The Gate

Hi,

I have been guided in this process in the following thread and have been asked to change the guide.

http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... f=4&t=5281

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could continue the guiding process with me.

Where I stand:

(1) I think I have a grasp that the "self" is an illusion: cannot be found in direct experience.
(2) Desire to know (seek) has not yet ended. There are more questions that keeps haunting me. Is there something I am missing?
(3) Some of the questions I have are: Are time, space, objects etc. also illusion just like the self?
(4) This continued questioning....they are ownerless but go on continuously, I wonder what propells it.

Best,
Yuki Saka

Hi Yuki,

My name is Alex and I am happy to continue the guiding... or maybe its not so much a continuation but simply another step as every guide has its own style of pointing just like every flower has a different smell or every body has a different shape...
Anyway, let me know if you happy to get started.

If so, then please have a look at these questions about your description of "where you stand":

(1) I think I have a grasp that the "self" is an illusion: cannot be found in direct experience.

What exactly do you finding in direct experience? What is it "made of"?
When you touch a tree or a rock - is the direct experience made of wood or stone? If not, what is there? What do you find?

Also, what is this separate self? Based on your current understanding, can you please explain what defines it?

(2) Desire to know (seek) has not yet ended. There are more questions that keeps haunting me. Is there something I am missing?

When a question arises, look not so much at the question, but ask "To whom does this question arise?"
Anyone? Or is there simply a thought arising, belonging to... no one..?
Also, when a question arises then your conceptual knowledge normally has already prepared an answer that sounds logical to you - for example an answer like "Seeking will end when the separate self is completely gone! This will happen somewhen in the future and there will be a special event of shedding this unwanted entity!"... Now... Does this make any sense? Maybe this line of thought is itself the illusory self continuing whatever it does...
Now you might ask: What can I do to stop that?
The answer: Nothing! All that "you" will do to achieve this goal is the separate self trying to survive... So do "nothing"!
Doing "nothing" is the same as observing what is happening - the more you witness this process (but do nothing to stop it), the more you are aware of this process, the less it will be able to fool you and the less powerful it will get...
So, its not about another great conceptual answer or achievement, but simply about clearly seeing what is going on... Try it...

(3) Some of the questions I have are: Are time, space, objects etc. also illusion just like the self?

You tell me. Where do you find time? What is an object? Are there any objects outside of "your" awareness of them?

(4) This continued questioning....they are ownerless but go on continuously, I wonder what propells it.

Your getting caught in the question/answer game propels the process. Be aware of the process and it will end.

Alex

Hi Alex,

Thank you for stepping up to guide me. I would be happy to be guided by you.

I will look at your questions in detail and respond later.

Thank you.

Yuki

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your questions. I responded to them in the following:

What exactly do you finding in direct experience? What is it "made of"?

On one level, I can say that what I find in direct experience are sensations (colors, sound, smell, taste and touch) and thoughts. And perhaps emotions or feelings which are like a combination of sensations and thoughts. If I ignore contents of thoughts, then thoughts are also just sensations. So, one way to put it is that direct experience is "made of" sensations.

However, I notice that I only replaced the word "direct experience" with another word "sensations". Ultimately, the direct experience is not "made of" anything. A thing can be "made of" something only in thought (like "tree is made of roots, a trunk, branches and leaves"), but no such relationship actually exists in direct experience.

When you touch a tree or a rock - is the direct experience made of wood or stone? If not, what is there? What do you find?

The direct experience is just the sensation of touch. There is no "wood" in the actual sensation of touching a tree. "Wood" is just a word with a use in a sentence (which is another thought) like "tree is made of wood". However, again, ultimately it would be inaccurate even to say it is the sensation of touch. Without the word "touch" or "sensations", there is just an experience.

Also, what is this separate self? Based on your current understanding, can you please explain what defines it?

My understanding is that a separate self is a construct of our language (although there are bodily sensations and feelings associated with it). A child first learns to use words to describe the object he/she experiences through the senses. Then, he/she learns how the objects interact with each other through various relationships, e.g. subject/object, ownership, location etc. Then, the question naturally arises: "who is experiencing this world?", to which he/she finds (through imitation of how the adults use language) that it is the "I" that experiences it. From then on, child understands everything from the stance that it is an "I" who is experiencing the things in the world. However, this "I" does not exist in direct experience, it only exists in thought.

