The Gate

If you're ready to investigate the truth of who you are - respond and we can start the dance.

okey dokey..ready when you are denhamer

Its morning here.....welcome and hello. The process followed here is simple and straight forward. A question and answer type thing with questions both pointing and hopefully digging a bit. On my side commitment is to respond in a timely manner and use resources of other guides as and if necessary. On your side commitment is to try and respond on a daily basis, be ruthlessly honest with self, allow curiosity to flow, share fears as they come up, and be open to the unfolding.

if that works for you then couple of questions to get us started.

1. How did you come to the unleashed site

2. Anything you want to share about the journey you have taken to this point which you feel would be helpful to the dialogue

3. What are you expectations about liberation or whatever word you are comfortable using for awakening

fergus

On your side commitment is to try and respond on a daily basis, be ruthlessly honest with self, allow curiosity to flow, share fears as they come up, and be open to the unfolding.

Hello fergus.
Apart from the daily response thingy, the rest is how I have been living my life for the past 20 years.
And because of that, I question the demand to respond daily, as exploring new ideas one may take days to ponder till one observes something of importance to share.
But i shall e how i go on this journey.

1. How did you come to the unleashed site

Willingly, calmly, inquisitively.
Or if you prefer...
Heard reports about ruthlesstruth, being a latecomer to all things social, i missed out on interacting in that environment and after some research discovered this forum still carries the torch that ruthlesstruth started,
so i've come to experience.

2. Anything you want to share about the journey you have taken to this point which you feel would be helpful to the dialogue

Considering that I do not know what will transpire within the dialogue, i cannot know what will be of help.
However, i will share a brief history of my journey thus far.
Journeyed through christianity for 20 years.
Left that path several years ago and have been exploring eastern philosophy, psychology and the sciences.
Zen makes the most sense to me. No self does not.

3. What are you expectations about liberation or whatever word you are comfortable using for awakening
fergus

My expectations are to understand the theory of no self and how that equates to liberation and awakening.( two different meanings in my mind)
'Cus if i cannot comprehend the concept i cannot proceed with the process.
I have been reading several threads in the one on one section and i don't get the idea that there is no self or what that has to do with awakening or freedom.

AC

Excellent - thank you for your responses

Left that path several years ago and have been exploring eastern philosophy, psychology and the sciences.
Zen makes the most sense to me. No self does not.

Lets start here. You say Zen resonates for you but no-self does not. Please observe and report on the following:

1. With eye's closed sense where your 'self' is. Be very specific where in or around your body 'self' is. For example, perhaps starting with above the waist, then sense is it between belly button and neck, head. Narrow it down to as specific a place as you can

2. Now repeat this exercise with your eye's open. Is there any difference in where the 'self' is.

My expectations are to understand the theory of no self and how that equates to liberation and awakening.( two different meanings in my mind)

Do you look at the 'I' or 'my' differently than 'self'. If so, please explain further.

I have been reading several threads in the one on one section and i don't get the idea that there is no self or what that has to do with awakening or freedom.

We will come back to this question and your thought that liberation and awakening are two different things.

.....fergus

1. With eye's closed sense where your 'self' is. Be very specific where in or around your body 'self' is. For example, perhaps starting with above the waist, then sense is it between belly button and neck, head. Narrow it down to as specific a place as you can

2. Now repeat this exercise with your eye's open. Is there any difference in where the 'self' is.

1: I am aware of the position behind the eyes is where I observe from.
2: Same.
However, my self, as i observe from behind my eyes, is my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my consciousness that is able to observe and recognise these things.

This exercise, for me to understand it\what you mean by it, I need to know what your definition of 'self' is, otherwise we may be talking of two different things,
considering you have asked if i think i, my or self are different.

Do you look at the 'I' or 'my' differently than 'self'. If so, please explain further.

No. I, me, my, my self, myself...all the same to me.
Different words signifying one being.

I am aware of the position behind the eyes is where I observe from. However, my self, as i observe from behind my eyes, is my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my consciousness that is able to observe and recognise these things.

What comes up for you when I say there is no real self entity but just an artificial construct of our thoughts, beliefs and habits?

Who/what is the observer of the self you say is located at a point behind your eyes, that is a combination of your body, senses, feelings?

fergus

What comes up for you when I say there is no real self entity but just an artificial construct of our thoughts, beliefs and habits?

I see you have evaluated information derived from your experiences and have reasoned\thought and have concluded there is no real self.
ie: you think\believe there is no real self.
What also comes up is the enquiry to ask you to provide evidence of this concept, but knowing this is what you will try to present in the course of this conversation.
Also, I wonder why you regard thoughts as being artifical. It's as if you regard a human being as some type of robot.

