The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
Ostensibly I am a physical organism in its habitat. The word 'I' is used by the physical organism as a mode of self-reference when speaking to other physical organisms of the same kind (human). It means "the speaker of this sentence". The claim that there is no real, inherent 'self' would seem to be telling me that there is another perspective.

What are you looking for at LU?
I have stumbled upon certain claims sufficiently often to give me cause to suspend my incredulity on grounds that I might be misinterpreting something fundamental. Pursuing these claims further I have encountered much confusion and inconsistency. I am applying for membership to LU in the hope that I might be relieved of some of that confusion.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Clarification. I'm pretty confident now that there is something behind these claims, and that maybe language gets in the way of any attempt to convey a radically different perspective. I'm groping my way along and could use a little help.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Some time during adolescence I rejected my Christian tradition as being irrational. I studied physics to degree level. Later in life I noted that many physicists had referred to eastern traditions (Oppenheimer quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, Murray Gell Mann referred to his quark hypothesis as "the eight-fold way", Schrodinger makes references in his book "Mind and Matter", then I came across Capra's (flaky) book "The Tao of Physics", and much more). So I undertook a study of Buddhism to see what it was all about. I liked it much better than the Christianity of my youth, except for the astonishing claim of anatma (no self) which seemed patently absurd to me. But it kept getting in my face. Repeatedly. So I thought I must be missing something. I stumbled upon Ramana Maharshi and his advice to meditate on the question "What am I?" Taking the question on face value (i.e. thinking that there was a 'self' to find) got me nowhere. For years. Then I found my way into a philosophical approach to the issue. I read David Chalmers' paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" and was thoroughly intrigued. This led me almost inexorably towards a form of panpsychism -- a form probably best described by AN Whitehead and given the name 'panexperientialism' by his student DR Griffin. I was quite taken with Whitehead's notion of "mutual immanence", especially when I realised that it was so consistent with Nagarjuna's philosophy of Dependent Origination. The philosophy stuff started to fall into place. Nagarjuna's rejection of "inherent existence" was consistent with a rejection of what Immanuel Kant called "things in themselves". Instead, everything depended on everything else for its existence. I still don't understand why the term 'conventional' is used to describe this kind of existence (convention to me as an agreement between people, or a protocol). I recall an instantaneous change of perspective whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience rather than the physical organism so intimately associated with it. This has never left me, though most of the time I'm not in that state. The effect this had on me was to undermine the entire materialist/physicalist metaphysic that I had unconsciously adopted beforehand. The mind/body problem became clear to me, along with the vacuity of the idea of 'matter' (a concept that Whitehead considered an example of what he called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). So this is where I am.

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

Hi,

My name is Vivien, and I am happy to assist in exploring 'no-self' and other related topics.

At LU we are described as guides - not teachers - as our role is to directly point to what IS, through the use of exercises and questions. Your role is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings the realisation that there is no separate self and never has been. This is an experiential based guiding and is not a discussion or a debate.

This is YOUR inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have.

Before we begin, here are links to information I would like you to read please.
Disclaimer:-
http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

Terms & Conditions:
https://www.liberationunleashed.com/register/terms/

“Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU.
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

A few ground rules:
1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. This exploration is based on Actual (or Direct) Experience (AE or DE) - smell, taste, sound, sensation, color and thoughts - only. Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress. This is not a self-improvement process. There is no ‘self’ to improve.
4. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such 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.
5. Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

A few technical support:

- You can reply to this thread by pushing the 'Post Reply" button at the left bottom of this page.
- You can learn to use the quote function, instructions are located in the link below this line:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

Technology is not perfect and sometimes there is a glitch which can wipe out your responses. It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. Always save a copy of what you have done, it will save time in the long run.


If you are happy to agree to the above and that this is an experiential based guiding, and not a discussion or an intellectual contemplation then we can start the process.

To begin with, so that we both become aware of what your expectations are about this exploration (for example, what life will look and feel like and what you want/hope will change or not change). Could you please answer the following questions:

How will Life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?
What is missing?

Throughout this exploration I would like you to answer ALL questions that I have written in blue text. Please answer questions INDIVIDUALLY, remembering to use the Quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Vivien

How will Life change?

According to your FAQs, nothing will change.

