The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That, although it's incredibly powerful and convincing, the idea that I am an individual, somehow separate from my perceptions, is only a matter of perception. Zoom in or out, and "Gabe" is not an obvious, concrete reality. It's like an image seen in the clouds. But the cloud forgets it's not *actually* face, but was only ever cloud.

What are you looking for at LU?
I want to be truly convinced. The idea of "no separate self" feels intuitively true, and I've had occasional almost-glimpses of that, but nothing has ever "stuck". I've never (I don't think) had an experience that was unquestionably true, that removed all possible doubt, even though it couldn't be described in words.

I want to *know* there is no self, so that the focus can instead be on the practicalities of what to do with this apparent-self's life.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Patience, primarily. I suspect my mind will have a lot of objections, and that I'll frequently doubt I'm understanding. I also have a young toddler, so--while I have time to devote to this project--it won't necessarily be at predictable times or for predictable lengths.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
As a convert to Judaism, I discovered the idea of panentheism and nondualism within the context of Hasidic philosophy, and it struck me as true. This has been years ago. But I never had the opportunity to knowingly experience that type of unity directly. Lately, I've been reading and listening to various non-dual thinkers (Rupert Spira, for example), and I've been frustrated with feeling closeness to Truth, but that it's unreachable.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
9

Hi,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I'd be happy to assist you in your inquiry.

This is going to be 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. We can have a conversation and see where it takes you.
The purpose of which would be for there to be a realisation, more than just intellectually, that there never was and never will be a separate self, as, such. All our efforts will focus on that.

I will tend to ask many questions. That's my job here. These, will be pointers towards no self. It will be for you to examine your experience to find out what's true or not.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Could you please tell me what are you really looking for? How would your life change if you find that?
What are you hoping for to change?
What do you hope that should happen?
Do you have an image in mind how seeing through the self-illusion would be like or feel like?

Vivien

I agree.

1) In an ultimate sense, I'm pursuing happiness and the avoidance of pain; while I know that's not what this process is about, I feel like that's what my life has always been about, and it would be untrue to leave it out. On a more zoomed-in level, I'm looking for insight into the nature of reality--a starting place to give meaning and context to my experience.

2) I'm hoping my life would change through me being more present in the moment, the removal of deep fear of death/non-existence, and being able to access a deeper well of compassion and kindness.

3) I hope that I should be completely confident of the truth, even if I'm unable to translate it into words to explain or justify it to anyone else.

4) I imagine that it would feel like rest. Stillness. Not feeling the need to run away from pain or towards pleasure. I worry that it might feel like nihilism.

I hope I'm doing this right!

Hi adrivenleaf,

What name would you like me to call you?

I would like to ask you to learn to use the quotation function, so our conversation will be easier to read later for both of us.
So here is the link to a video again how to quote:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

Thank you for getting through these questions about expectations. It’s important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now.

Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations result in comparison. Comparison between what is happening, and the imagined expectation. Thus what has been seen can be thrown out or ignored, since it doesn’t match the expected outcome.

In an ultimate sense, I'm pursuing happiness and the avoidance of pain; while I know that's not what this process is about,

It’s very good that you see that seeing through the self-illusion is not about getting into as state of happiness where there is no more pain or unpleasant emotions.

Happiness or peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about seeing that emotions don’t belong to anything. They are free floating without being tied to or anchored to anything.

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual. Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.

I'm hoping my life would change through me being more present in the moment

But if there is no self (and there isn’t), then what is it that could be IN the present moment? What is it that could be separate from what is in the moment, so it could be in and out of it?

“To be in the present moment” is a popular spiritual belief, but when the self is really seen through, then this notion will make no sense any more.

the removal of deep fear of death/non-existence

Fear of death might or might not lessen with seeing no self. It’s different for everyone, it cannot be known in advance how it will be. But, it can be seen that the me who is so afraid of its own death, is simply not there. It’s never been there, and never will be. So the me cannot die, since it never lived. And illusion cannot die. Life is, but it doesn’t happen to anything. It’s just is.

and being able to access a deeper well of compassion and kindness.

Compassion and kindness is about self-improvement. To have a better self, a better me, who is more kind.

There is nothing which could access to a deeper well of compassion and kindness. Compassion and kindness as states are, but there is nothing that could access it, or whom they could happen to.

3) I hope that I should be completely confident of the truth, even if I'm unable to translate it into words to explain or justify it to anyone else.

All of your expectations, this is definitely a realistic one. :)

I imagine that it would feel like rest. Stillness.

