The Gate

What brings you to Liberation Unleashed?
I've been listening to the Liberation Unleashed podcasts with Ilona, and the results that this method has had are encouraging. Also, I have read many of the articles on the site & seen Liberation Unleashed's YouTube videos. Finally, I was very impressed with the liberation of one person in particular: Lisa Kahale, who I'm aware, had passed away a year or two ago. The joy that poured from/through her seemed to be a rebirth of sorts into a freedom that I've been looking for.

What are you looking for? What do you expect from this?
I'm not expecting for life to seem miraculous or for all suffering to disappear. I am looking to truly understand the truth of no-self permanently & to live from that perspective of not taking life from a defensive stance. I'm looking for the freedom that comes with not living in constant resistance to what is, to release feelings of contracting around whatever seems to be in contradiction to this "me" with it's desires, preferences, etc.

What is your background in terms of seeking and inquiry?
I've been studying & practicing Theravada Buddhism for 5+ years, & I have had brief glimpses of no-self. I'm becoming tired & disillusioned with meditation, although I enjoy just sitting & being quiet. I'm aware of the habit of creating the ego & defending myself, and meditation seems to have weakened that somewhat, but I'm willing to try another way to understand the reality that Buddhism & Advaita are pointing towards.

How ready are you to question your beliefs about who you are and see the truth no matter what?
10

Hi MoonChild,

Welcome to LU!
My name is Alex and I am happy to discuss this with you.

Could you please tell me a bit more about how you currently see yourself - what is this me/self/I that has certain "desires and preferences"? Is it your body, your mind, a combination of both? Or something else? How do you define yourself?

Regards,
Alex
PS: Please learn to use the quote function. Instructions can be found here: http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660

Could you please tell me a bit more about how you currently see yourself - what is this me/self/I that has certain "desires and preferences"? Is it your body, your mind, a combination of both? Or something else? How do you define yourself?

Regards,
Alex

Hi Alex,

The way I see myself, or experience myself, is at times just the mind, with it's thoughts/opinions/judgments/likes/dislikes/images, etc. At other times, it's both the mind/voice in the head & the accompanying feelings that may arise. If I'm thinking angry thoughts, feelings of tension may arise in the abdomen & shoulders along with a racing heart & heat in the face. Images may arise along with the feelings also, but not always.

At other times, feelings in the body, like restlessness, fatigue, pain will arise & then trigger thoughts about the feelings.

I may also define myself based on my level of education, my job, etc, especially when ideas arise about where I should/could be in life. I also define myself as not awake, as suffering, as not realizing what's needed for liberation.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
MoonChild625

Hi,

Thank you for your honest answers.

Before we get started for real I would like to tell you a bit more about how we try to make you see through this illusion of a separate self. It really is pretty simple and you don't have to worry in the least that there will be difficult exercises that are only possible for long time meditators - we simply utilise the same tools that you use for all your other activities in life - looking, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking. There is only one major difference: we look in perfect honesty and without any preconceived ideas and stories at "what is here/now" - you might think you do that anyway, but maybe you will find out soon that this is not the case... that you normally look at things and that you immediately depart into your world of conditioned interpretations, about how things have been, should or shouldn't be, will be or about what you like, dislike, fear, love or hate about whatever shows up right now. When doing this inquiry it is essential that you keep these stories about how things should be and what you have learned about how things are, apart from what you directly experience. It is important for you to see that just because you can name a thing, e.g. say that this is a cup in front of me, that the name, the word, is not the thing. When you think cup, you will have potentially thousand different ways of how to interpret this idea of cup, but there is only ONE direct experience. The one right now - this looking at the cup. Does that make sense? If anything is unclear please ask now - it will make this inquiry so much more efficient for you if you know exactly how to perform the little exercises that I will ask you to do.

