The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
The potential or promise of a life lived without mind based fear as a natural state. Even better, as a universal and accessible state that informs our true nature. Something that is tangible, real and within all of our grasps... something both discoverable and achievable.

The return to the beloved through dissolving the illusion of self.

What are you looking for at LU?
Informed guidance. Intelligence, truth and realization and dawning of truth in undeniable clarity and light.
Adding “no self” as just another idea, that props up the self.
-I have achieved “no self”... says the self.
-Not seeing truth.
-The disappointment in finding no sudden easy relief.
-The blocks that are in place to truly seeing no self.
-The self trying to not see itself?
-Who is the self that is trying to see that it does not exist?

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Compassion and clarity. Direct pointing to elimination of the idea of self.
Adding “no self” as just another idea, that props up the self.

Mind races with...

-I have achieved “no self”... says the self.

-Not seeing truth.

-The disappointment in finding no sudden easy relief.

-The blocks that are in place to truly seeing no self.

-The self trying to not see itself?

-Who is the self that is trying to see that it does not exist?

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Books... Wayne Dyer. ( i control my thoughts) Tolle. (Thought is the source of suffering) . Jan Frazier.

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

The self...

What is my “self” made of?

My “self identity” is strengthened by these qualities that differentiate me from another...

Qualities like...

• Sense of Humour
• Specific Preferences
• The ability to choose one thought over another
• Individual Talents
• Loving one person over another (preferences)

These are some of the real experiential elements that i use to define “me”.

When i look to see “me” these are the tangible things that this “me” is constructed from.

Many positive ideas surrounding this construction.

These are the blocks then, that make me doubt, and prevent awakening to the truth of “no self” .

Things like unique preferences and the ability to direct thought... is that not evidence of the existence of “a unique self” ?

Beyond these tangible qualities that seem to make up the “me” ...i do sense that this “me” is no more than a mental construction... as ineffable as thought.

What happens to these tangibles that i have described if the self is seen as non existent? What is left to power humour, preference, unique talent etc.

Is this not the role of the self to be the source of these unique qualities?

In the same breath i see the possibility of all this mental energy being invested in propping up this “imaginary self”

... and how maintaining a never ending pursuit of working on “no self” actually just empowers the “imaginary self”

Am willing to take the leap of faith that the actual “truly true” truth is being distorted through a false construct of “self” ...

On the unhealthy side of things... occasional substance abuse works to give me temporary glimpses of “no self” , a thinning of the veil between life and death where the concept of “self” is more easily abandoned.

Again... recognized as an unhealthy path that is also a distortion of reality.

So that’s where i’m at and am grateful for any pointers or guidance.

P.S. I understand, that this is not about “a leap of faith”. I understand that this is about seeing reality.

Having brothers that are reborn Christians... i see the power of surrender with respect to psychological states and achieving a sense of well being.

I look for parallels here. Isn’t the surrender to the concept of “no self “ just a re-framing of the idea of surrendering to a higher power?

Obviously there is power in surrender... life changing repercussions. There seems to be a surrender of the will in the reborn experience?

What about the surrender or full acceptance to “no self” ? Jesus on the cross represents total surrender to “what is”.

...not my will but thy will?

Obviously a great deal of mental blather from me in these initial posts. Am slowly working through the LU app. Awareness of the stark difference between the fantasy land of thought compared with the clarity of engaging with reality as it exists in the present moment.

The amount of story telling going on is staggering... running scenarios about solving problems that don’t exist...preparing for possible future scenarios...imagining disastrous outcomes of events... stories made out of nothing but thought... and then snapping out of it with that realization that none of that is real...back into the here and now...clarity...stillness...until the next wave of thought arrives.

Shaky realization that the “me” is just a construction of all this imaginary dream land of thought that i continually get drawn into. The snapping into clarity of direct reality that brings a sense of stillness, relief.

Some recent scribblings...

The thought based me... a fabrication. A substitute for reality. Reality cannot be found in thought... reality exists only in the here and now.

Accepting and focusing on the now... is not a dream like state... it is an alert and awakened state that is actually effortless and requires no thought. Thought is what takes you out of the reality of the present moment and brings you back into the lala land of thought based suffering.

Like giving up an addiction... a bit shaky... waiting for the monsters to come jump out of the bushes and drag me back into the hypnosis of self concern and belief.

Stop trying to take responsibility for what is?

Hi mesmer,

You've wrote quite a bit there! Good job on giving it a go, I can try to help you out if you like.

From what you've read I get the impression that you have some expectations that seeing there is no self would make you become free from suffering and all that. The realization/understanding that is guided towards on this forum doesn't tend to do this. Some effects do tend to happen, but it's different for everyone what he or she gets out of it. I would ask of you to put your expectations aside and just simply see or recognize what is and isn't so in this conversation. Nothing hard or tricky to it.

To get started:
If you just simply investigate/explore and try to find something that could be called person/the seperate self, do you find it? Or with other words, can you find something, a sensation, thought, whatever, that is a self?

