The Gate

I'm wading through both hope and fear as I type this request. I would very much appreciate a guide....anyone?

thanks, katie

Hello Katie. My name is Xain.
I may be willing to be your guide.

Could you tell me a little more about the hope and fear that you mentioned. Hopes of what? Fears of what?
What exactly are you seeking here at Liberation Unleashed?

I would be willing to act as a guide for you so that you would realise beyond doubt that there is no 'I', no separate individual here, and that there never was. Is this what you seek?

Xain ♥

Dear Xain,

Thanks so much for responding.

I am a long time buddhist (tibetan variety)--one of the first talks I ever went to was about the three marks of existence--suffering, impermanence and no-self. I was immediately struck by how obvious the first two were and how I couldn't make any sense of the third, but I was intrigued enough to keep going...recently, in part through this website, it has struck me that no-self might be as "obvious" as the other two. I'm here at this website reaching out for a guide because I feel it's time to stop dithering and start investigating.

The hope part is that I can see how holding on to a narrow view of self is contributing to my suffering and to my relative lack of ability to help others, so the idea that it could be more straight forward than I thought is enticing. The fear part is -- I guess it has two parts -- one part is that I feel worried that I somehow will fail to see the obvious and that seems to be connected with wanting to be right all the time and underneath that there is some kind of more basic fear--like little warning bells going off saying 'don't go down this road.' Neither the hope nor the fear is hugely strong--more like a usual kind of ping pong game I'm pretty used to.

Strangely, at the moment, what has me the most interested is not that there is no separate self but that there NEVER WAS. For some reason, that cheers me up.

Does this help?

thanks, katie

Hi Katie - Thank you for your reply.

Coming from your Buddhist background, you have probably heard about 'emptiness'. This pertains to us also. That 'we' are empty of a separate self.

For the moment, I ask you to put away all Buddhist philosophy and training for our investigation together.
Also, please try to put aside any expectation you may have about what this will 'feel like' or what will happen.
Approach this from an entirely fresh innocent point of view if possible.
Having said this, absolutely cling on to your desire for the truth and your willingness to really find it out.

The fear part is -- I guess it has two parts -- one part is that I feel worried that I somehow will fail to see the obvious and that seems to be connected with wanting to be right all the time and underneath that there is some kind of more basic fear--like little warning bells going off saying 'don't go down this road.' Neither the hope nor the fear is hugely strong--more like a usual kind of ping pong game I'm pretty used to.

You honesty here is both respected and appreciated.
Allow me to reassure you, though. There are no right or wrong answers or paths. You cannot 'fail' at anything unless you have already mentally estabilished some sort of goal.
Even if our conversation opens up a tiny little window rather than showing you the gate and you go through it, wouldn't that be worth it :-)

Strangely, at the moment, what has me the most interested is not that there is no separate self but that there NEVER WAS. For some reason, that cheers me up.

Warnings bells can come from the mind because the mind IS self. Without the mind who are we? This may bring up feelings of being 'killed' or 'annihilated' in some way.
It is simply that the mind is covering over the truth. We simply have to uncover it so that it can be seen.

A few guidelines which will assist us both.

1. Please post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. Answer from direct personal experience only (we can go into this in more depth later if needed).
4. Read the disclaimer on the Liberation Unleashed main page - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/
(Scroll down the page)

If you need to you can use the QUOTE function like I have done three times to quote some of your replies - It may make it easier to read through the dialogue.
A guide for this function can be found here: http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660

Xain ♥

Dear Xain,

thank you for such a quick and helpful response. I am ready to follow the guidelines and have read the disclaimer.

I am going to try and set aside all my preconceptions (built up over thirty years!) and approach this freshly--at the same time, I suspect that you will probably have to help bring me back to looking if I wander too far into the field of ideas.

Even if our conversation opens up a tiny little window rather than showing you the gate and you go through it, wouldn't that be worth it :-)

Thank you also for your remark that even a tiny window into the truth is worth the effort of taking this particular plunge! It helps put things in perspective. (Hey, this quote thing works!)

I look forward to working with you,

katie

I suspect that you will probably have to help bring me back to looking if I wander too far into the field of ideas.

That's my job, Ma'am ;-) But also very good of you to know that this may happen - This is a good position to be coming from.

I look forward to working with you,

As do I - Let's rock!

First off, let's try to establish what is 'I', 'me' - What does the word 'I' and 'me' actually point to.
Try not to go into the past - Examine right now - What is here right now that is 'I', 'me'.

I'm here at this website reaching out for a guide . . .
Ok, 'I' is something that has reached this website and is here. Perhaps the body?

What has me the most interested is not that there is no separate self . . .
I was immediately struck by how obvious . . . It has struck me that no-self might be as "obvious" as . . .
So from this, 'I' is something that has interests and has insights, yes? Maybe some link with a mind?