Who/what is the observer of the self you say is located at a point behind your eyes, that is a combination of your body, senses, feelings?

Who? Me...the being that is currently called AC.
What? Don't know. I am aware of myself, but what actually is this me that i am aware of, one can only speculate.
Sure, there's lots of people that claim to know, but who can verify any of these claims?
Or more importantly, how can one verify these claims.
Again, that is part of the reason for these types of conversations.

Looking forward to the adventure.

I wonder why you regard thoughts as being artifical. It's as if you regard a human being as some type of robot.

One of the foundations of the direct pointing method is to understand where thoughts come from. There are some exercises I can suggest as we go into this. To start lets simply inspect thoughts in more depth. As you look/inspect your thoughts, can you control them? Is your self able to shut them off? Where do thoughts come from?

For this inspection please focus on thoughts differentiated from Information that is stored in the brain that we call memories, knowledge etc. that we access as part of our chop wood carry water roles.

As you look/inspect your thoughts, can you control them?

Please specify your meaning of control.

Is your self able to shut them off?

Yes, of course. An odd question as isn't this a common ability of humans.

Where do thoughts come from?

My thoughts come from me.

For this inspection please focus on thoughts differentiated from Information that is stored in the brain that we call memories, knowledge etc. that we access as part of our chop wood carry water roles.

Well, the thoughts i am having right now, which is a response from reading your words, comprehending them and formulating a verbal response,
they are new thoughts created by me, not thoughts stored in my brain.
These are thoughts created by me, a conscious being that can observe, process incoming information, understand my relationship to it and conclude with a response of my design and choosing.

Is your self able to shut them off?

Is this the self that you believe doesn't exist?

FD - As you look/inspect your thoughts, can you control them? AC -Please specify your meaning of control.

By control I mean specifically - when you inspect direct experience of your thoughts can you shut them off whenever you want for how ever long you want (ie no thoughts of any kind taking place), can you have your self say you only want thoughts about x coming up and nothing other than x and have only x show up for some period of time

FD - Is your self able to shut them off? Yes, of course. AC- An odd question as isn't this a common ability of humans.

Actually I know of no human who has the ability to shut off their thoughts. Please sit and go deeper on the self reflection of your thoughts. Watch them arise - where do they arise from. Which ones does your self contemplate further or take some action on, which ones just come up and leave with no attention paid to them. Take a thought about something that you have emotionally triggered about recently and bring it up from memory and then say - no more thoughts about that subject. Please report on what you find

FD - Where do thoughts come from? AC -My thoughts come from me.

Is this a belief or habit. Have you inspected closely where thoughts come from, how they arise, where they go. How would you prove to someone else that your thoughts come from your self. Be as specific as you can.

By control I mean specifically - when you inspect direct experience of your thoughts can you shut them off whenever you want for how ever long you want (ie no thoughts of any kind taking place),

I don't see the point of calling it direct experience. Is there an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts?
In the light of this definition of control, yes, i can control myself in that i can stop my thoughts.

can you have your self say you only want thoughts about x coming up and nothing other than x and have only x show up for some period of time

I have never attempted to do this so i have no experience in order to verify.
However, I will now tell myself to only think of my keyboard and about writing...
mildly successful but thoughts about this conversation eventually took precedence.
So that suggests to me that thoughts arise according to what what one is engaged in.
It's the thoughts that arise from unconscious(one's subsconscious) engagement that give the appearance of not being consciously in control of one's thoughts.
"Hey, where did these thoughts come from?" type things. But one's subconscious is part of self.
Continuous increase in self awareness has enabled me to increase my control of my thoughts.

Actually I know of no human who has the ability to shut off their thoughts.

In order that the term "turn the tap off" to be logical, to make sense, water has to be already coming from the tap.
"turn the tap off" means the tap has already been turned on and water is coming out, and the goal is to stop the water from coming out by turning the tap off.

If you have never met a person who can stop thinking about something after thay have begun thinking about something,
then that means that every person you have met continues to think about everything they have ever thought about throughout their whole life.
I have not met anyone like this.

Please sit and go deeper on the self reflection of your thoughts.