When a question arises, look not so much at the question, but ask "To whom does this question arise?"
Anyone? Or is there simply a thought arising, belonging to... no one..?

The question arises to no one. It is just an ownerless thought arising, although it appears to come with a sense of urgency driving more thoughts and activities.

Also, when a question arises then your conceptual knowledge normally has already prepared an answer that sounds logical to you - for example an answer like "Seeking will end when the separate self is completely gone! This will happen somewhen in the future and there will be a special event of shedding this unwanted entity!"... Now... Does this make any sense? Maybe this line of thought is itself the illusory self continuing whatever it does...

Now you might ask: What can I do to stop that?
The answer: Nothing! All that "you" will do to achieve this goal is the separate self trying to survive... So do "nothing"!
Doing "nothing" is the same as observing what is happening - the more you witness this process (but do nothing to stop it), the more you are aware of this process, the less it will be able to fool you and the less powerful it will get...
So, its not about another great conceptual answer or achievement, but simply about clearly seeing what is going on... Try it...

This is really helpful. I saw that the answer "sensations" for the first question was also like this: a prepared and logical answer to the question of what a direct experience is "made of". On observation, it seems that stories are not about anything (although it seems that it really wants to be about something), but seems to be so in order that it can perpetuate its existence. Another thing I observed was that this perpetual thinking is there so as to distract myself from the discomfort felt in the body: when the thinking stopped, at once I felt the discomfort in the body, with a feeling of lack...and then another trigger for thinking arose and I went right to it.

Where do you find time?

Time is known through a thought about the past or the future, or through reference to temporal concepts (like before/after, date, year, events etc.). In that sense, time is only a concept. However, one thing that is not clear to me is that an experience is always changing. This change seems to suggest a passing of time. So, there is a sense that time passing = experience changing and this is directly experienced.

What is an object? Are there any objects outside of "your" awareness of them?

No, there are no objects outside of my awareness of them. I guess it would be separate thoughts that would say things like: "this object I am seeing (e.g. a tree) is separate from other things that I see" or that "I am seeing this object".

Your getting caught in the question/answer game propels the process. Be aware of the process and it will end.

Yes, there is this strong pull to playing this word game...it must be a strong habit. I will try to be aware of it when it is going on.

Thanks.

Yuki

Hi Yuki,

Very well done! Some good observations there!

Judging by what you wrote in the first paragraph you see that direct experience, sensations, perception, awareness or whatever we call it is not something objective. It can not be pinned down. You can find a word for it, but the word is not it, it is just a pointer. All words really only point back to the undefinable... They point to "This" that is, but This is not a thing, is it?

However, again, ultimately it would be inaccurate even to say it is the sensation of touch. Without the word "touch" or "sensations", there is just an experience.

Yes... and even "experience" is just a word... Pointing to... Wouldn't any name just be another concept crystallising something that really has no fixed state?

The question arises to no one. It is just an ownerless thought arising, although it appears to come with a sense of urgency driving more thoughts and activities.

Yes, agree, just a thought.
Can you describe this "sense of urgency" in more detail? What defines it as such? Is it more than some physical sensations - maybe a contraction in the chest - seemingly confirming this urgency? Can a physical sensation be responsible for a conceptual definition or is the sensation "hijacked and used" by thought to emphasise a certain position?

Another thing I observed was that this perpetual thinking is there so as to distract myself from the discomfort felt in the body: when the thinking stopped, at once I felt the discomfort in the body, with a feeling of lack

Well... When you watch a movie and your thoughts are on the movie then you forget your discomfort - when the movie ends the discomfort seems to be back. But is this due to thinking? Or is this because the light of attention/awareness moves back to the specific sensation and then thought picks it up and spins a story about rejection and suffering..?

This feeling of discomfort that you mentioned, what are its ingredients? Can you write down what makes it into such a feeling?

Also look at how being aware of, experiencing, a sensation is not the same as thinking about it. You can be perfectly aware of this feeling (of discomfort) without labelling it as uncomfortable. Its like looking at the ocean and not labelling it as blue, glittering and beautiful. It just is, that is good enough. Every label you put on it takes you out of the non-dual, direct experience into the world of duality, the world of good and bad things... Try to find this non-conceptual perception and see if this feeling is still a feeling of discomfort.

