The Gate

What brings you to Liberation Unleashed?
I asked a question on Quora seeking enlightenment and was directed here.

What is your background in terms of seeking and inquiry?
I studied western philosophy at university along with quantum mechanics and general relativity. Recently I have also become interested in Advaita Vedanta.

What do you expect of the conversation on this forum?
I guess someone is going to ask me questions to point out the incoherence of the idea of a self separate from the world.

Hi G2thes,

Welcome to LU. I will be happy to guide you.

Please have a look at these 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 site -> http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

If you agree lets start!
Please speak from your own direct experience.

What do you expect of the conversation on this forum?
I guess someone is going to ask me questions to point out the incoherence of the idea of a self separate from the world.

Good. If the idea is coherent, then there must be a separate self right. Can you tell me what does this separate self look like?

The title reads: "Seeking Enlightenment"
How do you know you have found it?

Ok. I agree to those conditions.
In my case the self looks like a 29 year old male member of the species homo sapiens named "Greg".
When using the term "I", that is a reference to the same object that other members of the species refer to by the word "Greg".

I guess I expect you to tell me when you think I have achieved enlightenment.

Ok, great!
Let’s go deeper into this. I need to understand your answers a bit more clear.

In my case the self looks like a 29 year old male member of the species homo sapiens named "Greg".

Are you referring here to your body?
Or is it that you are saying that self = a (so called) home sapiens?
Or, are you referring not necessarily to “your” body, but to a presumably object that comes into existence where memory/thought labels this as ‘my body’ based on previous experiences? In that case, would your self actually exist if you did not give notice you your thoughts about it?
Then. In the unfortunate event that we have to cut off your arms, your two legs, one ear, and shave all your hair.. would the self then have still remain completely intact, or would parts of the self have come off?

When using the term "I", that is a reference to the same object that other members of the species refer to by the word "Greg".

Is the ‘I’ here an object?
Or is the I only a reference to the object.
And if so, if the reference is not made, would the I still exist independently?

I guess I expect you to tell me when you think I have achieved enlightenment.

No guessing please. :)
We want to explore our Direct Experience. Therefor we try to narrow down and focus on to our senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and feeling) and Thoughts.
You mentioned seeking enlightenment. Apparently you haven’t found this, and it is something the ‘I’ can achieve, so it is important to understand what it is exactly that you are looking in actuality. So what is it that is that is missing or incorrect or wrong right now? And what are your expectations?
What, in your present experience, is not enlightened?

Thanks!
Martijn

Thanks for your reply.

>>Are you referring here to your body?

I'm referring to the head, the body, all parts of the animal.

>>Or is it that you are saying that self = a (so called) home sapiens?

Yes. Why did you feel it necessary to say "so called"?

>>would the self then have still remain completely intact, or would parts of the self have come off?

This is the same as asking if an animal such as a dog would remain intact if you cut its limbs off. I think as long as it still had the vital parts to survive, those parts would still be considered a "dog", albeit a mangled one.

If on the other hand its head were cut off, we would consider the scattered parts to be "the remains of a dog".

So depending on which parts you cut off me, I would either be a mangled form of my previous self, or the scattered remains of that self.

>>Is the ‘I’ here an object?

That's a long story, that requires mention of infant cognitive development:

1) By the time a baby is one or two months old, she'll have learned to focus her eyes. This means she can follow a toy if you move it around in front of her. She has formed the paradigm of an "object", at least as a bundle of two-dimensional visual information that persists for more than one instant and can move throughout her visual field.

2) Around one year old, babies form the theory that those objects continue to exist even when they cannot be observed. If you hide an object they will search for it there, and if you secretly remove it from the hiding place, the baby will be surprised.

3) By age two, most children realize that the object they see in the mirror is not a playmate, but a reflection of the same arms, legs, etc. that they see when they look down. If you secretly put lipstick on their forehead, they can use the mirror to help clean it off. They realize that the body they cleaned is the same kind of thing as the other humans that interact with them.