Is this act of self reflection done by a self that you believe doesn't exist?
And, what do you mean by self reflection...do you mean observe?
I seek clarification because to me, reflection means i am not looking at myself, that i require to interact with something other than myself in order to view an image of myself.
That i am not looking at myself directly, but merely an image of me.
And what if the surface of this entity that shows my reflection, distorts the image, that the reflection is not an accurate copy of myself?

when you inspect direct experience of your thoughts

Perhaps this is why you said this before, which to me, is not the same as self reflection.
Upon further pondering, the term 'self reflection' does seem a bit odd.
In that if 'sefl reflection' means to observe self, but reflection means an image of the thing one is observing...well, maybe you can see why it's confusing for me.
Do you want me to observe myself or an image of myself?
Aslo, 'self reflection' could mean to observe myself using myself, like using a mirror to observe my physical self.
But that too is confusing, why not just say "observe yourself" instead of using a word that infers observation of an image of oneself?

Watch them arise - where do they arise from.

From the same place i observe from. The inner realm\dimension of my self that I do not have total awareness of.

Which ones does your self contemplate further or take some action on, which ones just come up and leave with no attention paid to them.

The ones i choose after observation and consideration.

Take a thought about something that you have emotionally triggered about recently and bring it up from memory and then say - no more thoughts about that subject. Please report on what you find

I'm thinking about this nasty bout of food poisoning i had a few months ago. It took me a month to recover.
It was most painful and affected me emotionally and psychologically.
I can recall how i felt, not only the physical aches and pains, but also the mental exhaustion from the recovery.
Now, with a flick of an inner switch, i am no longer thinking about all that, I am now thinking about the question and pondering why you are still going on about this simple ability to turn thoughts off.

Where do thoughts come from?

My thoughts come from me.

Is this a belief or habit.

It's an observation.

Have you inspected closely where thoughts come from, how they arise, where they go.

Have I ? Yes. Am i still doing this? Yes. I find self exploraion most interesting.

How would you prove to someone else that your thoughts come from your self. Be as specific as you can.

Sure, I am now recalling from memory my indepth and lengthy thoughts regarding my theory that humans evolved from trees.
Did you have these thoughts FD?
Did you have the thoughts to memory recall the theory or the original thoughts of this theory? I'm going with, "no".
Who did have these thoughts? I'm going with, "me".

I don't see the point of calling it direct experience. Is there an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts?

Yes and Yes. Will use a well know example. If you can, go get a teacup or a coffee cup and put it on an uncluttered area of the table or desk in front of you. Look at the cup with a soft, open focus
Notice that there may be thoughts arising, perhaps thoughts about where the cup came from, what it is made out of, etc. Notice that these thoughts could still arise even if your eyes were closed, so they are not part of your direct experience of the cup. Let these thoughts pass by and attend only to the direct visual experience of the cup.
What is directly given in your visual experience of the cup?... STOP at this point and make note of what you directly experience.
In direct experience….. There are color and shape (which together are often called 'form')... Notice that what you take to be the shape of the cup is actually based on the interface between two shades of color.... You can notice that where the cup ends and there the table around it begins is actually based on where one color comes to an end and another color begins.
Notice that various "objective" characteristics you normally attribute to a cup are here based on color. This includes "distance," "size," ..."height," "depth," "roundness," "texture," "smoothness" and "hardness." Take time with each one of these; there is a lot that will seem highly counter-intuitive here.
The cup is not separate from form. In other words, you do not experience an "object," a purely material "cup" independent of the visual form you experience. Colors and shapes do not point outside of themselves to a true, physical cup lying beyond. The colors and shapes do not communicate that they are 'about' the cup or that they 'refer to' the cup or that they are 'caused by' the cup. In other words, they are the experienced cup.
Form is not separate from seeing. That is, form is not experienced apart from the 'seeing of form.' They can't be separated. You have no experience of pre-existing forms, some which happen to be seen, and some which happen not to be seen. You cannot experience an unseen form, any more than you can experience an unthought thought

Sure, I am now recalling from memory my indepth and lengthy thoughts regarding my theory that humans evolved from trees. Did you have these thoughts FD?

Laughing at this one. An open mind is one that see's without judgement or conclusion and is the basis of meaningful self inquiry. You are here on this site - so something must not be working in your world or why are you here. Lets go back to thoughts and direct experience of thoughts.

I would like you to watch two utube productions. If you have seen them already then even better. The first one is worth watching all the way through but if you have limited time the part which may interest you is at 50 mins in. The second one is on experience and memory. After viewing please try the following..........look up something on the internet that you have no experience of and no memories of - eg quantum physics......read something - observe did any thoughts come up - where did they come from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgRlrBl-7Yg

I don't see the point of calling it direct experience. Is there an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts?