This is just to get you looking and considering, but feel free to open up and tell me what 'I' points to in your experience. Does 'I' have a form and/or a location?
Tell me what, right now in your experience, the words 'I' and 'me' point to.

Xain ♥

Hey,

I’ve spent a good part of the day—on and off—pondering this first assignment. What in the moment do I mean by ‘I’? I’ve come up with a few general ideas—but when it comes right down to this moment, I’m not really sure. It seems that I divide my experience into two main categories—my side and the rest of the world. And in general, as you suggested, I put my body, feelings and thoughts into the me side of stuff.

However, it’s not fixed, and I find that I can fairly easily move most things from one category to the other. If it starts out as subjective—for example, right now the pain in my left big toe—then as soon as I really focus on it, it feels objective, something that is happening to me, but isn’t me. Similarly if I look at something—the computer screen, for example—then at first it seems obviously not me, but I start to become more aware of the perceiving of it and that has the feel of me about it. There are certain aspects that I habitually focus on or think about—that don’t really fit with it being an object out there separate from me, and, more worryingly, I can’t find any place or interface between the perception/other and me. And I notice that when I go in this direction, ‘I’—something—start feeling very uncomfortable.

In other words this way of categorising things seems on examination to be a bit arbitrary and just for the sake of convenience rather than the truth about reality. But it’s almost like I can’t really find or notice what’s making the categories, much less believing in them.

I am noticing also a certain process which so far is as close as I can get to finding ‘me.’ It’s a kind of pulling away from my experience and into a very familiar sort of centralised place—roughly located where my body is—it feels a bit like that’s where things stew—I leave direct experience and I go into some kind of burbly stuff and today I am really noticing that I do that ALOT. It’s not the burbly stuff as such that seems like me—it’s more like my most familiar habitat—but I can separate out strands of it and I can let bits of it go and it seems like I can leave it behind for awhile, so it’s not me. On the other hand, this pulling away from experience—I can never seem to catch that—it’s only after the fact that I notice it. It’s like I somehow blank out and then find myself back in a kind of stew. Today feels very groundhog dayish (if you ever saw that film).

I’m not sure if this is coherent or not...

and I am looking forward to receiving some of your fresh air! (Cause that staleness is what I most strongly associate with I / me / mine.)

katie

Hi Katie

I’ve spent a good part of the day—on and off—pondering this first assignment.

Assigment - Well think of it more like a friendly chat between friends. There are no right or wrong answer and I won't be grading you at the end :-)

Straight away, I see some great consideration into 'I' - Nice work. Let's go into some further depth.

for example, right now the pain in my left big toe—then as soon as I really focus on it, it feels objective, something that is happening to me, but isn’t me.

Would it more correct to say 'I experience pain', or 'pain is experienced'.
Is there an 'I', the experiencer of pain separate to the experience itself?

Similarly if I look at something—the computer screen, for example—then at first it seems obviously not me, but I start to become more aware of the perceiving of it and that has the feel of me about it.

That's fair - Ok - 'I see the computer screen'.
Can you describe the 'I' that sees the computer screen? What is it's location, size and shape?

I leave direct experience and I go into some kind of burbly stuff

Ok, describe the 'I' that leaves Direct Experience. What is it's location, size and shape?

I couldn't fully understand your description of 'Burbly stuff' (great word, though)
One of the senses in Direct Experience is 'Seeing' - Is it possible to leave it or pull away from it?
Unless perhaps what you mean is an examination of the difference between the 'seeing' and the 'I' that apparently does it.

Today feels very groundhog dayish (if you ever saw that film).

I did - I saw it yesterday - And the day before that . . . ;-)

Xain ♥

I am finding this fun, but I tend to be a little earnest--hence assignment...one of my motivations for pursuing this particular insight is the wish to lighten up!

Would it more correct to say 'I experience pain', or 'pain is experienced'.
Is there an 'I', the experiencer of pain separate to the experience itself?

Some sense of problem was experienced along with the thoughts that arose in response to this--I'm going to switch back to 'natural' language now--so I spent a little time wondering about my reluctance to commit to 'pain is experienced' as more accurate than 'I experience pain.' Here goes: I don't experience anything other than experience--no experiencer outside of the experience. This seems utterly true at an intellectual level and sometimes true at a more gut level. What troubles me is two-fold: the first is I'm not sure that the capacity to experience isn't the same as the 'I' although I notice that if that is ALL I thought the 'I' was I probably wouldn't be bothering with this investigation....so more work needed here, I guess. (In other words, I do think of myself as a problem, but I don't think of experience as a problem--just the way that I reject and want to pull away from experience--so what is that?)

