The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
This is my current experience: I look inside and see how thoughts, emotions, stories, memories come along and are immediately grabbed by a contraction, a strong belief I call “me.” I feel strongly identified with this “me” belief most of the time, when I am not sitting in silence, but somehow I am able to observe this happening…

What are you looking for at LU?
To be completely honest, I’m not really sure. LU has come my way and I guess it is the next step on my path. I’m most certainly not looking for magical answers or ways to live my life free from suffering or in eternal bliss. I have an earnest desire to see whatever it is I desperately need to see (although I have no idea what that is) and am willing to do/go through/give up anything to make that happen.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Mainly clarity and guidance, especially in my daily meditation practice, as well as the possibility to communicate with someone who is able to understand (or at least relate) to what is going on with me.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I can definitely say I am a seasoned seeker. I’ve been on a spiritual path for about twenty years now. Recently I experienced a subtle shift in perspective where I am no longer really sure of the solidity of “me” as a concrete entity. I sit quietly on a daily basis, usually for three 45-minute or so sessions. I have been to countless silent retreats, deep psychology, body work, and shamanism workshops. I’ve watched videos and read the main works of well-known teachers, including, among many others, Osho, Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, Gangaji, Allan Watts, Adyashanti, Rupert Spira, Tony Parsons, and Mooji.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

Hi Swaram,

My name is Kay, and I am happy to guide you. Here at LU we are described as guides and not teachers, as my role is to point the way for you to seeing through the inherent self, but you have to realise it for yourself. This is an experiential based guiding and is not a discussion. Please follow the links, and read the information below. When responding; a confirmation that you have done this would be appreciated, as well as a confirmation that the disclaimer has been read.


If you haven't already read the disclaimer, please read it now. Here is the link.
http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

Please read “what LU is not” as this will help you with expectations of what seeing through the illusory self will bring or not bring.

https://www.liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

To keep the thread legible and easy to follow, please learn to use the quote function. When replying to questions, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Instructions are located in the link below:

https://www.liberationunleashed.com/nat ... ?f=4&t=660

Some housekeeping guidelines:-
Post at least once a day or every second day. If you cannot post, or need more time, let me know. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry

Put aside all other teachings, philosophies, rituals, practices, books/reading and so on for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that. Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.

This exploration is based on questions and exercises. I ask questions as a means of pointing, but the questions aren’t about finding something unknown. The questions refer to what is already actually known. And what is already known? Sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation and colour. So, questions are not answered through thinking/thoughts (theories) but by LOOKING. The key is that you really have to LOOK. Why? Because it’s the act of actually LOOKING and not finding an “I” that brings about the realisation of there being no separate self.

What is LOOKING? ‘LOOKING’ is just plain looking at what is here right now. It is moving from the conceptual to actual experience (AE). The term “Actual Experience” (AE) is used to refer to experience ‘right now,’ without the thought stories. So, actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought, at face value. What thought says ie, the content of thought is NOT experience. This is evidenced by the fact that you cannot taste the word 'sweet'. So, when looking at actual experience (AE), you are looking at raw experience WITHOUT what thought says ABOUT the raw experience.

To begin with, I would just like to know what your expectations are from having this exploration. So, in your own words (not from actual experience, but just honest answers about what expectations you have) could you please answer the 5 following questions:

How will life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?
What is missing?
What would you like to achieve or obtain by this conversation?

Throughout this exploration I would like you to answer all questions that I have in blue text, and to answer them individually as well please...and remember to use the quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay and thank you very much for your reply.

When responding; a confirmation that you have done this would be appreciated, as well as a confirmation that the disclaimer has been read.

Confirming I have read the disclaimer, as well as the "what UL is not" text. Also testing the quote function.

I am working on the expectation questions and will reply shortly.

Thanks again!

Swaram

Hi Kay,

Here are the answers to your questions. I am doing my best to set aside intellectual understanding and notions of what things should be and am trying to express myself with complete honesty.

How will life change?