As a little test run, that will highlight the differences between direct experience and a thought based story/interpretation, please do this:
Get some little piece of food. Maybe a nut or a raisin. Put it on the table in front of you. Now sit down, relax, and look at it.
Think about how it will feel in your hand once you pick it up. Try to picture it in your mind. Now try to imagine how it will taste when you eat it. Imagine the texture in your mouth, the sensations of taste and smell. Try to really feel it.
After a few minutes, take the piece of food into your hand and feel it. Trace the contours with your fingers. How does that feel compared to just thinking about it? Now please eat it slowly and consciously. Feel the explosion of taste and smell as well as the sensations of texture. Can this direct experience of taste, smell and feeling really be accurately described by just thinking about it? Do these two experiences even relate to each other at all? Or is one simply the direct experience of thought and the other one the direct experience of taste, smell and sensation? Please note in some detail what you find.

Alex

As a little test run, that will highlight the differences between direct experience and a thought based story/interpretation, please do this:
Get some little piece of food. Maybe a nut or a raisin. Put it on the table in front of you. Now sit down, relax, and look at it.
Think about how it will feel in your hand once you pick it up. Try to picture it in your mind. Now try to imagine how it will taste when you eat it. Imagine the texture in your mouth, the sensations of taste and smell. Try to really feel it.
After a few minutes, take the piece of food into your hand and feel it. Trace the contours with your fingers. How does that feel compared to just thinking about it? Now please eat it slowly and consciously. Feel the explosion of taste and smell as well as the sensations of texture. Can this direct experience of taste, smell and feeling really be accurately described by just thinking about it? Do these two experiences even relate to each other at all? Or is one simply the direct experience of thought and the other one the direct experience of taste, smell and sensation? Please note in some detail what you find.

Alex

Hi Alex,

For this exercise, I used a slice of an apple danish that I had warmed in the oven. After taking it out of the oven & putting it on a plate, I placed it on a table in front of me & imagined picking it up. I felt some warmth & lightness. I then imagined taking a bite, the sweetness & softness of the apple, its flavor & the crispy texture of the pastry.

Then, I picked it up. The reality of how it felt was heavier, warmer, & sticky due to the sugar on the pastry. It had a rich, toasty aroma, something that I failed to imagine during the visualization. Biting into it revealed a much sweeter flavor due to the granules of sugar around the outside of it. Chewing it revealed more density than imagined, also the apples were much crisper & had other more subtle flavors of cinnamon & nutmeg, plus a bit of tartness. The apples were also hotter than the pastry & very moist.

Comparing the memory-based visualization of eating the pastry vs. eating it revealed how the imagination was inaccurate & missing quite a lot of detail. It was incorrect regarding the weight, texture, moisture, tartness & sweetness of the actual food. So the memory-based expectation vs. the actual experience was a very weak, inaccurate, and unsatisfying representation of reality. Some details were close, but not at all close enough to say they were the same.

A very enjoyable first exercise ;)

Regards,

MoonChild625

Hi,

Great! Well done!
Yes, I guess it really depends on the type of food that you choose for this exercise - an apple danish... Great idea :-)

So the memory-based expectation vs. the actual experience was a very weak, inaccurate, and unsatisfying representation of reality. Some details were close, but not at all close enough to say they were the same.

Does this result surprise you?
When we think about a thing then we mostly believe that we have a very accurate conception of what it really is, of how it is experienced. This first exercise is only a little introduction, lets see how deep the rabbit hole goes... Maybe the thought based representation is even less accurate than you might think...

Have a look at this little, big word:

GREEN

Please just look at it for a few minutes and try to be aware of the thoughts that come up regarding this experience.
How does it feel to look at this word.
Is there a certain tension experienced?
What kind of mental associations arise?
Please note both, physical sensations as well as thoughts.

Alex

Have a look at this little, big word:

GREEN

Please just look at it for a few minutes and try to be aware of the thoughts that come up regarding this experience.
How does it feel to look at this word.
Is there a certain tension experienced?
What kind of mental associations arise?
Please note both, physical sensations as well as thoughts.