How will you change?

According to your FAQs, the "I" is a story, the illusion of a separate self. There will be a "seeing through" of this illusion. Consequently there is nothing that stands to gain anything by this "seeing through".

What will be different?

According to your FAQs nothing will be different, although I would be inclined to regard the elimination of the illusion of a separate self to be a significant difference, even if it be a difference that make no difference.

What is missing?

This is a very difficult question. Something seems wrong. I don't know what it is but it's not right. Almost a kind of consternation at "being here". The shock of one's own existence. I'm not sure that this addresses a 'missing' something but it's the best I can do by way of reply.

Hi,

How can I call you?

According to your FAQs…

I appreciate that you read the FAQs, but it doesn’t matter what is written there. This is YOUR inquiry. And I’m ONLY interested in your experience and your expectations.

It is very important that you ALWAYS answer the questions with what is true for you. And NEVER what you’ve read or learned.

So let’s start again.

How will Life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?

Vivien

How will Life change?

My guess is that when the illusion of a separate self is "seen through", the idea of that self will have a weakening influence on behaviour in the sense of being a driver for selfishness, resentment, avarice, embarrassment, pride, possessiveness, vanity, etc.

How will you change?

There will be a "seeing through" of the illusion of a separate self. Consequently there is nothing that stands to gain anything by this "seeing through". So what is this 'me' that will have changed by the loss of this illusion? I can only imagine that this "unfoldingness" will continue to unfold.

What will be different?

The elimination of the illusion of a separate self must surely have its effects on behaviour. Probably not good for social interaction since this would be a deviation from social norms. I may lose friends, and my family may be disconcerted.

What is missing?

This is a very difficult question. Something seems wrong. I don't know what it is but it's not right. Almost a kind of consternation at "being here". The shock of one's own existence. I'm not sure that this addresses a 'missing' something but it's the best I can do by way of reply.

Hi,

The reason why I asked you to write down your expectations, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now. Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. When there is an expectation then what is being seen is compared to that expectation, and if it doesn’t match it, the conclusion could be that this is not it. So it’s quite important to keep eye on every expectation, and not making comparison with those.

My guess is that when the illusion of a separate self is "seen through", the idea of that self will have a weakening influence on behaviour in the sense of being a driver for selfishness, resentment, avarice, embarrassment, pride, possessiveness, vanity, etc.

This might happen to some extent, but it’s important to know that personality traits and especially personality and emotional problems and traumas don’t dissolve just because of seeing no self. So all the conditioned reactions that stem from them still can arise. However, if someone decides to work on these, it’s usually much easier after seeing no-self.

There will be a "seeing through" of the illusion of a separate self. Consequently there is nothing that stands to gain anything by this "seeing through". So what is this 'me' that will have changed by the loss of this illusion? I can only imagine that this "unfoldingness" will continue to unfold.

Seeing no self is just a shift in perception, like with these image bellow. As if you were seeing only in one way for your whole life, and now there’s a shift, and you can see from a different perspective. But you can still see the original, old version too. From now on, you can switch back and forth between the two.

The elimination of the illusion of a separate self must surely have its effects on behaviour.

For some there is, but not always. And this is because seeing no-self is just the first step. It’s just a beginning. The falling away of a life-time of conditionings can last at the end of the organism.

Probably not good for social interaction since this would be a deviation from social norms. I may lose friends, and my family may be disconcerted.

Not necessarily. For some, social interactions can increase since there could be less sense of self present to get in the way.
For many, there is an expectation that the sense of self will be gone completely, never asserting itself ever again. But this is not the case. There STILL WILL be a sense of self, and also the illusion still will reassert itself from time to time.

Suffering happens when being lost in thoughts happens. It means that the thoughts in that moment are not seen only as arising thoughts (only as ‘containers’ coming and going), but rather their ‘content’, what they are about is taken as reality. And of course, since each thought is about the self, the self is taken as something real. And this, let’s call ‘delusion’ still can happen even after seeing the illusion of the self. But when it’s investigated, it can be seen for what it is. But there is no guaranty that in the next moment the story of a self won’t reassert itself. It’s a habit of the mind. It’s a conditioned pattern of thinking. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker.