And what would feel rest and stillness? States doesn’t happen to a self/me. States happen, but to no one.

Not feeling the need to run away from pain or towards pleasure.

Running away from pain and towards pleasure is a built-in mechanism to every animal, including humans. Seeing through the self won’t turn your world completely upside down, it won’t make all conditionings, emotional issues, traumas, psychological problems to go away in an instant. Seeing through the illusion is just the first step, just the beginning, and the falling away of conditioning requires further looking, and can last at the end of the organism.

I worry that it might feel like nihilism.

Nihilism is not a feeling, rather a state based on a belief. When there is a seeming nihilism, in that moment the self is believed to be something real with all sorts of helpless thoughts of ‘why bother’, ‘why living at all’, ‘I am alone’, and similar. But if this state comes up, then the self is not fully seen through. Nihilism always happen on behalf of ME. On behalf of the imagined character. So seeing through the self is definitely not nihilistic. Actually, it’s quite the opposite, it’s full of life :)

Please ponder on these questions to see your expectations from a different perspective. Because what I can say for sure, it won’t be how you imagine it to be. Since it cannot be known in advance. It’s never how one imagines it to be.

So it would be the best, if you could drop all your expectations, and just to be a clean slate.

For the time our investigation, I would like to ask you to stop reading/listening any teachers, and rather spend your time looking. Also, I would like to ask you to put aside all learned knowledge. You have to see this experientially and not relying on others’ experiences. Can we agree on these?

Before starting, please read my above comments carefully a few more times and tell me what comes up by reading the comments about the expectations.
Is there any resistance to any of it?

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?

Vivien

What name would you like me to call you?

Gabe

Is there any resistance to any of it?

Absolutely there is resistance. A ton of it! Of course, I know that expectations and hopes and goals and imaginations aren't relevant to the actual task at hand. There's no way "I" could have any idea what I'm getting into here--in that way, I suppose it's like becoming a parent. The only thing I knew was that I had no idea what I was getting into, but even that concept (of having no idea what I was getting into) didn't come close to capturing the reality of parenthood.

When someone asks what advice I have, or what I suggest to prepare for impending parenthood, I always laugh. And when I asked those same questions before I had kids, the mentors I asked also laughed. Now I know why. If you think that there is any way to prepare, you have no idea how unprepared you are and will be. There is no preparing! There's only doing. One foot in front of the other trying to survive, until suddenly you realize you're there.

But if there is no self (and there isn’t), then what is it that could be IN the present moment? What is it that could be separate from what is in the moment, so it could be in and out of it?

I suppose I think of this in the same way I think of "Thinking about thinking." Thoughts about thoughts aren't special--they're just more thoughts. "Being aware of being aware" is just more awareness, it's not actually different than robotically doing my laundry, because awareness is required for that, too. Being "in the present moment" is, of course, all there is, but the perspective shift that comes from remembering it helps to contextualize the activities of life.

But I suppose if I truly see that there is no self, it won't change any of that. There will still be the apparent self that moves around and appears to interact with not-me. There will still be the experience of life--of never-ending expectations and hopes and goals that have to be put into perspective. Understanding the absolute truth that there is no self and never was won't erase the relative experience of self, so I'll still have to do all of those things (or not).

The apparent me seeing the truth that there is no me can't actually give any insight into what the apparent me should do, I suppose.

Seeing through the illusion is just the first step, just the beginning, and the falling away of conditioning requires further looking, and can last at the end of the organism.

I have a hard time imagining further steps and de-conditioning that wouldn't look like self-improvement. What is an example of another step after the realization of no-self?

Nihilism always happen on behalf of ME. On behalf of the imagined character. So seeing through the self is definitely not nihilistic.

I feel like the assumption I've been working with is that, while No-Self can be known and experienced, that knowledge and experience necessarily fades into the background, and the apparent-self will keep functioning more or less as it always has. So, if I know that there is no self, but if the feeling of self is inevitable, I worry that life will seem pointless from the perspective I'm locked into 99% of the time.

You have to see this experientially and not relying on others’ experiences. Can we agree on these?

Absolutely, though I imagine I'll struggle to do that at first.

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?

Unless there's more that needs to be dealt with from what we've said so far, yes.

Hi Gabe,

But I suppose if I truly see that there is no self, it won't change any of that. There will still be the apparent self that moves around and appears to interact with not-me. There will still be the experience of life--of never-ending expectations and hopes and goals that have to be put into perspective. Understanding the absolute truth that there is no self and never was won't erase the relative experience of self, so I'll still have to do all of those things (or not).