Time is known through a thought about the past or the future

No. If this would be so then time would be something else than a thought, wouldn't it? It would exist as an object outside of thought...

Look deeper: Can a thought really know anything?

When you "know" something, lets say an apple then thought states "This is an apple! I know it!".
But is this in any way true at all? What has really happened?
Some perception happened and some conditioned process happened resulting into a thought "An apple!". But does this mean that thought really knows anything? Is this more than a conditioned response? A bit like a twitch of a muscle when tickled with a feather? Look at this in some depth.

In that sense, time is only a concept. However, one thing that is not clear to me is that an experience is always changing. This change seems to suggest a passing of time.

Imagine for a moment that the universe is infinite, it was never born and will never die and it has no beginning or end in any dimension. Now you entertain the idea that this universe can be partitioned and so you extract certain parts of it and name them. You call them car, tree, a second, a meter, you and I. But if something (that is not a thing at all) has no borders, neither in space or time, then how could it be partitioned? Well, it cant. There can only be the idea, an objectification of a seeming part of it, but you will never really be able to separate a part from the infinite as this would immediately turn the infinite into the finite. But this is exactly what we are doing when we define objects, and the first and most important object is the "I" - its the initial object that turns into subject and then gives birth to all these other objects... So, when looking at this separate self we look at the idea that there is a separate subject that again gives birth to objects. When we see through this illusion of separation then not only the subject collapses but inevitable also all its objects.
Time and space are these kind of objects. They only exist because there is a belief in a separate subject that can measure a certain distance in an objective universe that is separate from itself. The same is true for time. When the subject goes these sort of questions - time/space/whatever - don't make any sense anymore. Sure you can use these concepts in daily life, but you know that ultimately they are just conventions, not reality.

So.. Please sit down and look at the scenery around you. Try to find an object that is separated by a fairly clear line from its background - maybe the roof of a house standing out from the sky or the horizon when looking at the ocean. Focus on the border. Is there really a border to be found? What defines it? Does a colour change alone count as a border? Maybe in a map, yes, but in reality?
Now... Look if there is something that unifies them? Are they really separate at all?
What is the common "thing" no matter what you are looking at?
What is the common "thing" no matter what you are listening to - no matter what you are perceiving?
Is there a separate "I" to be found? Is there anything objective to be found? What is there?
Do you stand in any way separate from the perceiving itself?

So, there is a sense that time passing = experience changing and this is directly experienced.

Look at this again.
Please describe this "sense that time is passing". Is this really a perceived experience? Or just an afterthought?

I guess it would be separate thoughts that would say things like: "this object I am seeing (e.g. a tree) is separate from other things that I see" or that "I am seeing this object".

When you look at an object, is the thought "I am seeing this object" in any way true?
What is really happening?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your insightful response; I've given some thoughts to what you wrote.

Judging by what you wrote in the first paragraph you see that direct experience, sensations, perception, awareness or whatever we call it is not something objective. It can not be pinned down. You can find a word for it, but the word is not it, it is just a pointer. All words really only point back to the undefinable... They point to "This" that is, but This is not a thing, is it?

Yes, that is what I meant: "sensations" and "direct experiences" are just pointers, ultimately not describable by words.

Can you describe this "sense of urgency" in more detail?

Hmm, so "sense of urgency" may have been a bit emphasized. It is more like a sense that I am missing something, or a sense that I have to go somewhere else but here. On closer inspection, it seems to come with associated thoughts like: "I have to do this/that", "I am not good enough for this or that", "I don't have enough time" etc. The sensations are also physical: tightening in the throat, contraction in the chest and gut, and tension in the head. And like you said, it seems that it's only when these sensations come together with a specific thought that they seem to emphasize the opinion of that thought.

is this because the light of attention/awareness moves back to the specific sensation and then thought picks it up and spins a story about rejection and suffering..?

Hmmm, right...so maybe it was not a thought stopping and then the discomfort happened, but a specific thought about rejection and suffering, together with that specific sensation, that came to replace a previous story.

This feeling of discomfort that you mentioned, what are its ingredients? Can you write down what makes it into such a feeling?

Okay, so this is the same sensation "sense of urgency" that I described above...like the sense that there is some other task that I must do other than just being present. Although I said that the associated thoughts are thoughts like "I have to do this/that", "I am not good enough" etc., they are not always clearly articulated. They almost come like a fog of imagery and whispering voices over the sensation.