4) By age four, infants form the theory that the other humans also have an internal experience, by analogy with their own. They theorize that there is an objective world that every human lives in, and that they themselves are just another member, and that every member has an experience of the world similar to their own.

When the infant hears other people saying "I", they learn that it refers to the human that is speaking. The infant says "I", knowing that the person they are communicating with has a similar experience- the experience of another person referring to themselves. They know that when they say "I", that refers to an objective object similar in nature to the object they reference when they say "you" to someone else.

So in answer to your question "Is the ‘I’ here an object?", we see:

1) An "object" is originally a bundle of sense data- a kind of mathematical geometric translation of a pattern through the two-dimensional visual field.

2) The child learns that an object can also be geometrically translates through a 3rd dimension. That is, not only is an object "the same object" even if it moves sideways, but also that a rotated object (which looks completely different depending on its orientation) can be restored to its original appearance by rotating it 360 degrees. They also learn that all five senses agree with each other in regards to the object- they can band the object against a table and simultaneously see, hear and touch it.

An "object" then becomes an abstract entity that has a location in a three-dimensional co-ordinate system. It can be re-summoned even if it moves out of view, if the baby moves the locus of its visual field (its head) to a vantage point with a line of sight to the object.

3) A theory is formed which takes account of the existence of other minds- that the locus of their visual field is not the center of the universe, but merely one of many such loci in an objective world.

4) By looking in the mirror and using other similar clues, the infant theorizes that the locus of their senses corresponds to a human which is exactly the same type of object as the other humans the infant interacts with.

So the "I" an infant refers to is basically the infant putting herself into another person's position and realizing that the other person sees her as an object, which the other person refers to as "you". The "I" and the "you" are the same object.

>>Or is the I only a reference to the object.

Taken literally, "I" is only a word. Vibrating air or ink on paper. The intended meaning of the word is to introduce the speaker or writer, as the topic of discussion. To indicate who performs the action indicated by the verb in the sentence.

>>if the reference is not made, would the I still exist independently?

If the reference is not made, the reference does not exist, but the object still exists if someone is observing it, even if they don't reference it.

Whether the object still exists even if nobody is observing it, comes down to whether you subscribe to the "object permanence" theory mentioned above. Most people do, but I don't, based on the results of the Bell Test experiments.

>>would your self actually exist if you did not give notice you your thoughts about it?

This is the same as asking if any given person, lower animal, table, etc exists if nobody notices it. The Bell Test results indicate that such an independent existence is incoherent. Although, there are consistency criteria which are very strong, such that if you look for an object in the last place you noticed it, the object will either be there, or there will be some physical reason why it is not there, such as its destruction of movement.

>>what is it that is that is missing or incorrect or wrong right now? What, in your present experience, is not enlightened?

I determined that logically I should realize the whole universe as the "Self", but I do not intuitively embrace that yet.

Thanks!
Greg

Hi Greg,
Super thanks.

>>Is the ‘I’ here an object?

That's a long story, that requires mention of infant cognitive development:

1) By the time a baby is one or two months old, she'll have learned to focus her eyes. This means she can follow a toy if you move it around in front of her. She has formed the paradigm of an "object", at least as a bundle of two-dimensional visual information that persists for more than one instant and can move throughout her visual field.

2) Around one year old, babies form the theory that those objects continue to exist even when they cannot be observed. If you hide an object they will search for it there, and if you secretly remove it from the hiding place, the baby will be surprised.

3) By age two, most children realize that the object they see in the mirror is not a playmate, but a reflection of the same arms, legs, etc. that they see when they look down. If you secretly put lipstick on their forehead, they can use the mirror to help clean it off. They realize that the body they cleaned is the same kind of thing as the other humans that interact with them.

4) By age four, infants form the theory that the other humans also have an internal experience, by analogy with their own. They theorize that there is an objective world that every human lives in, and that they themselves are just another member, and that every member has an experience of the world similar to their own.