Yes. Life will go on, and the Gabe-character will play out all of its roles.

I have a hard time imagining further steps and de-conditioning that wouldn't look like self-improvement. What is an example of another step after the realization of no-self?

There are plenty. Actually, when our traumas and emotional issues are activated, the self could seem to be very real, even after seeing through the illusion. Since the associated emotions are providing the ‘reality-effect’. Also, there are lots of other things that are worth investigating: emotions, pushing and pulling (wanting and not wanting), cause and effect, time and space, and many more.

I feel like the assumption I've been working with is that, while No-Self can be known and experienced, that knowledge and experience necessarily fades into the background, and the apparent-self will keep functioning more or less as it always has. So, if I know that there is no self, but if the feeling of self is inevitable, I worry that life will seem pointless from the perspective I'm locked into 99% of the time.

If the experience of no-self just fades into the background, then it hasn’t been really seen. Yes, sometimes it’s in the background, but not permanently. And seeing no self is not a peak-experience, not a state. States all come and go. But the absence of an inherent self becomes factual. It doesn’t come and go, regardless of the illusion of being present or not.

So, if I know that there is no self, but if the feeling of self is inevitable, I worry that life will seem pointless from the perspective I'm locked into 99% of the time.

The ‘feeling of self’ is not inevitable. This SEEMING of ‘feeling of self’ can be clearly seen for what it is in reality. Just a plain sensation masquerading as a me. Just a mislabelled ‘innocent’ sensation, nothing more. Not a self. Not a feeling of a self. Just a feeling. Just a sensation. Nothing more.

But, it’s not really useful talking about this more, since that would be just an intellectual understanding for you, which is not helpful. You have to see this for yourself, experientially. So let’s start it.

As you go about your everyday life, how does the self/I/me show up?

Don’t go to the story about the me, rather look at the me itself.

What is it like? What is it made of? Does it have a shape or a color? How big it is? And where is its exact location?

What does the word I actually point to? If you take a finger (literally) and land it on I, where does it land?

Can you see, smell, hear, taste, touch the I? Try it, with each sense.

Vivien

It feels worth noting that I *know* that these are "wrong" answers, and I feel a lot of internal pressure to give the ones I imagine to be "right"--but my sense is that I'll only get there if I go through it.

Come to think of it, I feel very iffy on what it means for something to be "experienced" and what it means if something is "real" versus "illusory".

Can intellectual knowledge or thoughts never be used to help determine reality? Or are those things only useful once reality is grasped another way? Is that other way through the senses? Are those more reliable than thoughts?

As you go about your everyday life, how does the self/I/me show up?

The feeling of being a self shows up when "provoked" for lack of a better word.

Hunger is felt, which triggers the thought "I am hungry."

"I" think about moving my legs, and then "I" move my legs.

So, the feeling that I am a self shows up usually in bodily sensations or actions.` It's nowhere to be found until I look for it, and then it exists as a thought. Or it exists as another kind of thought: a way of tagging something experienced as either "me" or "not me".

What is it like? What is it made of? Does it have a shape or a color? How big it is? And where is its exact location?

I experience it as no bigger than (but possibly smaller than?) 5'4" and 200lbs, located in my recliner in this particular part of the universe.

What does the word I actually point to? If you take a finger (literally) and land it on I, where does it land?

Typically, "I" indicates my physical body, or things that are happening in/to my physical body--like sensations, thoughts, emotions. So, that's where my finger would land.

Can you see, smell, hear, taste, touch the I? Try it, with each sense.

I can see/smell/hear/taste/touch my body, which is part of the "I".

It's certainly not *everything* I consider to be "me" but I definitely think of my senses as projections of "me" into the world.

Hi Gabe,

It feels worth noting that I *know* that these are "wrong" answers, and I feel a lot of internal pressure to give the ones I imagine to be "right"--but my sense is that I'll only get there if I go through it.

Thank you for honestly telling about this. You don’t have to give the right answer, and please don’t do it. Because then I will have an impression that you can see something what actually you can’t, and my replies could be useless for you. This is not an exam, and you won’t be judged if you don’t give the ‘right’ answer. I’m here to help you, not to judge you. But I have to mention that you might interpret some of my comments as judgement, when I’m going to point out your beliefs and intellectual comments. But even then I won’t judge you, just pointing out where your stumbling blocks are.

So please always reply what FEELS true in the moment. Can we agree on this?