Also look at how being aware of, experiencing, a sensation is not the same as thinking about it. You can be perfectly aware of this feeling (of discomfort) without labelling it as uncomfortable. Its like looking at the ocean and not labelling it as blue, glittering and beautiful. It just is, that is good enough. Every label you put on it takes you out of the non-dual, direct experience into the world of duality, the world of good and bad things... Try to find this non-conceptual perception and see if this feeling is still a feeling of discomfort.

Yes, I see that without the label "discomfort", I could no longer perceive it as an experience of "discomfort", it becomes just a sensation. The experience of discomfort required that label as a part of the experience.

When you "know" something, lets say an apple then thought states "This is an apple! I know it!".
But is this in any way true at all? What has really happened?

Right, thought cannot really know anything. "This is an apple" is a conditioned response to the color/touch/taste/smell of a specific experience. It cannot be said that this thought "knows" the associated experience. The thought simply got associated with the experience due to learning. Also, experience of an apple requires that label as a part of that experience, so concept of "apple" seems to have an equal share in shaping the experience of the "apple" as the sensory component of it. In other words, concept and sensory experience condition each other to make the experience what it is.

Try to find an object that is separated by a fairly clear line from its background - maybe the roof of a house standing out from the sky or the horizon when looking at the ocean. Focus on the border. Is there really a border to be found? What defines it? Does a colour change alone count as a border? Maybe in a map, yes, but in reality?

No border is found in reality. It is only a thought that defines that this specific gradation of colors implies a "border".

Is there a separate "I" to be found? Is there anything objective to be found? What is there?
Do you stand in any way separate from the perceiving itself?

There is only the perceiving itself. There is no separate "I" to be found in the experience, nor is there anything objective to be found. They only seem to exist as a content of a thought.

Please describe this "sense that time is passing". Is this really a perceived experience? Or just an afterthought?

Hmmm, maybe it is only a thought. There was a sensory experience of movement and then the thought said "something moved therefore there is before the movement and after the movement". So, it's only the conceptual structure that is trying to make sense of the sensory experience with its logic..and objects, time and space are the ingredients of that logic.

When you look at an object, is the thought "I am seeing this object" in any way true?
What is really happening?

No this thought is not true. There is the seeing and the thought "I am seeing this object", but there is no "I" or "object" that is experienced.

Yuki

experience of an apple requires that label as a part of that experience, so concept of "apple" seems to have an equal share in shaping the experience of the "apple" as the sensory component of it. In other words, concept and sensory experience condition each other to make the experience what it is.

Please do this exercise when you have at least 20min, better 30min, and go to a place where you can be alone for this time.

Go and get an apple and put it on the table in front of you. Look at it.
Thought might come up stating that "This is an apple. It is red and yellow in colour, it is nearly perfectly round, it has a brown stem. Obviously an apple!"
What is going on? Well... Thought has isolated a part of the visual perception and excluded the rest of this moment.

Now... Keep on looking at the apple but widen your field of vision and see the apple as just another part of the whole scenery. A bit like a thread in a tapestry. Now widen your field of vision even more - don't focus on any object at all - focus on the looking rather then on the objects that you seem to be looking at. Look at the tapestry and not at the threads.
After a few minutes widen the focus even more and include sound and sensations in your openness of perceiving. Let your eyes move as they want, let your hearing move from sound to sound and let your awareness of physical sensations move at will.
Thoughts might still be present, but simply see how their commentary is less and less appropriate to this happening. See their powerlessness in describing what is going on. See how they can never capture this moment. See how these concepts that arise are only a sad little fraction of this experience based on old knowledge. Let it drift away and focus on the stillness that is "behind" all these sensations and perceptions... Remain in this alert awareness without a goal (doing nothing) for a few minutes.
Now look again at this apple in front of you. See how it emerges out of wholeness and seemingly turns into an object - pick it up and eat it while still being aware of visual perception, sound, physical sensations and now also taste and smell.
When you are finished sit for a few minutes let this past half an hour sink in. Don't try to make sense of it or try to explain what has happening - simply sit and when you feel ready think about the following:
Do you still believe that the "concept of "apple" has an equal share in shaping the experience of the "apple" as the sensory component of it"? Is there an experience of "apple" at all? When you label an experience is it still it?
Any other realisations that you would like to mention? Any traces of an I, a separate, independent observer to be found?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Thank you for a thoughtful exercise. I will be away for a couple of days.