Your introductory post shows that you have lots of intellectual knowledge about awakening. Sometimes, it is difficult to guide someone who is full of information, because instead of LOOKING they want to think and give conceptual answers...and thinking is not the right tool to use for this forum.

So let’s agree on something right at the beginning. When I ask any question, I NEVER ask you to write down any learned information. Also, I don’t ask you to contemplate or think about the answers.
What I’d like you to do is to LOOK at your immediate actual experience, and use words only that describe that experience as precisely as you can. Can we agree on this?

I also would like to ask you to stop reading and listening any teachers during the time of our investigation, and rather spend as much time on looking, as possible. Can you do this?

Before starting, please report what came up reading the comments about the expectations.
Was there any resistance to any of it?

And how can I call you?

Vivien

What I’d like you to do is to LOOK at your immediate actual experience, and use words only that describe that experience as precisely as you can. Can we agree on this?

Yes.

I also would like to ask you to stop reading and listening any teachers during the time of our investigation, and rather spend as much time on looking, as possible. Can you do this?

Yes.

Before starting, please report what came up reading the comments about the expectations.
Was there any resistance to any of it?

Yes there was resistance at the fact that what I had written over and above what I'd taken from your FAQs had been thrown out with the bathwater so to speak.

And how can I call you?

I'm not sure how to interpret this question. Are you asking for my phone number?

Hi,

I'm not sure how to interpret this question. Are you asking for my phone number?

I meant what name should I use, how should I address you in our correspondence?

As stated in my first post, my role is to directly point to what IS, through the use of exercises and questions. Your role is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings the realisation that there is no separate self and never has been.

Okay, now we become aware of actual experience (AE) and what LOOKING is.
‘Looking’ is just plain looking at actual/direct experience (AE), which is simply colour (image), sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought at face value that is appearing right now in the moment. You are looking at the raw experience of AE and noticing the labels and thoughts ABOUT the raw experience. The key to this exploration is the careful LOOKING. 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 and that there has never been a separate self.

The interpretation of actual experience happens quickly. So while inquiring, labelling and thought interpretation will always appear, but it is possible to become aware of the thoughts that appear with and overlay actual experience. Another key component of this exploration is being able to tell the difference between actual experience and the interpretation by thought of actual experience.

Here's an exercise that will help you to see what we mean exactly by direct experience. 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= visual sight
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/direct experience) and let me how you go.

Yes there was resistance at the fact that what I had written over and above what I'd taken from your FAQs had been thrown out with the bathwater so to speak.

And what is it exactly that had / experienced the resistance? – please don’t think, but rather look for the ‘me’ who supposedly experienced it

Vivien

I meant what name should I use, how should I address you in our correspondence?

Andy.

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual/direct experience) and let me how you go.

Permit me to copy a line from my introductory post:
I recall an instantaneous change of perspective whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience rather than the physical organism so intimately associated with it. This has never left me, though most of the time I'm not in that state.
This state of "being the entire field of conscious experience" is how I interpret your guidance here. Even when the question arises concerning "the experiencer" of this field, this is only "more content" so to speak. "Content" is all there is.

And what is it exactly that had / experienced the resistance? – please don’t think, but rather look for the ‘me’ who supposedly experienced it

There is nothing else... only "content", and the notion of a 'me' is absent from that content on those occasions that this state becomes temporarily established.

Hi Andy,

I recall an instantaneous change of perspective whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience rather than the physical organism so intimately associated with it. This has never left me, though most of the time I'm not in that state.
This state of "being the entire field of conscious experience" is how I interpret your guidance here

No, this is not what I meant. I gave you the actual experience (AE) exercise because AE is the main tool we will use to investigate what is really going on.

The aim of this investigation is NOT to be in any state (like being the entire field of conscious experience), rather to see how the illusion itself is created. We are not after any state. Seeing through the illusion is not a state. It’s not something to ‘abide in’.

whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience

This is still a subtle form of identification. “I am the entire field of conscious experience”. So the identification moved from the body/mind to consciousness / awareness.

And the identification with consciousness (or with the field) is an excellent hiding place for the separate self. Since all the seeming realness of the separate self comes from the seeming realness of consciousness / awareness. So as long as awareness is not seen for what it is, the belief of the separate self is not really seen through… it’s just hiding behind the notion of ‘the field of conscious experience’.

