Just need a little push...

[pfWrep5ph9]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That there is no entity that controls 'my' actions, nor is there any need to have one. Things happen, and there's a sense of ownership, an 'I' that attaches itself to all it thinks it owns, and that puts itself into relation to all it thinks it doesn't own.

What are you looking for at LU?
Focus, accountability, an end to seeking. Hoping to accelerate my progress towards stepping through the gate and not waste any more time running in circles. Looking for help, and a community of people who have gone before.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
An interaction with someone who has an abiding realization of the illusion of self, someone who can gauge where I'm at on my path and can ask me questions to point me in the right direction. Prefer to stay away from spiritual fluff, but rather get a no nonsense rational approach.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I don't necessarily identify as a spiritual person. I don't wear the shirt or go to the meetings. Just someone who's always been attracted to knowing what the truth is behind our living reality. what are consciousness and its contents. Greatly impacted by Jed McKenna's books. Hungry for truth over promises of eternal bliss. Current practice consists mostly of critical investigation in writing of what's going on, meditation to link the theory to my direct experience by observation, and just generally living life while wondering what this conscious experience is. It'd be hard to sum up where I am at. Mostly stuck at realizing a lot more in theory than in direct experience. I've caught glimpses of thought being the product of machinery that has nothing to do with 'me'. I've seen it as something just telling stories about my character, but nothing has been abiding. I've giggled at it telling stories about me and for the hour after that I saw my body acting without any intervention of a self. And yet, things went back to normal soon after. Also caught glimpses of the so-called outer and inner reality all being in the same space, and being 'me' in a sense, but same story, nothing abides.

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

[Delma]

Hey there.

Let's get this done. This conversation might be a little unconventional, and in truth, I haven't guided in years, but have been around this community for nearly a decade. If you're willing to have me as your guide, we just might get this done. So...

Yes. I have a few guidelines, but we'll get into that later. For now, let's just have a talk. First place I'd like to start:

Why do you think that seeing through the illusion should be abiding? What gave you that impression?

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

Hello Delma, good to meet you and very grateful to have you as my guide!

Why do you think that seeing through the illusion should be abiding? What gave you that impression?

I guess this is what I understand when they say once you see Santa isn't real, you can never believe in him again. Doesn't that mean it ought to be abiding? I found it odd that I've had experiences of directly seeing thought as not-me when I was working through some of the questions posed in Gateless Gatecrashers, but the feeling didn't stick, so I figured I was missing something. Maybe I also am drawn to the idea of getting this over with and finish the struggle for good, instead of signing up for lifelong maintenance work. But maybe this is your cue to tell me to not have any expectations :)

Cheers,
Eli

[Delma]

Hi Eli.

Ok. I see. Well, the truth of it is that there's abiding, and then there's abiding. Semantics, really.

So yes, once seen, you can't unsee it. And yet, the illusion persists. Expect that. See it for what it is, though. The illusion not quite persistent, you see. And neither is the seeing through.

Inquiry:
Who or what do you suppose sees through the illusion? Who or what gets caught up in it?

*yes. I would actually like you to answer those two questions, please. Consider the facts of the matter. Consider the evidence and find the thing, the entity that would abide in seeing through the self.

Please describe the entity that would be able to abide.

[pfWrep5ph9]

Ok! Here goes.

Who or what do you suppose sees through the illusion? Who or what gets caught up in it?

If the self is the illusion, then obviously it can't do anything like 'seeing through'. It also wouldn't be something extra, as in, now there's seeing where before there was not. It would be a falling away of sorts. Or maybe a shift from one state to another. And by state, I mean contents of consciousness, like the state of a hard drive is what files are on it. Before, in consciousness' contents, there's a sense of owning certain appearances, like certain thoughts and actions of the body. A sense that the chirping bird is just something observed, but the thought of what to have for breakfast or the walking to the fridge being something controlled and done by an entity. After, this would be replaced by a sense that these appearances are all equally 'only observed'. Thought of breakfast appear as not me, body walks to the fridge and takes me along for the ride. Me, being the illusion that I am, actually being/experiencing the movie of this life.

The important part would be the falling away, I think. That there's a superimposed 'I am' on certain appearances, that would not be there anymore. If there's anything additional after that that says "oo, I now see that that's not me!" then we're not done yet, I suppose.

Sorry, all this is not actually answering the question. Just trying to work through what struggling and seeing through would mean. I'll leave this just in case it's useful to see my thought process, but please let me know if you need me to be more diligent.

All I can say is, there's no who or what that sees through or gets caught up. I can feel the sparring match in my head with this one. Cognitive dissonance. This all really feels like I'm doing my best being a smart boy and solving the puzzle. That there's a choice between this and anything else. The evidence however is: thoughts about my character struggling, thoughts about the struggle's past, thoughts about the utility of the hands typing this out hoping for an outcome of seeing through an illusion, a feeling of ownership by... what. An illusion seeing though the illusion of itself makes no logical sense. The question itself doesn't make sense. Thinking about the actual entity, all that pops up is the thought of an image of something that looks like me from the outside. Maybe a feeling of ownership here in the center of this experience right now, typing this out. But a reference point hardly makes for an entity. No conclusive evidence so far...