When the infant hears other people saying "I", they learn that it refers to the human that is speaking. The infant says "I", knowing that the person they are communicating with has a similar experience- the experience of another person referring to themselves. They know that when they say "I", that refers to an objective object similar in nature to the object they reference when they say "you" to someone else.

So in answer to your question "Is the ‘I’ here an object?", we see:

1) An "object" is originally a bundle of sense data- a kind of mathematical geometric translation of a pattern through the two-dimensional visual field.

2) The child learns that an object can also be geometrically translates through a 3rd dimension. That is, not only is an object "the same object" even if it moves sideways, but also that a rotated object (which looks completely different depending on its orientation) can be restored to its original appearance by rotating it 360 degrees. They also learn that all five senses agree with each other in regards to the object- they can band the object against a table and simultaneously see, hear and touch it.

An "object" then becomes an abstract entity that has a location in a three-dimensional co-ordinate system. It can be re-summoned even if it moves out of view, if the baby moves the locus of its visual field (its head) to a vantage point with a line of sight to the object.

3) A theory is formed which takes account of the existence of other minds- that the locus of their visual field is not the center of the universe, but merely one of many such loci in an objective world.

4) By looking in the mirror and using other similar clues, the infant theorizes that the locus of their senses corresponds to a human which is exactly the same type of object as the other humans the infant interacts with.

So the "I" an infant refers to is basically the infant putting herself into another person's position and realizing that the other person sees her as an object, which the other person refers to as "you". The "I" and the "you" are the same object.

Is this your (general) opinion? Or is this really true?
If so, How do you know this is absolutely true?
Are these thoughts real or true, does anything of what you wrote hold any truth by itself, or, is it a reference to something outside of thought?

So the "I" an infant refers to is basically the infant putting herself into another person's position and realizing that the other person sees her as an object, which the other person refers to as "you". The "I" and the "you" are the same object.

How would you put yourself into an other persons position? Or is this just a thought?


To continue we now need to do something which is really difficult.
We have to forget and not-rely on everything we know.

In your work life and private life all the knowledge you have will stay and continue to be of enormous help and importance. There is nothing you will have to give up. But from now on we are only going to talk from our own Direct Experience. This means you can only use your senses: smell, touch, sight, hearing, tasting.

Please sit at your table, really take two or three minutes rest, let your thoughts calm down a bit, focus a bit on your breathing.

Then choose an object a few meters in front of you to observe. Observe it for at least five minutes. Please understand that mind (thoughts) will start interfering and try to distract you, in every possible way. Dont let this go unnoticed and return back to the object.

You will notice something different, called Looking. And after a while you are really Looking, tell me, is there an 'I' who is looking. Can you find a separate self that does the looking for you, or are you then referring to a thought again.

Let me know what you experienced.

>>what is it that is that is missing or incorrect or wrong right now? What, in your present experience, is not enlightened?

I determined that logically I should realize the whole universe as the "Self", but I do not intuitively embrace that yet.

Can you experience a border between what you call you, and what you call the whole universe?
How does this border look like?

Please use the "Quote" function, this makes responses more clear.
Thanks!
Martijn

(ps: everything okee so far? If anything bothers you please put it on the table)

Hi,

Sorry for my late response. I did not receive a notification that you had replied, even though I usually receive a notification when someone replies. I just checked back today thinking that I would remind you that you had not responded, only to find that you responded 2 weeks ago.

Is this your (general) opinion?

Yes, but it is also the opinion of the scientific consensus, and it is the opinion of almost every person in the world. So in that sense it is an objective fact. ie If someone says "I" and you say "Who? Please point to the person you are referring to", then of course they will point to their own body. Ask them where that object starts and ends and if they are not wearing anything they will indicate that it includes their skin and everything inside their skin. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be the result of an objective scientific trial.

How do you know this is absolutely true?