The second is a bit of a preoccupation for me and it has to do with the uniqueness of experience. Saying pain is experienced doesn't point to the very localised and personal nature of experience. Somehow, even if we were in the same room at the same time, enjoying the same view, our experience would be different. (I'm not thinking of the idea that you might be seeing blue while I am seeing red but that we both call it blue) It's both more sweeping and subtle, it seems to me. No one else gets to experience what I experience and I don't get to experience what they experience--at least not with my current level of awareness. Even in the most intense shared experiences where I felt that there really was a kind of 'meeting of minds' there was also always this aloneness. So some of what I mean when I think of 'I' has to do with this uniqueness--that we are all experiencing something rich and strange--but it can nver really be fully 'shared'.

Onto burbly stuff: it's basically just the way I experience being kind of lost in thought, a bit spaced out and out of touch with the moment, body, etc.

So then you pose a challenge:

describe the 'I' that leaves Direct Experience. What is it's location, size and shape?

I think you've got me here. Awareness moves from the big world of the present moment and then attends to the relatively constricted-feeling burbly stuff. There doesn't seem to be a doer--it just happens. I have no means to locate this awareness--I have never 'perceived' it and so I can't say anything at all about its location, size or shape. All I can say about it is that it seems to be remarkably inclusive--it seems to allow just anything to come wandering in!

As to whether it is possible to leave it or pull away from it, I am going to think about this some more. It's a tangle for me at the moment--maybe yes, maybe no.

Thanks again for your willingness to accompany me and poke a bit. I really appreciate it.

Katie

Hi Katie - Thank for your reply.

First off, perhaps a word or two about our conversation together here.
Our dialogue here is to get you a direct personal experience that there is no separate self. This will be achieved by me asking you questions to see if what you 'know' from thought and mind, actually matches true reality.

You appear to be a very knowledgeable person, and very analytical. This can be a hindrance to our discussion here, as the tendency for you will be to analyse every question given mentally, rather than actually considering the question on an experiential level.

From now on, please really look at the questions asked, contemplate them and answer them from what you feel the answer is right now from experience, rather than spending time thinking and analysing what the answer is.

I'm going to switch back to 'natural' language now

Only ever use 'natural' language. I will understand what you mean, and if I don't I will ask.

I don't experience anything other than experience

Ok, so in that sentence what does 'I' point to in your experience. What is the 'I' that experiences?
It may be easier at this point to simply it to a specific sense e.g. pain - 'I experience pain'.
What is the 'I' that experiences pain? Or, is there just the experience of it alone.

The second is a bit of a preoccupation for me and it has to do with the uniqueness of experience.

This is a philosophical rabbit-hole we don't need to go down here. The only thing you can know about, and speak from the experience of is your own personal experience. You will say 'I experience'. Our conversation here is solely focussed on examining this 'I' and finding out what it is, and if it exists.

Similarly if I look at something—the computer screen, for example—then at first it seems obviously not me, but I start to become more aware of the perceiving of it and that has the feel of me about it.

That's fair - Ok - 'I see the computer screen'.
Can you describe the 'I' that sees the computer screen? What is it's location, size and shape?

You seemed to have missed that one, and teacher is not going to let you off the hook :-)
Give it a go. Don't analyse. Answer from what you 'feel' is right and speak from what is here right now.

As to whether it is possible to leave it or pull away from it, I am going to think about this some more. It's a tangle for me at the moment--maybe yes, maybe no.

Well let's probe into this, and see if we can get a definite answer. Don't think and analyse - Contemplate, by all means, but see if you can come up with an answer from your own experience rather than thinking about it.

We experience the 'world' though the senses. If you say 'I can pull away from experience' there must be an 'I' here capable of doing that. What is it? What form does this 'I' take? Have a look right now and try to find this 'I'.

Xain ♥

Ok--I will try to speak from direct experience, and set aside my urges to shoot down rabbit holes.

You say I ducked your question about the size, location etc of the I that sees the computer screen (now once again in my immediate experience), but my response is the same as what I said in response to another of your questions:

There is awareness happening. There is perception happening. There is labelling happening (computer screen, I, awareness, see, etc.). I associate the label 'I' with the label 'awareness' and I can't find or locate either one, therefore I can't say anything about the location, size or shape of the 'I' that sees the computer screen. (yup, no 'I' found.)

As to pulling away--I experience a movement of this awareness--or at least the contents change as I move from one sensory arena to another--but not an 'I' that does the pulling away. That's just a way of talking after the fact. There's an uneasiness around this--something very worried rising up.

cheers, Katie

Hi Katie

Once again, the answers you are giving me are almost all from mental analysis and thought, rather than actually looking into experience. Don't be disheartened by this, we can still press forward. It may be easier if you just answer very simply. Really contemplate what is being asked (don't analyse). Look into this deeply.