Come to think of it, I feel very iffy on what it means for something to be "experienced" and what it means if something is "real" versus "illusory".
Can intellectual knowledge or thoughts never be used to help determine reality? Or are those things only useful once reality is grasped another way? Is that other way through the senses? Are those more reliable than thoughts?

These are very good questions.
So let’s see what is the difference between experience (reality) and thought (imagination).

What I mean by real is that, which does not disappear when you stop imagining it.

Close eyes and imagine that you are in your kitchen.
Look around, see where the things are.
Open cupboards, fridge, look through the window.
Visualise as vividly as you can, including smell, sounds, colours.
Open fridge and take something from there to eat.
Run tap water and put hand under running water, check if it is cold or hot.
Stay a few minutes in the kitchen observing.

Next, open eyes and go to the kitchen.
Do what you did in the first part.
See where things are, eat something, listen to sounds, run tap water.
Explore the kitchen and experience with the 5 senses.

What is the main difference between real and imagination?
How does the food taste in the imagination and reality?
How does water feel in imagination and reality?

What happens to the imaginary kitchen when you stop imagining it?
Can you make the real kitchen disappear just like an image can disappear?

V: What is it like? What is it made of? Does it have a shape or a color? How big it is? And where is its exact location?

G: I experience it as no bigger than (but possibly smaller than?) 5'4" and 200lbs, located in my recliner in this particular part of the universe.

But you are talking about the body, aren’t you?

Which feels to be truer:
- I = body
- I have a body?

Typically, "I" indicates my physical body, or things that are happening in/to my physical body--like sensations, thoughts, emotions. So, that's where my finger would land.

Throughout the day, just observer how you feel yourself to be.

As you go about your life, does it feel that I am the body? Or does it feel that I am somewhere inside the body, protected by the skin, probably somewhere in the head, and looking out through the eyes and seeing the world out there?

I can see/smell/hear/taste/touch my body, which is part of the "I".

So you are saying that you are not the body, rather the body is part of you. Is this how it feels?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

So please always reply what FEELS true in the moment. Can we agree on this?

Yes.

What is the main difference between real and imagination?
How does the food taste in the imagination and reality?
How does water feel in imagination and reality?

The main differences between my real kitchen and my imagined kitchen seem to be (1) the degree of detail I can take in and be aware of simultaneously, and (2) the amount of control I have over what is there.

The food... I can describe the taste using words, but I can't actually taste it. I'm describing a memory of taste, and it brings up a lot of the same feelings that I get from tasting an actual cherry. It's hard to say how the cherry tastes "in reality" because I have to translate that into words and memory... basically, to describe my experience to you, I have to make the experience of taste into a thought. Once it's a thought, it doesn't seem all that different from my imaginary cherry.

The running tap is similar. I can describe to you the degree of difference I feel in the weight of the water hitting my hand in the real vs. imagined kitchen. I can describe how in the real kitchen I can take in--effortlessly--the sound of the water, its temperature, its texture, its appearance, its taste. I can experience those things in the imaginary kitchen, too, but it's much more fragmented, and it takes a lot of effort. I can't hold the wholeness of the experience in my mind in the imaginary kitchen the way that I can in my real kitchen.

What happens to the imaginary kitchen when you stop imagining it?
Can you make the real kitchen disappear just like an image can disappear?

As soon as I stop focusing on an aspect of the imaginary kitchen, it disappears without a trace.

I can stop experiencing the real kitchen. I can go somewhere else, where I can't perceive it using any of my senses. Of course, I don't think that this is equivalent to the imaginary kitchen. But it feels worth saying that I feel that I know that the imaginary kitchen doesn't exist outside of my mind, but I can only believe the real kitchen still exists when it's unobserved.

Which feels to be truer:
- I = body
- I have a body

"I have a body" feels truer, but I question if that's because it's the way English works. I know this is intellect talking, but I tend to think of the "I" as something my body--particularly my brain--creates. That it's entirely made of my body.

Actually, now that I type this, I'm not sure that's true. I think of my mind as being a creation of my brain. I can't say whether I = mind. Or that perhaps "mind" is really just another way of describing thinking?

As you go about your life, does it feel that I am the body? Or does it feel that I am somewhere inside the body, protected by the skin, probably somewhere in the head, and looking out through the eyes and seeing the world out there?

I do feel that I am kind of in the driver's seat of this body. That I am using it to explore and be in the world.

So you are saying that you are not the body, rather the body is part of you. Is this how it feels?