The only absolute truth is that there is unity (the number one). Everything besides that can only be defined and can only exist relative to something else. That statement is unfalsifiable, since it must necessarily be proven true by any experiment. Every alternative hypothesis is incoherent (contradicts itself).

How would you put yourself into an other persons position? Or is this just a thought?

It's a kind of geometric (mathematical) translation. It involves taking one's own sense data and transforming it with an algorithm, resulting in the imaginary sensation of seeing the world from another location/orientation. It's just a thought.

Direct Experience. This means you can only use your senses: smell, touch, sight, hearing, tasting.

There are three types of conscious cognition- recalling memories, directly experiencing the present, and imagining possible futures. No discussion between people can occur without utilizing all three. I assume you are not asking me to reply without using my memory, and without imagining that I hear my own voice in my head (thought).

is there an 'I' who is looking. Can you find a separate self that does the looking for you?

Verbal thoughts such as you mentioned are imaginary sounds. Looking at the object you mentioned is direct experience. Just as we can see and hear simultaneously, we can look at an object and imagine hearing sounds simultaneously. Both are processes of the object I refer to as "I", as are subconscious processes that I am not aware of. (Subconscious processes are an aspect of a person but the person is not aware of them.)

or are you then referring to a thought again?

Yes. It's all thought. The self is not the thought, it is the object that others refer to when they point at you.

Maybe you're asking me to imagine that I am a baby again, before I reach the mirror phase. At that time, I could see my own arms and legs, but I considered them as foreign objects just like the table in front of me. At that time "object" meant only a two-dimensional bundle of visual data that existed only while in my field of view. I did not posit the existence of a "self", nor did I posit an objective world. Only the experiences existed.

That is a solipsistic view. But if you want to take that view then I will ask you to agree that you are only a bundle of sense data in my mind, and have no existence independent of my mind. All meaningful discussion between people starts with the assumption that there is an objective world with many minds, each experiencing the world from a different location/orientation.

Can you experience a border between what you call you, and what you call the whole universe?
How does this border look like?

What I call "me" is the same object as what others call "you". Often people will unrealizingly include clothing as part of that object, but if you ask them to think more precisely they will agree that the real you is the skin bag inside the clothing. Of course, the skin, arms, legs, and other non-vital parts could be cut away, and only the remnant would be considered the person. But as long as the other cells are connected, then they are part of the person. As for symbiotic organisms (gut flora and fauna, mitochondria), I would say they are not part of myself. As for non-cellular material such as water, it is part of me as long as it is inside my skin. That means the saliva in my mouth is part of me, but if I lick my lips it is no longer part of me.

Hi Greg,
Your response was so late that I thought you left. Sorry, after a while I didn't check for days anymore.
Please let us both check here daily so we keep the flow running.

is there an 'I' who is looking. Can you find a separate self that does the looking for you?

Verbal thoughts such as you mentioned are imaginary sounds. Looking at the object you mentioned is direct experience. Just as we can see and hear simultaneously, we can look at an object and imagine hearing sounds simultaneously. Both are processes of the object I refer to as "I", as are subconscious processes that I am not aware of. (Subconscious processes are an aspect of a person but the person is not aware of them.)

Here you give me a description of your ideas. What I want is you to really do the exercise. And tell me (yes from your memory) what happened.
Please observe an 'object', until your thoughts vanish. Tell me if you can experience a body or an I that does the looking/observing for you. When you are looking, can you find a looker?
Please tell me what you experienced.



I wonder, do you consider thoughts to be part of your self?
If so, where do they come from?
Please please answer this question from YOUR experience ONLY, not from your knowledge. Sit down for a minute and try to find the answer. Please tell me not what you know, but what you experienced, what happened?

There are three types of conscious cognition- recalling memories, directly experiencing the present, and imagining possible futures.

Can you ever leave the present moment?

I did the exercise.

Is there an 'I' who is looking.