Alex

Hi Alex,

At first, in looking at the word, immediate tension arose in the body, along with the idea that the word & the color in which it's printed were mismatched. But, within a few seconds, there also arose the thought that the word GREEN is not the color green, it's just a word that we've learned that indicates a color out there, in the world. In fact, there are so many shades of GREEN in nature & objects, that it couldn't possibly tell us what shade of GREEN it represents.

So, the word is not the color. It's just letters & a font-style printed in red. The expectation that it should be the color that it points to or defines, is what throws the mind into argument.

Best,

MoonChild625

Hi,

Yes, the word or the concept is not the experience, well seen!

Lets go back to the body. Please sit down and relax for a few minutes. Close your eyes and simply feel the "body".
Spend a minute or two with each sensation as you scan your body - from feet, to legs, to abdomen, hands, chest and head. Simply feel the sensations that are present and also be aware of the thoughts that arise trying to describe these sensations.
There might be a certain tingling in your feet and thought states "My feet are tingling!". Is this thought true? Is this tingling owned by a separate entity that can be found in this experience? Is there a feeler of the tingling to be found? Or is there simply the "tingling" - full stop.
Are there any areas that feel more like an "I/self" than other areas? If so then please again look into this areas and see if there is really any physical reason for this "me-ness". Or are there only thoughts that conjure up a link between a sensation and an inferred me?

Alex

Lets go back to the body. Please sit down and relax for a few minutes. Close your eyes and simply feel the "body".
Spend a minute or two with each sensation as you scan your body - from feet, to legs, to abdomen, hands, chest and head. Simply feel the sensations that are present and also be aware of the thoughts that arise trying to describe these sensations.
There might be a certain tingling in your feet and thought states "My feet are tingling!". Is this thought true? Is this tingling owned by a separate entity that can be found in this experience? Is there a feeler of the tingling to be found? Or is there simply the "tingling" - full stop.
Are there any areas that feel more like an "I/self" than other areas? If so then please again look into this areas and see if there is really any physical reason for this "me-ness". Or are there only thoughts that conjure up a link between a sensation and an inferred me?

Alex

Hi Alex,

From head to toe there are sensations: tingling, warmth, aches, pulsing, coolness, etc. In theory, I know that there's no owner of the feeling, & that the labels/thoughts describing the sensations are not the sensations. However, and this is a big challenge, there is the tendency to locate I/me in the head, behind the eyes, as the one who knows/owns the body with it's sensations. There is still a habit to refer to that location as the place where I am located, even though I have seen through this a few times. It just hasn't stuck as a permanent realization.

There don't seem to be special sensations that indicate me-ness. It's more the fact that there seems to be an observer behind the eyes & in the center of the head, where internal thoughts are observed, there's my inner voice, which always sounds like "me".

I hope this report gives you enough information to proceed!

- MoonChild625

Hi,

there is the tendency to locate I/me in the head, behind the eyes, as the one who knows/owns the body with it's sensations

Yes... this observer behind the eyes is a very common thing. We all have become accustomed to accepting this specific sensation as a me-reference-point... So lets have a closer look at that.

Please sit down and relax for a minute. Now look at an object in the room, a lamp, a chair, a cup, anything will do. Be highly alert of the time when first contact with the object is made. What happens in the first second when you look at an object? You focus on the visually perceived object, then something else happens... be aware of the visual perception but also of physical sensations while focussing on the object. Please describe this process of looking at an object from a visual but also physical point of view. Is there really a separate observer looking out of your eyes?
You can switch between objects to repeat making first contact - so look at a cup, then after maybe 20s look at a lamp, then after 20s back to the cup... This is a more difficult exercise compared to the ones before - but please be patient and report what you find.

Alex

Please sit down and relax for a minute. Now look at an object in the room, a lamp, a chair, a cup, anything will do. Be highly alert of the time when first contact with the object is made. What happens in the first second when you look at an object? You focus on the visually perceived object, then something else happens... be aware of the visual perception but also of physical sensations while focussing on the object. Please describe this process of looking at an object from a visual but also physical point of view. Is there really a separate observer looking out of your eyes?
You can switch between objects to repeat making first contact - so look at a cup, then after maybe 20s look at a lamp, then after 20s back to the cup... This is a more difficult exercise compared to the ones before - but please be patient and report what you find.