There may (in some people) be a certain tendency to be afraid of looking. To stick rigidly to the answer from the mind only - If you feel this is an issue, mention it and we can look into this together.

I associate the label 'I' with the label 'awareness'.

Ok, so to break it down, would you say that 'I' is the one that sees, hears, feels etc
Perhaps also, 'I' is the one that thinks and has thoughts?

I can't find or locate either one, therefore I can't say anything about the location, size or shape of the 'I' that sees the computer screen. (yup, no 'I' found.)

Ok, so if proceed forward from your findings that there is no 'I' that sees the computer screen, what does it?
Clearly the computer screen is seen. What can you find in your direct experience that sees the screen.

There's an uneasiness around this--something very worried rising up.

Thank you for your honesty. If you wish, we can stop the process and look at this if it is troubling you greatly.
Describe the feeling. Does the worried feeling have a cause or reason to be there? Is the feeling protecting something?

Xain ♥

I don't think I am afraid of looking--although maybe what I look at gets obscured by my thinking about it... and so I don't really see when I look.

Ok, so to break it down, would you say that 'I' is the one that sees, hears, feels etc
Perhaps also, 'I' is the one that thinks and has thoughts?

Yes, I would say that 'I' is the one that sees, hears, feels and the one that thinks and has thoughts (and opinions) and the one that has emotional reactions and the one that does stuff, like sitting here typing.

And I would say that all of that also seems to happen on its own--when I look there isn't something choosing and when I'm not really looking, just going about my business, I'm convinced there is something choosing. So the 'I' for me is also about being an actor, choosing.

Ok, so if proceed forward from your findings that there is no 'I' that sees the computer screen, what does it?

So I'm sitting here typing at the computer---the computer screen is seen--I can't find anything in my direct experience that sees the screen--I don't know what that means. When I close my eyes no computer screen is seen but darkness and coloured lights are seen. There is definitely seeing and that's about as far as I can go...

I try to look at what might be the seer and what I find is thoughts, but the thoughts aren't the seer. So then if I look to find the thinker, I can only find more thoughts or perceptions or emotions, so it just circles back round again.

It all feels very thin--sort of two dimensional. The experience is rich, but it feels paper thin.

Describe the feeling. Does the worried feeling have a cause or reason to be there? Is the feeling protecting something?

Earlier the worried feeling came up after a sudden spurt of possibility--when I was looking for the I that sees and couldn't find it--I suddenly felt freed from responsibility--as if I had been carrying a big load and it was lifted and then I felt queasy and worried that maybe I was trying to weasel out of something. It's not troubling me greatly, but there is a strong emotional component to all this and I'm not sure if you want that information. (I sort of sense that the emotionality is a bit like the analysis--interesting maybe for me--but quite beside the point, really. Or maybe not.)

As always, thanks for your patience and time--on the job morning and night!

katie

Earlier the worried feeling came up after a sudden spurt of possibility--when I was looking for the I that sees and couldn't find it--I suddenly felt freed from responsibility--as if I had been carrying a big load and it was lifted and then I felt queasy and worried that maybe I was trying to weasel out of something.

Interesting, but let me assure you, perfectly fine. You have made some very good head-way here.
You may find unusual experiences come and go during our conversation, but please realise we are not looking for any type of special experience here, just simply the realisation of finding that there is no separate self here.
Of course, if pleasant feelings and a sense of freedom appears then relish this :-)

Ok, so if proceed forward from your findings that there is no 'I' that sees the computer screen, what does it?

So I'm sitting here typing at the computer---the computer screen is seen--I can't find anything in my direct experience that sees the screen--I don't know what that means.

Very good work!
'I don't know what that means'. Yes, of course.
You have a result obtained from experience, and the mind attempts to make sense of it and it can't. Don't try to analyse it - Just accept the results of what you have found, that there is no 'I' that sees the screen, it is simply 'seen'. Feel free to look into this again and cement it for you if you need to.

I try to look at what might be the seer and what I find is thoughts, but the thoughts aren't the seer.

Excellent. You see 'I' is a thought. The mind says 'I see'. That is a thought. This thought isn't true. There is no 'I' doing the seeing. The screen is simply 'seen'.
Perhaps you can take this discovery and really look at what is a thought, and what is actually true.
This is the path we are going to go down together in this conversation.

'I hear'
Listen carefully to the sounds around you. Look into your experience exactly as you did for 'seeing'.
What is this 'I' that hears? Can you find that one and tell me what it appears like?

Xain ♥

Whew!

Just accept the results of what you have found,

You know, 'I' have struggled to deny this result for so long, assuming I must be missing something. This is a big relief. No seer to be seen, no hearer to be heard, no taster to be tasted!

Not much to say right now. As you say, it is a question of cementing something or maybe more like unglueing something....