When I observe an object other than myself, by definition I don't observe myself.
I don't observe an "I". In speech, the word "I" is said for the benefit of the other person.
It refers to the other person's observation. If someone else is watching me while I watch
something else, then there is an "I" that is looking. But no, there was no "I" that was looking
when I performed the exercise in that particular instance.

It should be noted that I did feel my body in contact with the bed I am lying on. So while there was no "I" that was looking, there was an "I" that was feeling.

Can you find a separate self that does the looking for you?

No, that doesn't make sense. "I" refers to my entire body, both my conscious and subconscious brain.

I wonder, do you consider thoughts to be part of your self?

Thoughts, like speech, are an action performed by myself.

If so, where do they come from?

Are you are asking for the physical location of their origin? Then you must be referring to the electrical impulses in physical space which comprise the thoughts. That material comes from eating, drinking, breathing etc.

Please please answer this question from YOUR experience ONLY, not from your knowledge.

I do not directly experience the physical motion of the thought through space, so I can not use direct experience to tell you the location where it comes from.

Can you ever leave the present moment?

Again, you are speaking about something abstract as if it was a physical place.
A moment is not the type of thing which can be "left". Only places can be left.
I guess you meant to say "Can you experience the past or the future?"
The answer to that is, the past can be remembered in the present, the future can be imagined in the present, but only the present can be experienced in the present.

Great!

But no, there was no "I" that was looking when I performed the exercise in that particular instance..

So, while truly observing/looking you could not experience an observer. There was, so to say, only observing/looking happening. Right?
Then, you mention for that 'particular instance' there was no I. Now, can you give me an example where there IS an observer? How does this observer look like? Please speak only from your direct experience. Can you hear a hearer, can you feel a feeler?

It should be noted that I did feel my body in contact with the bed I am lying on. So while there was no "I" that was looking, there was an "I" that was feeling.

First, you speak of "my body". Who owns your body? If it is yours, what is the yours part?
There was no I doing the looking, but there was and I feeling the feeling. Now are you sure about that? What did this feeler look like? Or was there only the experience of feelings happening? (like skin preassure feeling)

No, that doesn't make sense. "I" refers to my entire body, both my conscious and subconscious brain.

Can you experience your brain? Or is that just a thought?
Please tell me how you experience your brain and how does that look like? (please again, only talk from your own experience)

Please please answer this question from YOUR experience ONLY, not from your knowledge.

I do not directly experience the physical motion of the thought through space, so I can not use direct experience to tell you the location where it comes from.

Great, this is a very good example where you talk from your own experience.

Now.. are thoughts real?

Can you ever leave the present moment?

Again, you are speaking about something abstract as if it was a physical place.
A moment is not the type of thing which can be "left". Only places can be left.
I guess you meant to say "Can you experience the past or the future?"
The answer to that is, the past can be remembered in the present, the future can be imagined in the present, but only the present can be experienced in the present.

Great, so one can only experience the present moment? Right?
That means that future and past (and even an imagined present moment) do not exist and can only be experienced as passing thoughts in the present, right?
Is there anything besides the present moment experience?

Can you give me an example where there IS an observer? How does this observer look like? Please speak only from your direct experience.

When I look at my own arms and legs, for example, there is an observer. It looks like a 30 year old white man.

you hear a hearer, can you feel a feeler?

I can hear a hearer when I make a sound. I can feel a feeler all the time.

you speak of "my body". Who owns your body? If it is yours, what is the yours part?

My body is the part of me which is not my head. I am my head and my body.

What did this feeler look like?

The visual appearance was not directly experienced.

Or was there only the experience of feelings happening? (like skin preassure feeling)

There was the feeling of interaction between my body and a bed. Those two objects existed.

Can you experience your brain?

You are talking about possibility. Possibilities are not direct experience only.
It is possible to see my brain but I have never done so.

are thoughts real?

Thoughts are not direct experience, so your question is no longer discussing direct experience.

so one can only experience the present moment? Right?

Yes.