I will reply to your post as soon as I get back.

Thanks.

Yuki

Hi Alex,

I did the exercises that you suggested, and below are some of the things I have found.

I didn't have an apple so I tried it with a bottle of water.

At first, some stories about the water bottle was running, like where I got this bottle or what brand it is, as well as some running commentary on your instruction for the exercise. Then, the text on the lables, color of the labels, coolness of the surface of the bottle and the color of the label were noticed. Upon widening the focus to include the background, other sensations such as background sounds and tactile sensations are noticed. Since the focus on the bottled water relaxed, the thoughts are no longer about the bottle or about the exercise, they were just an incomprehensible mix of flashes of memories and whispery random thoughts. The vividness of the senses, like color, sounds and touch came to the foreground. After that, I returned to the water bottle. Now, the experience is somewhat different. The colors of the bottle are much more pronounced. The detail of the shape of the text on the label is noticed more than the meaning of what the text says. The bumpiness of the surface of the water bottle also held a stronger impression than before. The silence you speak of as well as the vividness of the sensation upon the background of silence is felt.

So, with this exercise, moving onto your questions:

Do you still believe that the "concept of "apple" has an equal share in shaping the experience of the "apple" as the sensory component of it"?

No, in fact, story about water bottle (what type of shape it has, which brand it is, where it was made etc.) has nothing to do with the sensory experience of it.

Just to mention, with the above statement, I was thinking about certain sensory experiences that has thought process as its indispensable component. For example, when I am writing a letter "A", there is an imagination of the shape of the letter "A", an internal vocalization of "A", then the coordination of the senses in the arms, hands and eyes that produces a letter "A" on a paper. I found that I could not write a letter "A" without imagining a letter "A" in my mind. So, imagination (thought) was an indispensable component of this experience.

However, now I see that even in this case, the "concept" of a letter "A" is not an indispensable component of the experience, it is the experience of the imagination of the shape "A" that is the indispensable component of the experience.

So, from the exercise, I would correct my view that conceptualization of the object has an equal share in shaping the experience of the object. It does not. Conceptualization would be just some stories that can be running in the background completely independently from the sensory experience.

Is there an experience of "apple" at all? When you label an experience is it still it?

No, experience of "water bottle" only exists as a conceptual experience (i.e. a story, content of a thought). There is no such thing as a "water bottle" that is actually experienced by the senses. Label of an experience is not an experience but an experience of a thought (a labelling thought).

Any other realisations that you would like to mention? Any traces of an I, a separate, independent observer to be found?

No traces of I is found. I may arise as a content of a thought ("I bought this bottle at this store", "I am looking at this bottled water" etc) in relation to the concept of the object, but it is not actually experienced by the senses either.

Thanks.

Yuki

Hi Yuki,

Yes, I agree, in that the

I may arise as a content of a thought in relation to the concept of the object, but it is not actually experienced by the senses either.

But, just to be clear... when you say that something is experienced by the senses.. what exactly do you mean with that?
Are you saying that the eyes or the ears are experiencing something? Do the ears experience sound?
Would you say that the brain experiences something? Does the brain experience thoughts?
While these organs might be tools to make certain perception possible, are they also the ones that do the experiencing?
If not, then what is it that does the experiencing? Is there a separate thing, object, organ (or whatever) that is experiencing anything?


You mentioned in your first post:

Where I stand:
(1) I think I have a grasp that the "self" is an illusion: cannot be found in direct experience.
(2) Desire to know (seek) has not yet ended. There are more questions that keeps haunting me. Is there something I am missing?
(3) Some of the questions I have are: Are time, space, objects etc. also illusion just like the self?
(4) This continued questioning....they are ownerless but go on continuously, I wonder what propells it.

Is this still true? Where do you stand now?
You have seen (1). How about 2, 3 and 4?

Alex

Hi Alex,

But, just to be clear... when you say that something is experienced by the senses.. what exactly do you mean with that?
Are you saying that the eyes or the ears are experiencing something? Do the ears experience sound?
Would you say that the brain experiences something? Does the brain experience thoughts?
While these organs might be tools to make certain perception possible, are they also the ones that do the experiencing?
If not, then what is it that does the experiencing? Is there a separate thing, object, organ (or whatever) that is experiencing anything?