Yes and Yes. Will use a well know example. If you can, go get a teacup or a coffee cup and put it on an uncluttered area of the table or desk in front of you. Look at the cup with a soft, open focus
Notice that there may be thoughts arising, perhaps thoughts about where the cup came from, what it is made out of, etc. Notice that these thoughts could still arise even if your eyes were closed, so they are not part of your direct experience of the cup.

If I was not observing the cup, I would not be thinking of this cup.
My thoughts of the cup come from my direct experience of observing it..or as i prefer to call it, experience.
Perhaps you could give another example of indirect experience because to me, observing a cup and choosing to think about this cup comes from the experience of observing the cup.

Let these thoughts pass by and attend only to the direct visual experience of the cup.

Ok, so here you are saying that observing the cup is a direct experience...I get that...i agree...direct experience.
And you are also saying that thoughts are being created in\during\from this direct experience...i get that...i agree.
Soo, where is the indirect experience in all this?

What is directly given in your visual experience of the cup?... STOP at this point and make note of what you directly experience.

By "make note", i assume you are referring to what thoughts I have, to express in words what i have observed.
In other words, you are asking me to express my "direct" thoughts that I am having due to my "direct" experience.
I do not understand your usage of "given". Who or what is doing the giving in this experience.

In direct experience….. There are color and shape (which together are often called 'form')... Notice that what you take to be the shape of the cup is actually based on the interface between two shades of color.... You can notice that where the cup ends and there the table around it begins is actually based on where one color comes to an end and another color begins.
Notice that various "objective" characteristics you normally attribute to a cup are here based on color. This includes "distance," "size," ..."height," "depth," "roundness," "texture," "smoothness" and "hardness." Take time with each one of these; there is a lot that will seem highly counter-intuitive here.

distance, size, height, depth, roundness and texture are based on one's ability to observe light reflecting off visible forms of matter and then think\process this incoming light data into thought forms/categories/attributes of distance, size, etc.
Smoothness and hardness however are mental categories\attributes derived from touch, not sight.( though texture can be deirved by both sight and touch)
But what has any of this got to do with me asking for an example of indirect experience...i do not know.

The cup is not separate from form.

And why would it.. 'cup' is the label a self attaches\links to the directly observed form.

In other words, you do not experience an "object," a purely material "cup" independent of the visual form you experience.

I agree...of which i assume you are stating that one directly experiences other objects via self's 5 senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.

Colors and shapes do not point outside of themselves to a true, physical cup lying beyond.

Well, colors and shapes can't do anything. They are not conscious beings.
Color and shape are thought forms inside a self, derived by interpreting incoming energy\information from outside of the self.
Color and shape is information stored within a self, information created by a self, derived from direct experience of an object outside oneself, ie the cup.

The colors and shapes do not communicate that they are 'about' the cup or that they 'refer to' the cup or that they are 'caused by' the cup. In other words, they are the experienced cup.

Agreed, color and shape are thought forms which enable a self to navigate and interact with the external realm.
And also agreed, my awareness of the cup and all my thoughts of it are from my direct experience of encountering and observing the cup.

Form is not separate from seeing. That is, form is not experienced apart from the 'seeing of form.'
They can't be separated. You have no experience of pre-existing forms, some which happen to be seen, and some which happen not to be seen. You cannot experience an unseen form, any more than you can experience an unthought thought

Tell that to a blind person.
Also, have you seen wind, electricity, bacteria, radiation that can kill you...space, that comprises over 90% of physical reality... or air for that matter.
You know, air...pure, non moving air that cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted or smelt, but of which one would die if it didn't exist.?

You cannot experience an unseen form, any more than you can experience an unthought thought

I take it you are saying a self cannot observe something that has no visual form..if so, i agree.
A self cannot see something that is undetectable to one's sense of sight.
I also agree that a self cannot experience\be aware of a thought that they have not had.
That's logic 101. If the thought does not exist, one cannot experience that which does not exist.

However...and thankyou for your example by the way FD...however...from my point of view, from my observations, you have not given an example of an indirect experience.
In that i still have no idea what you mean by 'indirect experience'.
I have pondered your reply and all i see is stuff relating to direct experience.
Soo, my question remains...

I don't see the point of calling it direct experience. Is there an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts?

How would you prove to someone else that your thoughts come from your self. Be as specific as you can.

Sure, I am now recalling from memory my indepth and lengthy thoughts regarding my theory that humans evolved from trees.
Did you have these thoughts FD?
Did you have the thoughts to memory recall the theory or the original thoughts of this theory? I'm going with, "no".
Who did have these thoughts? I'm going with, "me".

