Ready but sceptical

[yuri2006]

Hi, I am new to this forum. Looked through several threads. Liberation through Internet... Frankly, don't believe, dialogs seem like mind games to me, on very intellectual level, but ready to give a try.

[Ingen]

Hi Yuri, welcome!

It is ok to be sceptical, as long as you didn't come here to *prove* it is not working. If you give the process all your energy and honest focus, it will work.

There are also very different interpretations of the word "liberation". What I can show you is that the self is an illusion, a thought story. And this is not intellectual mind games.
It is actually very plain and obvious, and there is nothing spiritual about it.

Would you tell me what brought you here, and what are your expectations?

[yuri2006]

Hi Ingen, nice to hear from you

I'm looking for the experience. 2 different things: to understand something on intellectual level, and to experience it. So if the result of the process supposed to be just intellectual understanding of "no self", I'm not interested. On the contrary, if with this process I have a chance to advance in experiencing "no self", I'm very interested.

[Ingen]

This process is not at all about intellectual understanding. Actually I'd like you to put all theory aside for the time being.

Would you briefly describe what brought you here, where you're at on the journey? And – I would still like to hear about your expectations. A complete list of your expectations would be great. Thank you.

And yes, you'll have the chance to experience no self :) As a matter of fact, you are experiencing it right now.

What comes up in you when I say: there is no self in reality. Zero. It exists as a thought only.

...

[yuri2006]

I'm a businessman with family and 2 children. Practice some yoga, meditation, self-inquiry, self-analyses during last 10 years or so. No "illumination lights" happened but I feel a serious difference between who I used to be and who I''m now. This concerns relations with other people, attitude (feeling) towards life, ability to control mind. But I feel that I have made just few steps, would like to make more. So my expectations from my development (I view our dialogue as a part of it) are "very practical". More stillness, better solving life problems, not involving in emotional reactions, better contact with High Self which I believe guides me.

And yes, you'll have the chance to experience no self :) As a matter of fact, you are experiencing it right now.

What comes up in you when I say: there is no self in reality. Zero. It exists as a thought only.

...

To me experiencing = feeling. So I would say "I don't feel that". On the contrary I feel my "self" clearly. It consists of body, emotions, mind, soul (High Self). I feel all these 4 parts. For example if my body is touched I feel it. If my "ego" is touched, I also feel it.

[Ingen]

Thank you for the introduction and for this:

More stillness, better solving life problems, not involving in emotional reactions, better contact with High Self which I believe guides me.

I'll put it aside for now, and will come back to it later. This process works best if you do it for it's own sake and without motif. It is difficult to dismantle a self with the goal of gaining advantages for it.

To me experiencing = feeling. So I would say "I don't feel that". On the contrary I feel my "self" clearly. It consists of body, emotions, mind, soul (High Self). I feel all these 4 parts. For example if my body is touched I feel it. If my "ego" is touched, I also feel it.

Ok, you see self in body, emotions, mind and soul. We'll look at each one of them. Let's start wth the body.

For example if my body is touched I feel it.

Close your eyes and find out, which of the following elements are there in direct experience, without resorting to memory and thought:
- the owner of the body (MY body)
- the feeling of touch
- the body (which parts? can you feel the body shape, or boundaries?)
- the feeler of the feeling (how is the feeler apart from the feeling?)

[yuri2006]

In direct experience are
- the feeling of touch
- the body (I can feel body part boundaries (which is touched))
- the feeler of the feeling

Not clear about the owner of the body. The word "owner" does not refer to feelings, so I can't identify him in this context.

The feeler is in direct experience only during a feeling; i.e. not possible to feel the feeler without a feeling.

[Ingen]

In direct experience are

- the feeling of touch

Yes.

- the body (I can feel body part boundaries (which is touched))

If you really pay attention - can you feel boundaries of the body, or is it more some blurry feeling?
Without resorting to memory, can you feel a boundary between hand and table, or is there just one hard-surface-touch-feeling.
Is this feeling other than the one mentioned above: the feeling of touch?