Floris

Hi mesmer,

You've wrote quite a bit there! Good job on giving it a go, I can try to help you out if you like.
To get started:
If you just simply investigate/explore and try to find something that could be called person/the seperate self, do you find it? Or with other words, can you find something, a sensation, thought, whatever, that is a self?

Floris

Hi Floris. Thank you. What is found is the inward voice in the head that speaks and thinks as me. Strong identification with this inward narrator combining with the physical sensation, aliveness, contained within this body. This “me” , that seems to have a unique personality and preferences, looks out through the head and sees other unique, seperate human beings that are operating with the same equipment... this strengthens the belief that i must be this separate unique self in charge of navigating my own container through “my” life.

Thank you for your guidance Florisness.

Also have a long held belief that there is a life force, or spirit, that i call “me” inside this physical body. I want to look with honesty and truth.

Hello mesmer,

Good to see your fast reply. And nice job on implementing the quote function.

Also have a long held belief that there is a life force, or spirit, that i call “me” inside this physical body. I want to look with honesty and truth.

That is okay, but let's for now not go into this. Life force or spirit I think is fine as a description, however it seems that (as most people) you've blended the distinction between spirit/consciousness and the constructed persona. It would be more accurate to say that the body is inside spirit, instead of a spirit in a body.

What is found is the inward voice in the head that speaks and thinks as me. Strong identification with this inward narrator combining with the physical sensation, aliveness, contained within this body. This “me” , that seems to have a unique personality and preferences, looks out through the head and sees other unique, seperate human beings that are operating with the same equipment... this strengthens the belief that i must be this separate unique self in charge of navigating my own container through “my” life.

Okay this seems like a good starting point. A good way to cut through a lot of assumptions you may hold here is to begin with exploring perception.

Most people feel that they are entities who are perceiving things, like the sight of a dog, the sound of a car, the sensations of touching something. This is evident in statements such as 'I am seeing a hand'. There are 3 assumptions there to look at now:
- The 'I' which is seeing the hand'
- The 'seeing' which is what this 'I' is doing/undergoing
- The 'hand' which is the seen object by the 'I'.

Let's investigate this.
Optimally be somewhere where you can be relaxed and undisturbed, pull out your hand, or any other object you like, and look at it. Then answer these questions from your experience:
- Can you find an I which is (doing) seeing?
- Can you find eyes or anything else, which are (doing) seeing?
- Can you find the experience 'the seen thing, e.g. the hand' going to a place in the head where it is received?
- Can you find something which is intrepeting the seen thing?

After these, 'go to' (notice) the experience called seeing, and then 'go to' the experience called the seen thing, e.g. the hand. Toggle your attention between the place/experience of these two thing, the 'seeing' and the 'seen thing(s)', and answer:
- Can you find a difference between what you call seeing and the seen?
- Would it be accurate to say these are the same experience?

After that, what do you think about the statement 'I see a hand'? is this your experience, or if not, then what is?


Happy exploring,
Floris

Optimally be somewhere where you can be relaxed and undisturbed, pull out your hand, or any other object you like, and look at it. Then answer these questions from your experience:
• Can you find an I which is (doing) seeing?

There is just seeing. There is no “doer” of seeing in the direct experience.

Can you find eyes or anything else, which are (doing) seeing?

There is the assumption that eyes are providing the experience of seeing. But there is only the experience of seeing. The “doer” of seeing seems unnecessary in the experience.

Can you find the experience 'the seen thing, e.g. the hand' going to a place in the head where it is received?

There is the seeing of the hand. There is the thought of hand occurring in the head. There is no discoverable separate place where the seeing is being received. It all stays as the experience of seeing.

Can you find something which is intrepeting the seen thing?

Thought interprets the seen thing. Labels it hand.

After these, 'go to' (notice) the experience called seeing, and then 'go to' the experience called the seen thing, e.g. the hand. Toggle your attention between the place/experience of these two thing, the 'seeing' and the 'seen thing(s)', and answer:

Can you find a difference between what you call seeing and the seen?

The toggling between the seen and the seeing creates no difference in the experience.

Would it be accurate to say these are the same experience?

Yes.

After that, what do you think about the statement 'I see a hand'? is this your experience, or if not, then what is?

There is just seeing of the hand. The “I” does not seem to be a necessary participant in this or can not be recognized as a participant .

Thank you for sticking with me Floris.

“Doing” and “doer” imply effort being applied to make something happen... the seeing of the hand happening without effort or interference of a “doer”. The “doer” surfaces when faced with a more challenging task than just looking. eg. Taking out the trash has a greater sense of a “doer” doing something... resistance or judgement of a task strengthens the idea of a separate “me” doing something?

...i will shut up now.

Good day mesmer,

very nice looking you did, sticking with your experience instead of choosing to trust assumptions you may hold!

Oops, wasn't ready with my reply yet.