That means that future and past (and even an imagined present moment) do not exist

It's bad grammar to say that the past and future exist. The past existed and the future will exist. Neither of them are direct experience.

and can only be experienced as passing thoughts in the present, right?

Yes, but again, thoughts are not direct experience.

Is there anything besides the present moment experience?

In direct experience, no. But if we relax that artificial requirement then we can say that, there was, and there will be.

Hi Greg.

We need to leave behind all biological and technical "ideas" or knowledge that we have if we want to dive deeper in this.
We are questioning our thoughts here, and try to see if the thoughts are actually coherent with our experiences.
When I ask you a question you can only answer from what you actually experience, not what your conclusions or thoughts put together as a form of logic.
If you dont understand your true experience, do not try to come up with technical/biological answers, rather write down what you experienced.

To continue we can not trust on thoughts anymore, put in the most simple way, because the map is not the road. It is very important to understand that Thoughts are real but the content is not.
Imagine your best friend, then give him real handshake. Its impossible. Imagine Spiderman, now try to actually find and meet him. Thoughts are often/continuously perceived and mistaken as real. Some people call it 'the subtitles'. So when it comes down to what is real, we can only use your senses, our direct unfiltered raw experience.

You mention you are your body and your head. Now, how is this possible? Because which of your senses do you use to experience your body? You can perhaps in thought put together an image of a body, or a voice saying 'I am my body', or imagine being a-collection-of-senses, but that is only imagined, still there is no proof from your senses that this is true, that you experience a 'body'. Because you dont have 'a body' sensor. Also I wonder how you perceive 'your' body, because you do not have a 'your-body' sensor, or a 'not-your-body' sensor. These divisions are only made in thought. Not in your direct experience.
Then an other part of the answer can be questioned. You might experience vision, eyes open or shut, but can you perceive an "I" that does the looking? If so, how does this I look like. Even when looking at you hand or a mirror, do you directly experience an I? Or do you only experience vision?

You mention being your body, for example your hand. If somebody insults you, is the hand also insulted? If so, how do you experience an insulted-hand?

You mentioned seeking enlightenment, but which body part is seeking that?
And if it is not your hand, what body part do you identify with mostly?

Thanks!
Martijn

Thanks for your reply.

I understand that this topic is about my direct experience. Sometimes your comments or questions are not about my direct experience, for example when you talk about my thoughts, my memories, or how a certain state of affairs is possible. These cannot be answered from direct experience.

which of your senses do you use to experience your body?

Mostly sight, touch, and hearing.

there is no proof from your senses that this is true, that you experience a 'body'.

When immersed in water, wind, or other situation where all parts of myself are stimulated, there is proof and I experience a body.

Because you dont have 'a body' sensor.

Yes I do, it's called proprioception, and it tells me the relative position of all parts of my body. This is even more vivid when combined with the sense of touch, temperature, pain, pressure, etc.

can you perceive an "I" that does the looking?

If I touch my eyes, I can perceive the part of myself which does the looking.

If so, how does this I look like.

It feels like a 30 year old man. When I look in the mirror it looks like a 30 year old man.

Even when looking at you hand or a mirror, do you directly experience an I? Or do you only experience vision?

I directly experience myself.

You mention being your body, for example your hand

I am my head and my body.

If somebody insults you, is the hand also insulted?

If someone insults my hand, it is insulted. If someone insults all parts of me, including my hand, it is insulted. If someone insults some other part of me, it is not insulted.

If so, how do you experience an insulted-hand?

For example, the experience may be the sound "your hand is ugly". From memory, hearing that kind of sound is usually followed by pain in my chest area.

You mentioned seeking enlightenment, but which body part is seeking that?

I am seeking enlightenment. I am my body and my head. So my body and my head are seeking enlightenment.

And if it is not your hand, what body part do you identify with mostly?

The experience of my own heart is usually most salient.

Hi Greg,

i am my body and my head.

And your thoughts? Are you also your thoughts?

Hi Greg,
When can we continue?
Thanx!
Martijn