This awareness / consciousness is an ultimate illusion, it really seems very real. But nonetheless, it’s still an illusion. And for those who engaged in non-dual teachings this sometimes can be a serious stumbling block.

Can you entertain the possibility that consciousness is not what it seems like?

Do you have a resistance to the notion that consciousness might be an illusion too?
If yes, could you please explain why?

V: And what is it exactly that had / experienced the resistance? – please don’t think, but rather look for the ‘me’ who supposedly experienced it

A: There is nothing else... only "content", and the notion of a 'me' is absent from that content on those occasions that this state becomes temporarily established.

And is this seen clearly, experimentally, or is it rather just an intellectual understanding?

So, I would like you to do the exercise I gave you before. Here it is again:

Actual experience (AE) is: sounds, smells, taste, colour/image, sensation, and seeing the appearance of a thought. But what the thought about is not AE.

We are making a distinction about what is really going on (AE), and what thoughts are ABOUT what is going on. Thoughts create a conceptual overlay on AE. And with the following exercise we separate the conceptual overlay from what is really happening.

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

Seeing a cup, simply= visual sight
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/direct experience) and let me how you go.

Vivien

V: This awareness / consciousness is an ultimate illusion, it really seems very real. But nonetheless, it’s still an illusion. And for those who engaged in non-dual teachings this sometimes can be a serious stumbling block.

Can you entertain the possibility that consciousness is not what it seems like?

Yes. The concept of "consciousness" is already an abstraction. Whenever I try to convey anything about it in words, the generated words always end up being misleading in some way or other. When I try to circumvent any misleading parts, the words get very cryptic and abstruse. The thinking and speaking "I" that writes these words is already removed from it.

Do you have a resistance to the notion that consciousness might be an illusion too?
If yes, could you please explain why?

No. Even the *word* 'consciousness' has so many variant uses that any conversation is seriously handicapped from the outset. Language is not the correct tool for the job, but sadly it seems to be the only tool in the toolbox. What I want to talk about is prior to its intellectual diremption into the "real world" and "my consciousness of it", and there's no word for that.

V: And what is it exactly that had / experienced the resistance? – please don’t think, but rather look for the ‘me’ who supposedly experienced it

A: There is nothing else... only "content", and the notion of a 'me' is absent from that content on those occasions that this state becomes temporarily established.

And is this seen clearly, experimentally, or is it rather just an intellectual understanding?

It just is. Nothing can be said about it because language is an objectifying activity. In order to speak about it there has to be a speaker, and the speaker has to have thought about it, and the thinking has already abstracted away from it. Overlay upon overlay.

V: Seeing a cup, simply= visual sight
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/direct experience) and let me how you go.

I go on with great difficulty because the habit of "getting on with life" is so strong. I have to be here or there, I have to do this or that, and it's quite like being absorbed in a compelling movie to the extent that one is completely unaware of anything else. But it is possible to step back, and step back, to the point that it becomes clear that there is *nothing* that is doing this "stepping back". But then the "getting on with life" crashes back in like a tsunami and the movie continues in complete forgetfulness of that "stepping back".

Hi Andy,

I go on with great difficulty because the habit of "getting on with life" is so strong. I have to be here or there, I have to do this or that, and it's quite like being absorbed in a compelling movie to the extent that one is completely unaware of anything else. But it is possible to step back, and step back, to the point that it becomes clear that there is *nothing* that is doing this "stepping back". But then the "getting on with life" crashes back in like a tsunami and the movie continues in complete forgetfulness of that "stepping back".

I understand this. This is why I asked you to do the exercise. But you didn’t do it, second time.

So I’m not sure what you’re really looking for.
You’re maybe expecting something else from this conversation than what LU can offer.

As I mentioned before it’s an experiential based inquiry, which means that I give you lots of exercises and questions, and you LOOK at your actual experience.

But you refused to do that twice. So maybe you you’re after something else.

Please let me know what is that you expect / want from this conversation.

Vivien

I understand this. This is why I asked you to do the exercise. But you didn’t do it, second time.

So I’m not sure what you’re really looking for.
You’re maybe expecting something else from this conversation than what LU can offer.