Yes, that's how it feels in everyday life.

Though, again, I have thoughts that "I" am just my body pretending to be more than just a body... or perhaps that "I" is just the way my brain labels itself, and "not me" is how the brain labels the things that it perceives via sensory nerves?

Hi Gabe,

It's hard to say how the cherry tastes "in reality" because I have to translate that into words and memory... basically, to describe my experience to you, I have to make the experience of taste into a thought. Once it's a thought, it doesn't seem all that different from my imaginary cherry.

Let’s dig a bit deeper here.

Here is an exercise for you (but if you have eating disorder, please ignore it)

Next time when you are hungry, don’t start to eat right away, but rather just imagine having a meal. Imagine it as precisely as you can, and observe the following:

Can you satisfy your hunger by thinking of food and imagining eating? Or you actually have to eat, meaning you actually have to experience eating?

Also, try this out. Next time when you have to pee, wait for a moment, and just imagine having a pee.

Does the urge to pee goes away by imagining it? Or you actually have to do it?

I know this is intellect talking, but I tend to think of the "I" as something my body--particularly my brain--creates. That it's entirely made of my body.

This is conceptual. Your answer came by thinking and not investigating experience.
When I ask you a question I don’t ask what you think or believe about that topic, but rather how you experience it.

Actually, now that I type this, I'm not sure that's true. I think of my mind as being a creation of my brain.

This is another version of speculating.

I can't say whether I = mind. Or that perhaps "mind" is really just another way of describing thinking?

But this one, is an excellent question, so let’s check this out.

How does a mind itself is experienced?
And where is the mind? How big it is? What shape it has? What color? What texture? How does it look like?
Does it have a smell? Does it have a temperature? Can you touch it?

Can you observe what you call ‘mind’ here and now?
What is it in the very moment you observe it?

And can you observe your brain actually (literally) creating a mind? Or is this something you’ve just learned?

Do you see why it’s so important to see the difference between experience and thought / imagination?

We are believing in all sorts of things, without ever stopping for a moment, and actually investigating if what we are believing is actually true in experience.

Though, again, I have thoughts that "I" am just my body pretending to be more than just a body... or perhaps that "I" is just the way my brain labels itself, and "not me" is how the brain labels the things that it perceives via sensory nerves?

You see, you are speculating again. Seeing through the illusion cannot be done by thinking and speculating. You cannot think yourself into seeing it. It’s impossible.

Rather, you have to check what can you know for sure when looking at experience directly.

Thinking is superficial, just a conceptual cover up over experience. There is a continuous flow of experience under all thinking.

And that’s where you have to put your focus and investigate.

Vivien

Can you satisfy your hunger by thinking of food and imagining eating? Or you actually have to eat, meaning you actually have to experience eating?

Does the urge to pee goes away by imagining it? Or you actually have to do it?

I have to do it. So, while describing the experience of eating or peeing is no different than describing imagined eating or peeing, the experience itself is different, although ineffable.

Your answer came by thinking and not investigating experience.
When I ask you a question I don’t ask what you think or believe about that topic, but rather how you experience it.

Is the idea that investigating thoughts is inherently less reliable than investigating experience? That thoughts about thoughts can't lead to truth, but thoughts about experience can? Or is the idea that, while speculation can lead to an intellectual knowledge of or belief in no-self, the purpose here is an experience of no-self, so speculation is just outside the scope of this process?

It feels ridiculous that I still feel so iffy on the purpose here, when I was the one who sought it out. I didn't have these kinds of questions when I did, I don't think. But I keep thinking: sure, thoughts are unreal and unreliable... but can't experience be, too? The idea of an experience that is undeniable sounds great, but I've worked with people whose experiences are of things that are not real. The experiences are real, but the things they're experiencing aren't.

I suppose I'm saying that I am afraid that this could be leading me to a false experience.

How does a mind itself is experienced?
And where is the mind? How big it is? What shape it has? What color? What texture? How does it look like?
Does it have a smell? Does it have a temperature? Can you touch it?

The mind is not a physical thing to have form and qualities, so of course I don't experience it in a physical way... which means I experience it/am aware of it only in thought. Or maybe I should say, as a thought?

Can you observe what you call ‘mind’ here and now?
What is it in the very moment you observe it?

And can you observe your brain actually (literally) creating a mind? Or is this something you’ve just learned?

If I can observe it, I suppose it wouldn't be "me"--it'd have to be something else (or at least only a part of me), so it could be observed? I admit that I can't observe it--"mind" seems to just be a concept (another type of thought, right?) developed because if thoughts are things, it seems they have to be located somewhere. Thus, mind?