[Delma]

This is good. We need to get to that point of frustration with inquiry. It's actually key and is also the point where many drop inquiry thinking "this isn't working!" or "I'm failing at this and going in the opposite direction of where *I* want to go!".

You've got to laugh at that, really. It's an attempt to master inquiry. It's the idea of self trying to control it.

What you describe here is a state:
"That there's a superimposed 'I am' on certain appearances, that would not be there anymore. If there's anything additional after that that says "oo, I now see that that's not me!" then we're not done yet, I suppose."

If there's no you to create the illusion, there's no you to control it either. It comes. It goes. And whether it's present or not is not the problem.

We have to dig deeper than that.

What we're looking for here is the condition of reality. That's it. That's the nugget. We are looking to see things as they actually are, and to realize that this discovery is just plain Fact. And irrefutable. Unshakeably true. So, no matter what appears, (crap! There's still a 'me' here/Oh joy! There's no 'me' here), the fact of that reality remains.

Ok, Eli. What we need to do now is to get out of thought and investigate reality. It may prove frustrating. You may become annoyed with my questions and the inquiry, but know that if you do, and if you hit a wall, that's exactly where we want to be. We want to be at that wall. The place where thought and analysis can't go. It's said that this truth is evident even to a child. That it's recognizable. That it's simple. Keep those points in mind as we move along with what may seem like overly simplistic exercises.

Sound ok?

[Delma]

Oh, hey, Eli!

One other point I wanted to mention. It seems that you understand that your current state is of intellectual understanding. That can sometimes get in the way because when approaching an exercise, there's a kind of "I know this material already!" and a rush to get to the "correct" answer. I think I can see that you're aware of this need to find the answer that's "correct", no?

Ignore that rush to get to the right answer, that kneejerk answer that pops into your head. Approach this as though it's all brand-spanking new and you're just having a bit of exploration of some ideas. Like you got dropped off on earth from some distant galaxy and are wondering what in the world the very body is.

I need you to unknow what you know.

Know what I mean? ;)

[pfWrep5ph9]

Hey Delma, first of all a happy new year!

I reread your messages several times. This is great, there's a lot in there, thank you. Yes, all of this sounds great, and I will keep these guidelines in mind as we go along. My mind's struggling with wanting to show you how well I understand what you wrote, a ton of conflicting thoughts about me and reality, questions about what the surprise will be when you finally pat me on the back and say 'well done, you did it'.

Got my fresh eyes ready, fully committed, and looking forward to getting frustrated with you :)

[Delma]

Fantastic!

Happy New Year to you. Let's see what sort of clarity 2020 brings. ;)

Well, it's like this, Eli...

That there is no you is just plain the fact of the matter. But when it's clearly seen, the implications are startling and impactful. And when I say "seen", I mean that it's seen as irrefutably true. That doesn't mean that the sense of a self doesn't reappear, though.

But enough thinking about it. Let's just get down to business.

Tell me, Eli. In your everyday world, how do you judge whether something is real? What's your criteria?

Just list it. Rather than give me an explanation, try to keep your response thorough yet succinct.

Hint: how do you determine whether your wallet is in your pocket?

[pfWrep5ph9]

But enough thinking about it. Let's just get down to business.

Yes please :) My mind just keeps tying itself in knots asking silly questions and wondering what it will need to do once it 'sees' and what it will be like. I guess that's the whole point. I'll see when I see.

Quick sidenote: maybe you noticed I'm in Europe, and I work a 9 to 5, so we might be a bit out of sync. Just so you know if it takes me a bit to reply, it's not for lack of eagerness.

In your everyday world, how do you judge whether something is real? What's your criteria?

Just list it. Rather than give me an explanation, try to keep your response thorough yet succinct.

Hint: how do you determine whether your wallet is in your pocket?

The best method I have to judge if something is real is by coming to my senses. I get as much information from my sense perceptions (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling), which gives me confidence that a thing is there.

In case of the wallet, I would feel the pressure and weight of it against my leg, and to be more sure, I would reach in, take it out, and look at it.

Not going into a solipsist argument where an evil demon is tricking me into seeing a wallet of course, but I guess that's why you say 'judge' and not 'know'.

[Delma]

Hi Eli,

Not to worry about the time difference. I can tell that you are engaged and really appreciate it.

Can you describe your wallet? Involve as many of the senses as possible.

We're examining something you likely take for granted, so take a look at it with fresh eyes. What color? Scent? Texture? Weight? Size?

Thank you!