Alex

Hi Alex,

Yes, this exercise was more challenging, for sure. I'm not sure if I'm headed in the right direction with this but here goes...

Physically, when the eyes shift to an object, there is automatic focusing of the eyes to compensate for how close/far it is in space. Also, there are movements of the eyes as they scan the object to take in it's details or to see it in it's entirety. On the mental side there's recognition, and a label might arise from the mind: clock, lamp, table. Or: my clock, my lamp, my table. This doesn't happen 100% of the time, though. All of this seems to happen very rapidly.

In theory, I can tell you there isn't a separate observer looking out of the eyes. But, what feels like "someone" back there are the movements to switch from one object to another, which seem to be driven by choice or intention to look. Also, the scanning movements feel like they are intentional.

- MoonChild625

Physically, when the eyes shift to an object, there is automatic focusing of the eyes to compensate for how close/far it is in space. Also, there are movements of the eyes as they scan the object to take in it's details or to see it in it's entirety.

Can you try to get even closer to direct experience?
While the above description is conventionally correct, the direct experience is somewhat different - a lot simpler.
What is this "movement of the eyes" in direct experience? If you look close enough then you might find two parts - a visual component and some physical sensations. Can you please try to describe these components in terms as simple as possible?
Descriptions like "automatic focusing", "close/far in space" or "eyes scanning an object" are still one step to far removed from the reality of experience as it is. See if you can get closer - or rather: try to get as close as language allows you to.

what feels like "someone" back there are the movements to switch from one object to another, which seem to be driven by choice or intention to look.

Can you please describe this sensations that feels like there is "someone" back there. What is the direct experience of this sensation? A certain pressure, a contraction, a tingling..? Please look at this in detail and note what you find.

Also, the scanning movements feel like they are intentional.

We will come back to that after you have been again looking at the above.

Alex

Can you try to get even closer to direct experience?
While the above description is conventionally correct, the direct experience is somewhat different - a lot simpler.
What is this "movement of the eyes" in direct experience? If you look close enough then you might find two parts - a visual component and some physical sensations. Can you please try to describe these components in terms as simple as possible? Descriptions like "automatic focusing", "close/far in space" or "eyes scanning an object" are still one step to far removed from the reality of experience as it is. See if you can get closer - or rather: try to get as close as language allows you to.

Hi Alex,

In the simplest terms, that I see, the focusing/movement of the eyes are felt sensations, and as they move, colors & forms appear & disappear in the visual field.

Can you please describe this sensations that feels like there is "someone" back there. What is the direct experience of this sensation? A certain pressure, a contraction, a tingling..? Please look at this in detail and note what you find.

It feels like muscular contraction around the forehead & the eyes, a habitual tightening perhaps, while looking. As though some effort is required by "me" to see!

- MoonChild625

the focusing/movement of the eyes are felt sensations, and as they move, colors & forms appear & disappear in the visual field.

Yes! Very well seen!
There really are only physical sensations being felt - the statement that there is a "focusing/movement of the eyes" is already an interpretation, a thought about a sensation being felt. I know this is already quite subtle, but you have done well identifying this!

As the eyes move "colors & forms appear & disappear in the visual field" - yes, again well seen. Colours and forms is as far as we can go using language. There really is no going further, what would be past red,green,circle,square etc etc... There really is no way of describing it, is there? Also, do you see that the statement that there is a "visual field" is also an interpretation, this time about something being seen? In this direct experience is there a "visual field" that experience appears/disappears in OR is there simply the seen?

It feels like muscular contraction around the forehead & the eyes, a habitual tightening perhaps, while looking. As though some effort is required by "me" to see!

Is this sensation, this "muscular contraction" always present? Or is this sensation really only present when you are actively aware of looking? Maybe this sensation is not even present for most of the day? Are you going blind when this sensation is not present or do you still see?
Does something that is only sensed for a few minutes (maybe an hour?) a day, really qualify for being a sense of "me"? Maybe it simply is a normal sensation, just like the tingling in your feet? And maybe it is just a belief that this physical sensation is in any way special..?