Do you see why it’s so important to see the difference between experience and thought / imagination?

Yes, but I don't feel like I'm truly seeing it yet. If experience is purely physical, and only from my five senses, then if the self isn't a physical thing, I couldn't have experiential knowledge of it, even if it was real.

Or is that the point? That if something isn't physical, that it only exists in imagination and ceases to exist entirely when I'm not imagining it? But even if something is physical, I can never really know for sure it continues to exist in reality when I am not currently experiencing it. That almost leads me to the circular thinking that what's being said is that the only thing that can be experienced is what is currently being experienced... whether that's experience of thinking or the experience of physical sensation...

I know that this is a bunch of thinking. But I feel very frustrated at the idea that I could have the undeniable experience of no-self, only to discover that experience is completely devoid of meaning.

I feel stuck, and we haven't even really gotten started. Like I'm so confused by the directions that the exam will be impossible.

Hi Gabe,

V: Can you satisfy your hunger by thinking of food and imagining eating? Or you actually have to eat, meaning you actually have to experience eating?

Does the urge to pee goes away by imagining it? Or you actually have to do it?

D: I have to do it. So, while describing the experience of eating or peeing is no different than describing imagined eating or peeing, the experience itself is different, although ineffable.

Please read my above questions carefully. You’ve missed an important part of the questions. It’s not just about comparing experience with imagining, but to see that imagining eating WON’T AFFECT REALITY. Imagining eating won’t make your hunger away in real life. Imagining peeing won’t make your bladder empty and make your urge to pee go away in reality.

Do you see this? Do you see how important this is?

If you are in a desert close to dying of thirst, imagining and thinking of drinking won’t save you from death.
Since imagination and thinking has ZERO effect on realty. Why? Since they are not real, they are not actually happening.

When you imagine and think of drinking, what actually happens is thinking and imagining.
Thinking and imagining happens, but drinking is NOT happening.
Can you see this clearly?

Here are some simple exercises for you. I would like to ask you to actually do the exercises, and not just think through them. Although they are very simple exercises, but exactly because of the simplicity it’s often overlooked. So please actually do them.

Here is an experiment for you. You will need a chair.

Choose a spot where there is some space both to your left and right.
Put the chair to your right.
Now turn slightly to your left, where there is some empty space.
Not turn back to your right, and investigate the chair thoroughly. Touch it, feel the fabric or the material it’s made of, look at its size, shape, color, texture.

Now turn back to your left to the empty space and try to imagine that there is the same chair you observed on your right. If it helps close your eyes. Imagine its fabric, size, color, shape, texture. Make it as vivid as you can. So you have two chairs, one on your right, and an imagined copy of it on your left.

Now open your eyes, and sit on that imagined chair of your left. Literally sit on it.
Can you do that? Why not?

Now turn to your right, and sit on the chair.
Can you do that? Why?

While sitting on the chair, investigate these:

Can the thought ‘sweet’ be tasted?
Can the thought ‘warm’ be felt?
Can the thought ‘fragrant scent’ be smelled?
Can the thought ‘beautiful sunset’ be seen?
Can the thought of ‘loud noise’ be heard?

Can the thought of drinking water make your thirst away?

Can the thought of ‘walking on a beach’ make your feet wet and sandy?
WHY not?

So what is the difference between real and imagined?

What is the difference between a chair and the THOUGHT OF a chair?

Is the idea that investigating thoughts is inherently less reliable than investigating experience?

After doing the above exercise, do you see why investigating experience is so crucial?
Do you see that experience = reality?

That thoughts about thoughts can't lead to truth, but thoughts about experience can?

It’s not about thought about experience.
It’s about experience itself. BEFORE or WITHOUT any thoughts.

Thoughts are not reality.
Thoughts are just symbols.

All words ( = thoughts) are symbols. All symbols are conceptual. They are not reality.

Reality is what actually is, regardless of the absence or the presence of any symbol / word.

Reality is what is still exists after we stopped thinking about it.

This whole investigating is about checking if our thoughts telling the truth!

This is essential. Why? Since the self-illusion is mainly created by thoughts. And you cannot use the same tool to see through the illusion, which is creating it in the first place.

But I keep thinking: sure, thoughts are unreal and unreliable... but can't experience be, too? The idea of an experience that is undeniable sounds great, but I've worked with people whose experiences are of things that are not real. The experiences are real, but the things they're experiencing aren't.