Right, I should probably say "it is not experienced" period. Eyes or the ears do not experience anything. That the eyes or the ears are the organ that senses (or the organ by which I perceive) color or sound is an idea and not an actual experience. No thing, object or organ that is experiencing can be found in experiencing. There is just the experiencing happening.

(2) Desire to know (seek) has not yet ended. There are more questions that keeps haunting me. Is there something I am missing?

The questions do not haunt me as much. As you have pointed out, the sense "that I am missing something" has also been seen to be mere thought hijacking certain sensations to put forth its position of lack.

(3) Some of the questions I have are: Are time, space, objects etc. also illusion just like the self?

Thanks with your help, I am beginning to see the time, space and objects are also mere concepts like the "I". They merely appear at the position of objects in relation to the subject in an objective universe created by our thought. However, they are not actually experienced.

(4) This continued questioning....they are ownerless but go on continuously, I wonder what propells it.

The activity of compulsive questioning has been decreasing day by day. There is still a lot of curiosity about how the reality works, but the sense of compulsiveness behind it is being seen through bit by bit.

Thanks.

Yuki

Hi Yuki,

The activity of compulsive questioning has been decreasing day by day. There is still a lot of curiosity about how the reality works, but the sense of compulsiveness behind it is being seen through bit by bit.

That is good news!

Don't try to get rid of this healthy curiosity, it is what makes life ever new and beautiful.
Its not about turning into a robot that doesn't feel anything. Just enjoy life for what it is :-)

Have you seen without doubt that this separate "I" is just a collection of conditioned thoughts and habits?
That there is no and never has been a separate self that controls life, makes decisions, feels joy or suffering?

Are there any questions that remain?
How does this whole process make you feel? Is there a difference to how you felt before you started these dialogues on LU?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Hi Yuki,
Don't try to get rid of this healthy curiosity, it is what makes life ever new and beautiful.
Its not about turning into a robot that doesn't feel anything. Just enjoy life for what it is :-)

Right, tendency here has been to take things too seriously and rigidly. The habit continues but there is lighteness to it that wasn't there before.

Have you seen without doubt that this separate "I" is just a collection of conditioned thoughts and habits?
That there is no and never has been a separate self that controls life, makes decisions, feels joy or suffering?

There is no doubt. The separate "I" is only a product of a specific thought pattern. There is and never has been a separate self. Existence of a separate "I" was only an unquestioned belief...seeming true because it is taken (in thinking) to be a default position without being questioned (except in places like LU). It is also understandable that we overlook it, because the whole mechanism (thought, and also feelings associated with thought) seems to thrive on just this ability to evade questioning and appear "real" or "true". It reminds me of a paradox that says "this statement is a lie", which is a paradox only when we take a position that each statement has an objective truth or false value (i.e. when we believe in a content of a thought).

Are there any questions that remain?

I would like to deepen this understanding further, but no pressing question that needs answering at this moment.

How does this whole process make you feel? Is there a difference to how you felt before you started these dialogues on LU?

The shift is subtle. No big change. Internal commentaries regarding the objective world continues, but they do not have the weight of "seeming so real" quality as they used to have.

Many thanks to my previous guide and you for guiding me to this understanding:)

Yuki

Hi Yuki,

Thank you, it's my pleasure guiding you :-)

When you say you would like to "deepen your understanding", what do you expect to understand that you don't know already?
Do you expect to find something special in future experiences? What is missing in the one that is right here, right now?

Sure, there willing be always new thoughts, new ideas about experience, but do these thoughts ever obstruct or change the perceiving itself?

If I ask you "Who or what are you?"
What would be your answer?

Alex

Hi Alex,

When you say you would like to "deepen your understanding", what do you expect to understand that you don't know already?
Do you expect to find something special in future experiences? What is missing in the one that is right here, right now?

Sure, there willing be always new thoughts, new ideas about experience, but do these thoughts ever obstruct or change the perceiving itself?

Right, "deepen my understanding" would be another story used by the mind to continue the question and answer game. There's no I to possess or deepen an understanding except in thought. Understanding as a thought may be a part of an experience, but the content of an understanding does not touch or affect experience at all. The experience is not missing anything. Lack can be created only in thought.

If I ask you "Who or what are you?"
What would be your answer?

My answer would be "a thought".

Yuki