Life will be more open to reflect the letting go of inner patterns. Life will be about living each moment as it presents itself. Life itself may not change at all, but the outlook on life will change, and that's really what I'm after. You see, the expectation says that if my outlook changes, then I won't be stuck to my stories and will no longer attract certain people, situations and outcomes. Also, if I am no longer personally involved, life will be easier, there will be no need for control, no fear.

How will you change?

The "me" will be gone. There will be a completely different perspective on life. A perspective based on fearlessness, openness, inclusion, and expansion. I will finally be able to rest. Truly rest in peace. In all honesty I am having a hard time trying to imagine life without a “me” in control. However, the mere possibility somehow creates waves and waves of serenity throughout my being.

What will be different?

The fundamental way I see life and myself. I will experience the facts of life, and not my interpretation of them.

What is missing?

Basically, awareness of my true nature. Knowing who I really am. I feel stuck in a self-feeding mechanism of thought and emotion. I want to see, I want to break open this “me” shell, I want to see it as an illusion. I keep trying and trying and trying. Doing and doing and doing. I know thought won’t take me beyond thought but I cannot find another way to move beyond. I see no way out.

What would you like to achieve or obtain by this conversation?

Clarity, guidance, and direction toward Freedom from this mess I call "me." I feel very confused at this point. I have been working on myself by myself for a very long time. It seems to me that my anxiety--this strong desire to obtain something (awakening??)--prevents me from relaxing into a wider perspective. It seems to me I end up making a very big deal out of something simple. Years of seeking have brought me plenty of insights and a lot of intellectual understanding, but I feel I’m completely missing the point, and the answer is right in front of me.

Hi Swaram,

How will life change?

Life will be more open to reflect the letting go of inner patterns. Life will be about living each moment as it presents itself. Life itself may not change at all, but the outlook on life will change, and that's really what I'm after.

Life is simply lifing, there is no one/no thing that is controlling life. Whatever happens is just happening but it is not happening to a someone or a something. Paradoxically perception of/about life does change, but when looking, no one can be found whose perception is changing.

How will you change?

The "me" will be gone. There will be a completely different perspective on life. A perspective based on fearlessness, openness, inclusion, and expansion. I will finally be able to rest. Truly rest in peace. In all honesty I am having a hard time trying to imagine life without a “me” in control. However, the mere possibility somehow creates waves and waves of serenity throughout my being.

There has never been a you in control. There has never been a you! Seeing through the illusion of “I” doesn’t mean you will lose the “I” and with it your whole identity. The “I” doesn’t exist, not even now as you are reading these lines.

This exploration is just a beginning and not an ending. There will still be beliefs and patterns that are rooted in the idea of being a separate self that will need clearing as not everything gets rewritten in one big hit. The core belief of being a separate self is seen through, however, like a rug that is beginning to unravel, there are still many knots that need undoing. But if you know that the ‘conditioning’ is not something that you own, then it is easier to clear. Continuing to LOOK after the realisation is very much the key.

What will be different?

The fundamental way I see life and myself. I will experience the facts of life, and not my interpretation of them.

There is no one experiencing life. Saying that life is happening ‘to’ or ‘through’ anyone or anything assumes that something is outside of life. What IS, already IS and always has been available. There are thought stories about life and facts of life, but thought knows nothing.

What is missing?

Basically, awareness of my true nature. Knowing who I really am. I feel stuck in a self-feeding mechanism of thought and emotion. I want to see, I want to break open this “me” shell, I want to see it as an illusion. I keep trying and trying and trying. Doing and doing and doing. I know thought won’t take me beyond thought but I cannot find another way to move beyond. I see no way out.

It is impossible for anything to be missing. So called emotions will still appear, they have always appeared, but they will eventually be seen for what they really are, and that they are not happening to anyone/anything.

What would you like to achieve or obtain by this conversation?

Clarity, guidance, and direction toward Freedom from this mess I call "me." I feel very confused at this point. I have been working on myself by myself for a very long time. It seems to me that my anxiety--this strong desire to obtain something (awakening??)--prevents me from relaxing into a wider perspective. It seems to me I end up making a very big deal out of something simple. Years of seeking have brought me plenty of insights and a lot of intellectual understanding, but I feel I’m completely missing the point, and the answer is right in front of me.