Lets have a look at effort. Lets see if seeing (or hearing, or feeling or even thinking) requires effort... If something requires effort then this implies that it doesn't happen automatically, right. That there is someone that has to do something for it to happen.
Does it really require a seer to see? A hearer to hear or a thinker to think? Maybe it requires a mover to move your arm?
Please sit down and put one arm on the desk in front of you. Look at it and relax for a minute or two. Feel the sensations that are labelled hand, arm, hand on desk etc... Now simply lift your arm. Hold it for a few seconds and put it back on the desk. How did that work? Who is responsible for this movement? Try it again. Simply wait a little while and then lift the arm again. Try to be highly aware of how this movement starts. Where is this controller of movement? Where is the one that is in charge of these muscles contracting and for the arm lifting? Thought might say "Ha! Its me!". But is this more than an after-thought? Can a thought really do/move/control anything? How would a thought do that? Did the sound of the wind make the tree move?
Look and please note what you find.

Alex

In this direct experience is there a "visual field" that experience appears/disappears in OR is there simply the seen?

In the simplest sense, there is only the seen, color & form is all one can say about it.

Is this sensation, this "muscular contraction" always present? Or is this sensation really only present when you are actively aware of looking? Maybe this sensation is not even present for most of the day? Are you going blind when this sensation is not present or do you still see?
Does something that is only sensed for a few minutes (maybe an hour?) a day, really qualify for being a sense of "me"? Maybe it simply is a normal sensation, just like the tingling in your feet? And maybe it is just a belief that this physical sensation is in any way special..?

The muscular contraction is not always present. But, active looking seems to give rise to the habit of, apparently, having to make so-called effort while looking. Seeing still happens without the sensation of contraction, and, in fact, attention reveals that contraction does nothing whatsoever to improve seeing.

The sensations of contraction cannot qualify as being a "self" or "me". To do so, they would have to be present at all times & never change. As they come & go, like all other sensations, they cannot be special. It seems that, when sandwiched between habits & beliefs, they are brought about by an "I" causing them to happen. When examining the process carefully, the origin of such movements can't even be discerned. The mind creating the thought "I did that" is a learned habitual thought. The causes lie beyond direct experience.

Lets have a look at effort. Lets see if seeing (or hearing, or feeling or even thinking) requires effort... If something requires effort then this implies that it doesn't happen automatically, right. That there is someone that has to do something for it to happen.
Does it really require a seer to see? A hearer to hear or a thinker to think? Maybe it requires a mover to move your arm?
Please sit down and put one arm on the desk in front of you. Look at it and relax for a minute or two. Feel the sensations that are labelled hand, arm, hand on desk etc... Now simply lift your arm. Hold it for a few seconds and put it back on the desk. How did that work? Who is responsible for this movement? Try it again. Simply wait a little while and then lift the arm again. Try to be highly aware of how this movement starts. Where is this controller of movement? Where is the one that is in charge of these muscles contracting and for the arm lifting? Thought might say "Ha! Its me!". But is this more than an after-thought? Can a thought really do/move/control anything? How would a thought do that? Did the sound of the wind make the tree move?
Look and please note what you find.

Alex

Seeing, hearing, feeling & thinking, happen without effort. In direct experience, there are times that thought seems to be a process that can be started with intention to think, but 99% of the time, thoughts arise on their own.

Lifting & lowering the arm is a process that doesn't require conscious thought, nor are the causes knowable. Other than resorting to the habitual thought, "I raised/lowered the arm", it's impossible to say how it happens. And, since thought is also a knowable object that arises & passes like the raising/lowering of the arm, it can't do/move/control.

Careful looking just reveals habits of thinking & explaining processes that lie beyond direct experience. It appears that whatever I can say about things is purely second-hand knowledge. learned by others & repeated like a parrot.

-MoonChild625