I generally won't respond to your writings that I think are spot on, only to things that seem worth giving some attention to.

...i will shut up now.

Ramble as much as you feel like.

There is just seeing of the hand. The “I” does not seem to be a necessary participant in this or can not be recognized as a participant .

Very nice observations that you made.

“Doing” and “doer” imply effort being applied to make something happen... the seeing of the hand happening without effort or interference of a “doer”. The “doer” surfaces when faced with a more challenging task than just looking. eg. Taking out the trash has a greater sense of a “doer” doing something... resistance or judgement of a task strengthens the idea of a separate “me” doing something?

Yes! When allowing the idea of things just happening, instead of being a doer.. how does that make you feel?


Let's go into the hearing aspect of our experience too. normally we say 'I hear a noise', so, let's explore that. notice the sounds that are going on around you and inquire:
- can you find something which is doing the hearing? An I, ears, a body..
- Can you find 'hearing', or can you just find the sound? Or perhaps we could turn it around, and label 'the sound' instead as 'hearing'?
- do you notice how images/thoughts are imposed onto the experience?

After doing that, is 'I hear a sound/bird/car' an accurate description of your experience? If not, how would you phrase it to make it sound corresponding with what you experience as much as possible?


Here to take it into a little other direction. Maybe it's too much in addition to the previous, if you rather answer just the above do that, and then answer this one later. It's up to you. Anyway, I would suggest keeping at least a small break between the two exercises, so that the above can sink in a little more.
Sit down, relax, close your eyes. And focus on the sounds you're hearing around you. These sounds are usually called or thought of as outside of you. Now make an 'internal sound' in your mind. These sounds are usually called or thought of as inside you. Now if you go back and forth with your attention between these two sounds (the outside and inside sound), there should be a border of sorts that your attention passes if there really is such a thing as an inside or outside. Check this, go from what is called the inside sound, to the outside sound, and see if you can find a boundary or border where the inside space is left, and outside space is gone into by attention. Is such a border found? Is there a place where the inside space stops, and an outside space begins, or could it be the same space?

Love,
Floris

I generally won't respond to your writings that I think are spot on, only to things that seem worth giving some attention to.

Understood.

Yes! When allowing the idea of things just happening, instead of being a doer...how does that make you feel?

The “seeing hand” exercise was a direct experience of allowing things to happen and being unable to locate the doer. This was revelatory in it’s effortlessness. Effortlessness feels great.

Let's go into the hearing aspect of our experience too. normally we say 'I hear a noise', so, let's explore that. notice the sounds that are going on around you and inquire:

can you find something which is doing the hearing? An I, ears, a body..

Similar to the “seeing” experience... there is “hearing” or more accurately the experience of sound .... the assumption that the ears are receiving... but without an active separate entity (I, ears, body) “doing” the hearing.
Again the feeling of effortlessness.

Can you find 'hearing', or can you just find the sound? Or perhaps we could turn it around, and label 'the sound' instead as 'hearing'?

Hearing implies a doer... there is the label of the experience as ‘hearing” but it seems more accurate to say there is the effortless (non doing) experience of sound. ( wow!)

do you notice how images/thoughts are imposed onto the experience?

Yes... there is a label of the sound... fan, footsteps, associated mind pictures with that....a more emotional response when suddenly a voice, calling out, appeared among the other sounds.

After doing that, is 'I hear a sound/bird/car' an accurate description of your experience? If not, how would you phrase it to make it sound corresponding with what you experience as much as possible?

There is an experience of sound would be more accurate.

Here to take it into a little other direction. Maybe it's too much in addition to the previous, if you rather answer just the above do that, and then answer this one later. It's up to you. Anyway, I would suggest keeping at least a small break between the two exercises, so that the above can sink in a little more.
Sit down, relax, close your eyes. And focus on the sounds you're hearing around you. These sounds are usually called or thought of as outside of you. Now make an 'internal sound' in your mind. These sounds are usually called or thought of as inside you. Now if you go back and forth with your attention between these two sounds (the outside and inside sound), there should be a border of sorts that your attention passes if there really is such a thing as an inside or outside. Check this, go from what is called the inside sound, to the outside sound, and see if you can find a boundary or border where the inside space is left, and outside space is gone into by attention. Is such a border found? Is there a place where the inside space stops, and an outside space begins, or could it be the same space?

Will take your advice and let the earlier exercises continue to sink in ... will get back to you on the above.


Quick story... a friend told me he purchased 4 flotation noodles for his 4 kids to play with in their pool. His wife said that each kid was to be given their own noodle. My friend said... why? Can’t we just throw the noodles in the pool without assigning individual ownership to them? Can’t they just be noodles in a pool? The wife insisted that each kid instead claim their own noodle and write their names on them.
This lead to arguments among the children with each kid being protective of their own noodles.

This made me laugh a bit as there is the sense that this investigation is pointing out some noodles with my name on them.

Thanks so much Floris... on to the next exercise


love mesmer