Your problem is that you are trying to solve this like a math problem, by thinking.
But this will never work. Ever.

Or is that the point? That if something isn't physical, that it only exists in imagination and ceases to exist entirely when I'm not imagining it? But even if something is physical, I can never really know for sure it continues to exist in reality when I am not currently experiencing it. That almost leads me to the circular thinking that what's being said is that the only thing that can be experienced is what is currently being experienced... whether that's experience of thinking or the experience of physical sensation...

Dear Gabe, this is all conceptual, just thinking. Seeing through the self is much more practical, no thinking, analysing, theorizing, philosophizing is needed.

These ALL in the way. These are all just speculations.
If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to come up with an answer:

• You can have a think about it, you can think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on, and you can probably tell me what colour you THINK they are.

• Alternatively, you can take a quick look at your socks and tell me what colour they ACTUALLY are!

The first option is thinking, the other is experiencing. HUGE difference.

I know that this is a bunch of thinking. But I feel very frustrated at the idea that I could have the undeniable experience of no-self, only to discover that experience is completely devoid of meaning.

Where do you get this idea from? Dear Gabe, you are the ‘victim’ of your own thinking. You are creating a hypothetical scenario of ‘experience might be completely devoid of meaning’, and since you take this fantasy-image as something real, you are cutting yourself off from actually see what is going in reality, UNDERNEATH ALL THINKING.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Do you see this? Do you see how important this is?

When you imagine and think of drinking, what actually happens is thinking and imagining.
Thinking and imagining happens, but drinking is NOT happening.
Can you see this clearly?

Yes, I see.

Can you do that? Why not?

Because the content of thoughts can't be experienced by the senses. Thoughts aren't real--they aren't the things themselves. No matter how deeply I go into thought.

Can you do that? Why?

Because the chair is real. Real meaning it can be experienced by the senses. Real meaning it can be experienced regardless of my thoughts (or lack thereof) about the chair.

Can the thought ‘sweet’ be tasted?
Can the thought ‘warm’ be felt?
Can the thought ‘fragrant scent’ be smelled?
Can the thought ‘beautiful sunset’ be seen?
Can the thought of ‘loud noise’ be heard?

Can the thought of drinking water make your thirst away?

Can the thought of ‘walking on a beach’ make your feet wet and sandy?
WHY not?

No. Because thoughts about experiences only point to/represent/indicate/describe experience. They aren't the experience. Thoughts can't exist independently of real things. They can either indicate real things, or they can indicate other not-real things. But they are not themselves ever real things.

I can experience something and label it with the thought "warm", but I can't think the label "warm" and experience warmth.

Math, physics, biology--those things aren't real. Those are concepts/thoughts to explain how real things behave. But the real things behave that way anyway, even without the concepts/thoughts there to explain them.

So what is the difference between real and imagined?

real = does not disappear when it's not being thought/imagined = can be experienced

illusory = disappears when i'm not thinking/imagining it = cannot be experienced

experience = perception--using the five senses--of something

What is the difference between a chair and the THOUGHT OF a chair?

The chair is a chair, and it EXISTS REGARDLESS OF a name or a description or a thought or an explanation to be. The thought of a chair is not a chair, and it ONLY EXISTS AS a name or a description or a thought or an explanation.

After doing the above exercise, do you see why investigating experience is so crucial?
Do you see that experience = reality?

I think I'm getting there. Can anything non-physical be real? Is *thinking* (the act, not the contents of thinking) real? In other words, is thinking experienced?

I see that something *real* exists independently of thought. But does something real exist independently of experience/perception?

I guess my question is... is reality ONLY experience, or are there things that are real that are not experienced? Experiencing is reality, but is experience the only reality?

Right now, I can't see or hear or touch or smell or taste the cup of coffee on my dining room table. Can it be said to be real, in that case? Or is now only a belief (i.e. the content of thinking), or is it now only a memory (i.e. the content of thinking)?

This whole investigating is about checking if our thoughts telling the truth!

I feel like this is starting to make sense to me. I know the self exists as a thought. But the chair I'm sitting in exists as both a thought I'm having and as a thing my body is sitting on, even if I forget entirely where I am. A unicorn exists only as a thought, and only exists as a thought for the time I'm thinking it.

So the question is... does the self exist as something other than the content of a thought?

That does bring me back to... if I can't experience it with my senses, is it certainly not there, or might there be aspects of reality that inherently cannot be experienced? Is the answer "maybe, but if we can't experience it, and we can't use the thought of those things as an indication of their reality, so nothing can be said/known/experienced of reality beyond direct, current experience?"