[pfWrep5ph9]

Not to worry about the time difference. I can tell that you are engaged and really appreciate it.

The appreciation's all mine, still can't believe you're willing to put your time and energy into this, so thank you!

Can you describe your wallet? Involve as many of the senses as possible.

We're examining something you likely take for granted, so take a look at it with fresh eyes. What color? Scent? Texture? Weight? Size?

Leathery. Dark brown. Bit glossy. Small lighter brown stitches along the sides, and some of the thread sticking out. Lots of little dents and scratches. Rectangular. Not much smell to it. Feels a bit cold. A little soft. Little lever/button. Fairly small. Gray shiny sides. See things sticking inside when I turn the top towards me. I open it up. Light gray box inside, glossy, metalic, slightly cold as well. A flap with a bill behind it. Letters printed on the side. Not sure how to describe how heavy it is, but got some weight to it.

Not sure what else to say about it...

[Delma]

Wow, Eli. That was terrific. Thank you.

By now you've figured out that we're comparing a material thing to the non-material. But that exercise got you out of thinking about the wallet and actually exploring its tangibles. That's where we need to be. Right there, looking at what makes something existent vs. not-so-much. And we want to think about this in simple terms rather than philosophical. Like a child. If you were to ask a child about your wallet, they would describe it in the same ways you did. This is the realm of the experiential rather than just thinking about ideas.

Take a look at your computer and keyboard. Do the same in describing it, though you don't have to write the description. Just go about the day examining the world around you, describing things to yourself.

Inquiry:

Once you've done this with a few things, let me know this.....What makes it real? Factual? Most importantly, why can you not refute its appearance? Define the rules you use to determine this. Are there any exceptions to these rules of yours?

Hint: The answers here are in no way philosophical, nor an involved thinking exercise. Just the facts. It can be as simple as what you've said here: "The best method I have to judge if something is real is by coming to my senses. I get as much information from my sense perceptions (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling), which gives me confidence that a thing is there."

I know I'm sort of having you repeat the same exercise, but I'd like this to sink in because we take all of this for granted. I'd like you to try to find exceptions to your criteria. Can you find one?

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

As I was doing the wallet exercise, I focused on answering the question as you posed it, and did notice how the mind keeps jumping to thoughts about the wallet, instead of just descriptions of it. Mostly about the utility of the wallet, judgement on how beat up it is, recalling all the nerds at the office having the same brand of wallet, etc.

Also funny how I noticed details about it that I had never noticed before. I've even had this with people in the past. People I've known my whole life, my parents even, I'd stop and make the effort to really look at them and they would almost appear like I'd just met them.

I'll take some time to go wander around describing things to myself and hammer down my rules. Will report back here tomorrow.

Thank you!

[pfWrep5ph9]

What makes it real? Factual? Most importantly, why can you not refute its appearance? Define the rules you use to determine this. Are there any exceptions to these rules of yours?

Ok, first of all, I'll refrain from going into solipsistic arguments about how no object can ever be confirmed to be real. Because you said 'no philosophy', haha, but also because it's not something I actually feel. Just intellectual play. Things seem real. I'll check when they seem real, and what my rules for that seem to be.

Rule number one: the more ways I can perceive an object, the less I can deny an object is real. Feeling pressure against my leg, I can use memory to figure it's probably my phone in my pocket. Reaching in and feeling the texture, the buttons, etc. I'll already be very sure. Taking it out and looking at it, even more confirmed. Now it starts to ring and show a picture of my wife, OK, definitely my phone.

Hmm, so actually, the more I really inspect an object with my senses, the less mental tools I need to figure out what it is. Less mental tools needed, less doubt. A vague pressure against my leg, I need memory and a lot of ideas about the world to figure it out. But really looking at it, I guess I can know it exists without having ideas about it. Can I? I think I'm confusing "judging whether something's real" with "figuring out what it is"

Rule number two: it feels effortless. The thing's just 'there'. I can write a description of my keyboard, walk away, come back, and comparing the description to the actual keyboard, I'm very likely to still agree with what I wrote.

Exceptions to the rules, hmmm. I can only think of exceptions coming up when perception is somehow messed with. A brain issue causing hallucinations, taking strong psychedelics... Then again, if I hallucinate a flying donkey, no matter how vivid it seems, I would have a hard time stating it's real and factual. It wouldn't make sense. A phone fits in with my beliefs about the world, flying donkey doesn't. So maybe rule number three is: 'it makes sense for it to be real'. It fits my model of reality and facts. It's also harder for the brain to keep up something not based on reality and fact, which I could probably make collapse by scrutinizing it with the senses.

Final answer, my only rule is: if I can really sense something, go into its details, look at it from all sides, and it doesn't budge, no conflicting information from different senses, it stays consistent, I accept it's real. Dare I say, no exceptions.

Really starting to overthink this as you may be able to tell, so I'll end here :)