Laughing at this one.

Please note, i am not the least bit offended you are laughing, i achieved unoffendability back in 2009.
i simply have no idea what you are laughing about FD. Is it my theory, is it my conclusion that i have proved my thoughts come from myself...what?
You asked if i could prove that my thoughts come from my self, i have offered my thesis, and instead of discussing it, agreeing or disagreeing with my findings, you laugh.
Please, laugh, but also please communicate your thoughts of our discussion.
I have no idea if you agree or disagree that i have proved my thoughts come from my self.

An open mind is one that see's without judgement or conclusion and is the basis of meaningful self inquiry. You are here on this site - so something must not be working in your world or why are you here.

Considering you have just expressed judgement and conclusions about why i am here, by your own judgements and conclusions regarding what is an open or closed minded person, you are saying you are closed minded.
FD, I expressed at the beginning of our conversation why i am here in this forum. here it is again...

Heard reports about ruthlesstruth, being a latecomer to all things social, i missed out on interacting in that environment and after some research discovered this forum still carries the torch that ruthlesstruth started,
so i've come to experience.

My expectations are to understand the theory of no self and how that equates to liberation and awakening.( two different meanings in my mind)
'Cus if i cannot comprehend the concept i cannot proceed with the process.
I have been reading several threads in the one on one section and i don't get the idea that there is no self or what that has to do with awakening or freedom.

An open mind is one that see's without judgement or conclusion and is the basis of meaningful self inquiry.

I aslo disagree with your conclusions that an open minded person cannot be so if they judge and conclude.

Judgement - The act of judging or assessing a person or situation or event; The capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions.

Conclusion - A position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration ; The proposition arrived at by logical reasoning (such as the proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises of a syllogism)

Lets go back to thoughts and direct experience of thoughts.

Please remember to share an example of indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts.

I would like you to watch two utube productions. If you have seen them already then even better. The first one is worth watching all the way through but if you have limited time the part which may interest you is at 50 mins in. The second one is on experience and memory. After viewing please try the following..........look up something on the internet that you have no experience of and no memories of - eg quantum physics......read something - observe did any thoughts come up - where did they come from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgRlrBl-7Yg

I only have dialup at home. When i visit the library i can DL the vids and watch them, but access to the library is not a guaranteed thing just 'cus i turn up there.
Meaning, i may get the vids today or sometime next week.
Looking forward to watching them though.

Though I already have an answer to your question, i will however leave it till after i have seen the vids and done the experiment.

A direct experience is like the tea cup experiment. An indirect experience is like looking at a picture of a tea cup, the picture itself is a direct experience, but anything you experience about the tea cup in the picture is inferred from your prior experiences, beliefs, habits etc.. Memory, from a psychology perspective, is considered an indirect experience. Using your example of food poisoning, the experience took place each moment over a period of time. When you go check you will not have 100% recall of exactly every moment of every second, minute, hour, day etc. of that period of time - but you will have an overall memory of the experience, which isn't the experience itself. Lots of psychology studies out there show that what we store either in short term or long term memories are what the brain deems to be likely the most valuable......and what are deemed to be non-essential are left out. There is a high correlation between what is essential (ie gets stored) and what is familiar. Why two people who have same experience have different memories of the experience. Also why scientists have found that the simple fact of having an observer changes the results of an experiement.

Taking this a bit further, try this short test. Remember the food poisoning experience. Now hold the memory or though. Notice that the thought that is being remembered is not actually present. What is present is the memory, which is another thought. The present memory thought is different from the remembered thought. It is present, and the remembered thought is not present. Try to feel this. Now try to picture the arising of that previous thought. When it arose, the memory-thought was not present. Try to feel this. Notice that the two thoughts are never present at the same time. When the original thought arose, the memory thought wasn't yet present. and when the memory thought arises, the remembered though is no longer present. the two thoughts never touch each other. The memory claims to refer to the previous thought, but the previous thought is not present to substantiate the claim. there is actually no proof, no direct experience that the previous thought ever arose. You may have the direct experience of standing on the weight scale and being 10 pounds less so you have other direct experience you were sick - but the memory is an indirect, inferred, thought.

Laughter arose spontaneously when I read your comment that humans evolved from trees - there was no judgement or thought about it - just laughter. I have no thoughts on where we evolved from - I don't know. I know of the evolutionary theory, the space theory and now the tree theory......

Suggest we wait till you have had a chance to see the two video's and tried the internet search.

fergus