I feel like I see (or am starting to see, with lots of resistance) that thoughts can't validate the reality of the self (or anything else). But I wonder whether experience can truly be self-validating? Again, I think of all the folks I've worked with who are definitely experiencing things, but the content of those experiences is false.

Am I making any progress, though? It seems that I'm still trying to understand the terms and point and goals of the inquiry, rather than actually delving into it, which I imagine is as frustrating for you as it is for me. But it doesn't seem like I'll actually be able to experience no-self without going through all of this either.

Gabe

Hi Gabe,

Because thoughts about experiences only point to/represent/indicate/describe experience. They aren't the experience. Thoughts can't exist independently of real things. They can either indicate real things, or they can indicate other not-real things. But they are not themselves ever real things.

Excellent observation!

The chair is a chair, and it EXISTS REGARDLESS OF a name or a description or a thought or an explanation to be. The thought of a chair is not a chair, and it ONLY EXISTS AS a name or a description or a thought or an explanation.

Yes, exactly!

I think I'm getting there. Can anything non-physical be real? Is *thinking* (the act, not the contents of thinking) real? In other words, is thinking experienced?

If you think about a chair, then thinking is experienced, it’s happening, right?

But thinking is ABOUT, the chair is experienced? Does the chair itself happening, or ONLY THOUGHTS ABOUT a chair is happening, but not an actual, existing chair?

Imagine Batman in the same room with you. The imagination exists, it’s undeniable happening. But what about the Batman in the room with you? I he there (literally)?

I guess my question is... is reality ONLY experience, or are there things that are real that are not experienced? Experiencing is reality, but is experience the only reality?

The problem is that you are trying to solve this by thinking. As long as you just think about it, it will ALWAYS stay on the intellectual level only.

Look into this:

There is EXPERIENCE (color, taste, smell, sound, sensation, and thought as a phenomenon (but not its content))
and
there is the content of THOUGHT/IMAGINATION.

Is there a third option?
If yes, what would be that?

Is there anything else than experience and thought/imagination? Anything else?
What else could be than experience + thought?

Can you even think or imagine anything else? – try, really try

A unicorn exists only as a thought, and only exists as a thought for the time I'm thinking it.

Exactly.

So the question is... does the self exist as something other than the content of a thought?

Yes. This is an excellent question. But you won’t be able to find the answer by thinking. That’s impossible. The answer is in reality, not in thought.

It seems that I'm still trying to understand the terms and point and goals of the inquiry, rather than actually delving into it,

Yes, this is exactly what you are doing.
And ‘wanting to understand’ can be a bypass to actually looking at WHAT IS.

It’s like reading lots of books about how to ride a bike, watching bike-race competitions on TV, listening to interviews with bikers about biking, but never ever sitting on a bike, and actually trying it for yourself.

And the question is, why is there a need to bypass and delve into? Is there a fear of not wanting to see or discover that the self is just an illusion?

Vivien

If you think about a chair, then thinking is experienced, it’s happening, right?

Yes. I'm aware of thinking happening. Although I'm not sure how I'm aware of it, if not through my five senses. Is thought a sixth sense?

But thinking is ABOUT, the chair is experienced? Does the chair itself happening, or ONLY THOUGHTS ABOUT a chair is happening, but not an actual, existing chair?

Imagine Batman in the same room with you. The imagination exists, it’s undeniable happening. But what about the Batman in the room with you? I he there (literally)?

Thinking:
about a thing I could experience, or have experienced (like a chair)...
or about a thing I could never experience (like Batman)...
is all just thinking. It doesn't affect what is there.

Is there a third option?
If yes, what would be that?

It would be anything that was there, but which I am not currently experiencing. Like my kitchen, and all its contents--which no one is currently experiencing. Like the experiences of other people--which aren't directly shared by me.

And the question is, why is there a need to bypass and delve into? Is there a fear of not wanting to see or discover that the self is just an illusion?

There is a fear of what it means if the self is just an illusion.
There is also a fear of having an experience of something which is not true.
There is also, I think, resistance because I can't imagine experience divorced from thinking about experience. I hear a sound from the next room, and I can't prevent thinking about the sound--either identifying it or imagining what it might be or worrying about it, etc.

But if I can't imagine it, then no imagining is going to help, I suppose. If it can be experienced, then the only way to experience it is to experience it, not to explain the experience.