As I mentioned before it’s an experiential based inquiry, which means that I give you lots of exercises and questions, and you LOOK at your actual experience.

But you refused to do that twice. So maybe you you’re after something else.

Please let me know what is that you expect / want from this conversation.

Please accept my apologies Vivien. I was under the impression that I had complied on each occasion, but I guess I must be misinterpreting the task you set me. I did perform the exercise several times over the day and I did let you know how I went on. There is only content, no experiencer. AE is short-lived. I'm still unsure what I should add. I just had my first cup of coffee of the day and performed the exercise again. There was heat from the cup. There was the smell of coffee. There was the taste of the coffee. There was the thought of satiation. You ask me to "LOOK at my actual experience" but I don't know what is supposed to be having this experience or doing this looking. If you regard this as a third refusal then I'm at a loss to know how to continue and I will be content to let things rest there.

Hi Andy,

You ask me to "LOOK at my actual experience" but I don't know what is supposed to be having this experience or doing this looking.

There is no need to be there an experiencer or a looker, who is doing the looking. It’s just a figure of speaking. The words ‘I’ and ‘you’ are still useful for communication. So there could be looking going on, without anyone or anything doing it.
I gave you this exercise to practice what we mean by AE, and also to see if we are on the same page. If we use the same terms as the basis for further investigation.

There was heat from the cup. There was the smell of coffee. There was the taste of the coffee. There was the thought of satiation.

There was heat from the cup = sensation
There is NO AE of ‘heat’ or ‘cup’, there is only the AE of sensation.
There was the smell of coffee = smell
There is NO AE of ‘coffee’, there is only the AE of smell.
There was a thought of satiation = smell
The thought of ‘satiation’ is NOT the AE of ‘satiation’, but the AE of thought
Can you see this?

If you regard this as a third refusal then I'm at a loss to know how to continue and I will be content to let things rest there.
No, I don’t regard this as a third refusal. Thank you for explaining it. Probably there was just a misunderstanding between us.

So since I don’t know what you expect from this conversation, I’ll tell you what I can offer, so you can decide if you want to continue or not. LU us about seeing through the illusion of the separate self. So what I can offer is to look for the self from every possible angle, and other related topics. Since the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts, we can look at them thoroughly, seeing the clear distinction of the actual experience of thoughts, and their 'contents', what they are about. Also, we can look at how decision is make (if we need to). We can have a deep look on the body and sensations, emotions and the sense of self. Looking at the concepts of awareness or consciousness is essential too, and seeing if the sentence 'I am' is really in correlation with the actual experience. Also, seeing if there is really a subject-object relation going on. Furthermore, we can look at the notion of time and if you're interested we can look at how the seeming 'outside world' is created.

Please let me know, if this is what you’re interested in, and if you’d like to continue. If not, that’s OK with me too. It’s your decision.

Vivien

There was heat from the cup = sensation
There is NO AE of ‘heat’ or ‘cup’, there is only the AE of sensation.
There was the smell of coffee = smell
There is NO AE of ‘coffee’, there is only the AE of smell.
There was a thought of satiation = smell
The thought of ‘satiation’ is NOT the AE of ‘satiation’, but the AE of thought
Can you see this?

I think what you're saying is that coffee, heat, and cup are abstractions away from AE. But couldn't the same be said also of sensation, smell, and thought? Are these not also abstract categories imposed upon AE?

So since I don’t know what you expect from this conversation, I’ll tell you what I can offer, so you can decide if you want to continue or not. LU us about seeing through the illusion of the separate self. So what I can offer is to look for the self from every possible angle, and other related topics. Since the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts, we can look at them thoroughly, seeing the clear distinction of the actual experience of thoughts, and their 'contents', what they are about. Also, we can look at how decision is make (if we need to). We can have a deep look on the body and sensations, emotions and the sense of self. Looking at the concepts of awareness or consciousness is essential too, and seeing if the sentence 'I am' is really in correlation with the actual experience. Also, seeing if there is really a subject-object relation going on. Furthermore, we can look at the notion of time and if you're interested we can look at how the seeming 'outside world' is created.

Please let me know, if this is what you’re interested in, and if you’d like to continue. If not, that’s OK with me too. It’s your decision.

Yes I'd like to accept your offer of guidance here. I think I'm beginning to see how this goes.