LOOKING, which is what your role is in this exploration is not the same as seeking. Seeking is always towards something that is not present, or trying to get away from something that is present. Looking is investigating what is present; it's for no reason other than itself. It's done for its own sake. If you're expecting something from LOOKING, then you're not LOOKING; you're seeking for what you expect LOOKING will give you - and this is what causes suffering.

Love, Kay

LOOKING

So, right now, at this very moment. There's the sensation I interpret as fingertips pressing against a glass screen as I type on the ipad. A warm sensation I call body, warmer at what I understand as feet and hands. I close my eyes and feel the warmth.

I open my eyes and see images. There's another sensation I interpret as my body sitting on a sofa; I close my eyes and there's no body, no sofa, just the sensation. This sensation does not need an "I" to function. It is just here. Just like everything else.

An insight comes: This "I" somehow owns the sensation: the weight of my body on a sofa. But in reality, just images, just seeing, just sensing.

There are sounds. Again, there are sounds, they are just here. A thought: The "I" comes in and suddenly I hear sounds. This attachment, this owning, happens almost automatically, by habit.

I close my eyes and sense an "I" inside my head. It is a thing. It is a contraction. I can see it. This is known.

Another insight: These are all parts. The "I" contraction, the body on the sofa sensation, the warmth, the pressure, the images. They are all separate. The "I" owns them and calls them "me." This is known...

Am I on the right track here as far as LOOKING goes?

Hey Swaram,

So, right now, at this very moment. There's the sensation I interpret as fingertips pressing against a glass screen as I type on the ipad. A warm sensation I call body, warmer at what I understand as feet and hands. I close my eyes and feel the warmth.

Lovely, however there is no “I” interpreting the sensations. Thoughts appear, however there is no one thinking thought. We will start by becoming aware of actual experience (AE) further before we look at the nature of thought. Although you seem to have actual experience under your belt!

Am I on the right track here as far as LOOKING goes?

Yes, absolutely on track as far as LOOKING goes! Nice :)

So, to make sure that you are clear about actual experience (AE), I will begin with the exercises that assist in becoming familiar with AE.

If you have a ‘real’ apple then you can use that for this exercise.




Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Throughout our exploration, what is highlighted in blue text is what I would like you to answer please. Don't forget to use the quote function.

Love, Kay

Hello Kay,

Happy new year!

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

No "apple." There's color, shape, image, seeing, a thought that combines these elements and calls them "apple." Other thoughts about "apple." But no "apple."

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No. Actual experience is what is perceived through the senses. Seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. Actual experience is also a thought that labels "apple" as well as a belief in that thought, a belief that gives the thought power and says the thought is the same as the actual experience. And this seems to be taken for granted. (Habit?)

However, is an apple actually known?

Only as a thought. An abstraction. The same is true for every single thing in this living room here: "sofa", "table", "lamp", "plant", "tv", etc. As "sofa" is touched there is the realization that touching has nothing to do with "sofa." Touching is an actual experience while sofa is a thought about one or more experiences. There's a fleeting insight about how this is how the mind works and how it applies to pretty much every-thing, including the "I"...

Hello Swaram!

Happy new year!

Thank you…to you too! :)

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

No "apple." There's color, shape, image, seeing, a thought that combines these elements and calls them "apple." Other thoughts about "apple." But no "apple."

Yes, exactly! Colour and shape are one and the same thing as shape is just different patterns of colour.
Without thought, how would it be known that the colour was a particular shape?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No. Actual experience is what is perceived through the senses. Seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. Actual experience is also a thought that labels "apple" as well as a belief in that thought, a belief that gives the thought power and says the thought is the same as the actual experience. And this seems to be taken for granted. (Habit?)

For there to be a perceiver of actual experience points to there being two – a perceiver and a perceived. There is no separation. This will become clearer as we move through this exploration.

