' just a part of Experience that is selectively and habitually labelled 'body'?

with Love.

Body is just a part of Experience.

Hey At1,

Yeah, so even the body can be broken down to a habitually labelled selection of certain sensations and we can also do the same with 'external objects, world, etc' - some cool stuff to play with. Anyway... let's stay focused on this "I".

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ce-de.html

Above is an article about direct experience and breaking it down... this may make the foundation of our investigation clearer. We always look at Experiencing, here and now, and always work to falsify this assumption of a separate "I" or experience-er, etc.

Next,

Let's focus on control / doership:

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... rship.html

Is there a 'You' that is in control? or is it all just happening?

Use the 3 exercises in the article and investigate Experience here and now deeply. LOOK Deeply, and don't rush to make any conclusions. Experiential investigation is key here.

with Love.

Why is the arm moving if not because there is a self that read the article and tried the experiment?

Here's where I am at right now. You ask if there is an agent that is controlling my arm that I decided to lift.



This is a picture of two things simultaneously. It is true that the pic is of a cup and it is true that the pic is of two faces.

That is where I am at: yes it is true that there is no agent or self controlling the arm, it is just happening and yes it is true that there is something that read the article and decided to to the experiment with the arm.

I'd still like to know what it is that is being liberated, if not something related to a self.