A belief is a thought, just a plain old thought, but it is a thought that is supported by only other thoughts.

However, is an apple actually known?

Only as a thought. An abstraction. The same is true for every single thing in this living room here: "sofa", "table", "lamp", "plant", "tv", etc. As "sofa" is touched there is the realization that touching has nothing to do with "sofa." Touching is an actual experience while sofa is a thought about one or more experiences. There's a fleeting insight about how this is how the mind works and how it applies to pretty much every-thing, including the "I"...

Lovely, Swaram! Sensation (which includes touching and body sensation like ‘fear’) is AE while sofa is thought stories about the sensation. Exactly! And yes, this is how actual experience is veiled by thought and everything is given a story, so that what always IS, seems to be hidden!

The label 'sofa', for example is AE of thought and not the AE of a sofa
The sensation (touch) labelled as 'sofa' is AE of sensation and not AE of a sofa
The image labelled 'sofa' is AE of colour and not the AE of a sofa.
The thoughts about a 'sofa' are AE of thought and not AE of a sofa

So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT these being sofa, but sofa is not known.
Can you see this?

So let’s continue with AE, so that it becomes clear what AE is.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought.

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay and thank you once again for your reply and questions.

Without thought, how would it be known that the colour was a particular shape?

You're right. Shape is thought and color is the AE. Looking at a tv remote with its shape, all its buttons, colors, symbols, and writing. The overall outline of "remote" against a table background is really nothing but a contrast of colors, as is depth (perspective). Color shades (different patterns of colors) make up the buttons, the writing, the symbols. It's all really just color. Wow. The difference between this, which is the AE, and the unexamined assumption of the experience (thought) is subtle but crucial. Like the difference between a menu and the food, yes? Only more subtle and thus easier to overlook.

So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT these being sofa, but sofa is not known.
Can you see this?

I can! I does get (much) harder to see this when the "I" is under consideration, though, at least for now.

This mistaking of the concept for the actual experience is so compelling that at times there is a questioning if this isn't just another mind game and the concept is really the experience.

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

I'll spend the day working on this and get back to you.

Thanks again for your guidance!

Hi Kay,

Here is what came up as I spent the day breaking down activities into actual experience:

Running my fingers along the ipad cover. There is an insight that what is seen (fingers back and forth on a surface) is a completely different experience than the sensation (skin rubbing against leather). Thought brings them together and calls it "running fingers along ipad cover". Noticing this with eyes open is even more awkward.

Tasting cereal. Upon closer inspection, taste has no subject. Taste is just a sensation and does not need an "I"

There is also what seems to be a reaction to taste, the like or dislike of whatever is being tasted. The like or dislike appears to be connected to taste, but it really isn't. At this point questioning the "obvious" relationship between what is called a cause and its effect. Is there even such a thing as a cause-effect relationship?

Smell, sound, thought, also occur without an "I"

The belief "I" continues when activities go on unexamined. When examined, "I" cannot hook on to anything really.

Hey Swaram,

Let's keep the breaking down of activities simple. I want you to become clear what is AE and what thoughts says about AE. We aren't trying to dissolve the "I" at this stage. I just want you to become clear about actual experience. Actual/direct experience is experience as you find it now, ie colour/seeing, sound/hearing, smell, taste, sensation/touching/feeling and the face value of thought. It's also noticing how thought work. It is very simple, yet not easy as thoughts tend to pull you away from looking directly, as by directly looking into what you experience (colour, sound, smell etc), you will inevitably unveil the trick they play in creating the illusion of an "I".

Running my fingers along the ipad cover. There is an insight that what is seen (fingers back and forth on a surface) is a completely different experience than the sensation (skin rubbing against leather). Thought brings them together and calls it "running fingers along ipad cover". Noticing this with eyes open is even more awkward.

To break down the above, for example.

The label 'ipad cover' is AE of thought and not AE of an ipad cover
The sensation labelled as "ipad cover" ("skin rubbing against leather") is AE of sensation and not the AE of skin rubbing against the ipad leather cover.
The image labelled as "ipad cover" is AE of colour and not AE of an ipad cover.
The thoughts about "ipad cover" are AE of thought and not AE of an ipad cover.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about sensation + colour being an ipad cover.
Can you see this?

Tasting cereal. Upon closer inspection, taste has no subject. Taste is just a sensation and does not need an "I"

So as to keep the language clear. Taste is taste...not a sensation. A sensation is bodily sensation which appear with fear, or when you hit your toe, or when you squint your eyes or when you touch something.

So, I would like for you to just break down daily activities into AE. I gave you making coffee as an example. Here are further examples.

Seeing a tree, simply= image/colour
Smelling bread, simply = smell,
Feeling the fur of a cat, simply = sensation.
Tasting honey, simply = taste
Hearing a dog bark, simply = sound
Thought about wanting the dog to shut up its barking, simply = thought.

Let me know how you go.

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Here is the feedback on last night's message:

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about sensation + colour being an ipad cover.
Can you see this?

Yes, I can. "Skin rubbing against leather" and "ipad cover" are thoughts. The AE in the first case is just a raw sensation and in the second case a collection of sensations. However, the previous sentence is also the AE of thought. As you said it is tricky because thoughts constantly pull me away. But I also understand that I just need to keep at it.

Let me know how you go.

Hearing train at a distance = sound
Finger itches = sensation
Scratching finger = sensation
Warm hands = sensation
Watching program on tv = color, sound
It's getting late; I should go to sleep = thought
Walking on carpet = sensation
Putting shoes on = sensation
Thinking that putting shoes on is a sensation = thought
Washing face = sensation
Thinking water is cold = thought
Tasting food = taste
Chewing food = sensation
Driving - hands on the wheel = sensation
Decision to take earlier exit = thought

Where does an emotion fit here? Do I label it as thought?

Thanks again for your kind guidance,

Swaram

Hey Swaram,

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about sensation + colour being an ipad cover.
Can you see this?

Yes, I can. "Skin rubbing against leather" and "ipad cover" are thoughts. The AE in the first case is just a raw sensation and in the second case a collection of sensations. However, the previous sentence is also the AE of thought. As you said it is tricky because thoughts constantly pull me away. But I also understand that I just need to keep at it.

Lovely, Swaram….you got it. And yes, keep at it.

Let me know how you go.
Hearing train at a distance = sound
Finger itches = sensation
Scratching finger = sensation
Warm hands = sensation
Watching program on tv = color, sound
It's getting late; I should go to sleep = thought
Walking on carpet = sensation
Putting shoes on = sensation
Thinking that putting shoes on is a sensation = thought
Washing face = sensation
Thinking water is cold = thought
Tasting food = taste
Chewing food = sensation
Driving - hands on the wheel = sensation
Decision to take earlier exit = thought

Terrific, absolutely terrific!

Where does an emotion fit here? Do I label it as thought?

Okay, so let’s say that the idea of ‘fear’ is appearing.

The label ‘fear’ is AE of thought and not AE of fear
The sensation labelled as ‘fear’ is AE of sensation and not AE of fear
The image labelled ‘me/body/I’ is AE of colour and not AE of fear
The thought about sensation and colour being ‘fear’ is AE of thought and not AE of fear.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about ‘fear’, but in AE is ‘fear’ actually known?

Thanks again for your kind guidance,

My pleasure! Thank you for being so diligent and willing to LOOK.


Okay…so let’s have a look at the nature of thought.

Here is a thought exercise. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Where are they coming from and going to?
Can you predict your next thought?
Can you push away any thought?
Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay

Hello Kay,

Thanks for Your feedback.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about ‘fear’, but in AE is ‘fear’ actually known?

'Fear' is not known. It is a creation, an illusion of a whole when the AE are actually the parts (label, sensation, color, thoughts), yes?

Thank you for being so diligent and willing to LOOK.

There is nothing more important in my life at the moment...

As for the thought exercise, I sit in silence twice daily and will address each question carefully during these periods. Will get back to you as I move along.