- the feeler of the feeling

How do you feel the feeler? How can you tell the feeling of the feeler apart from the feeling of touch?

Not clear about the owner of the body. The word "owner" does not refer to feelings, so I can't identify him in this context.

Noted.
As you say here:

The feeler is in direct experience only during a feeling; i.e. not possible to feel the feeler without a feeling.

Maybe because you only assume a feeler, because of language conventions?
And all that really can be known is the feeling of touch.

[yuri2006]

Yes, feeling of the body is blurry, but blurry feeling is also a feeling. A good example is when I relax lying on my back, and direct attention to different parts of the body. E.g. thumb on the right hand; so I feel boundaries of the thumb, and thumb inside; not only a boundary between the thumb and the floor. I can't feel in the same way what surrounds me, so it gives a distinction of the body in comparison to the floor.

Feeler. Yes, language conventions do exist. Feeler is a part of me, who evaluates and reacts according to a feeling. First certainly comes feeling only, and this feeling is used as input to the feeler, like datum to a software. That's why I said that feeler is in the experience only after feeling; like software is in a "sleepy" mode until a trigger will not bring it to life.

[Ingen]

E.g. thumb on the right hand; so I feel boundaries of the thumb, and thumb inside; not only a boundary between the thumb and the floor.

I must say you have an exceptionally precise sense of feeling if you can feel "the inside of thumb" and "boundary between the thumb and floor". I tried it myself, and can for sure only differentiate a thumb-floor-feeling. It is good that you are able to look precisely.

About boundaries: If you didn't know which shape your body was: Can you feel the shape? Or could it be any shape, and there were just blurry feelings of "inside" and "touching floor"? Without resorting to memory: How many toes do you have?

I can't feel in the same way what surrounds me, so it gives a distinction of the body in comparison to the floor.

With eyes closed, you don't know what surrounds you. So, what is left is the feelings you mentioned above. Or not?

Feeler. Yes, language conventions do exist. Feeler is a part of me, who evaluates and reacts according to a feeling.

That's what I want you to investigate. Is there reality to this hypothesis?

First certainly comes feeling only, and this feeling is used as input to the feeler, like datum to a software.

Yes, first comes feeling. How do you know this feeling is used as input to a feeler-software? Is it true in your experience, or is it a story you have learned?

That's why I said that feeler is in the experience only after feeling; like software is in a "sleepy" mode until a trigger will not bring it to life.

The so-called "feeler" is a thought. After the feeling appeared, a thought shows up and labels the feeling with: "I have felt x".

This is the illusion of self.
Can you find a feeler that is more than a thought?

[yuri2006]

With eyes closed, you don't know what surrounds you. So, what is left is the feelings you mentioned above. Or not?

I don't know what surrounds me, correct. But I have a distinct feeling; (a0 That there is something else apart fro me (b) that this is NOT me. Because I can feel a part of me, and can't feel a part of not-me. So what I don't feel - is not-me.

Without resorting to memory: How many toes do you have?

I can easily count number of fingers on my hands and legs; but then I practice this relaxation for 20 years (on and off, though). I have poor visualisation abilites, so I mostly feel, not visualize. The shape - perhaps very vaguely. Shape is something IMHO from visual row. Can a born blind man know what's circle? - not sure.

The so-called "feeler" is a thought. After the feeling appeared, a thought shows up and labels the feeling with: "I have felt x".

This is very good point because it brings us back to the question of practical implication. I know that there is the feeler, because I have a reaction to the feeling, sometimes automatic. For example, if I touch something very hot, I will jerk away my hand (automatically). Why I did it? The software inside me started to run.

If you say - this is just a thought ( here, a thought of pain), I may agree theoretically. But will I agree or not - this will not change my reaction. OK. I may intentionally not jerk my hand away (standing the pain) but this is another point.

So what's the difference if we label it a thought or a feeler?

[Ingen]

But I have a distinct feeling; (a0 That there is something else apart fro me (b) that this is NOT me. Because I can feel a part of me, and can't feel a part of not-me. So what I don't feel - is not-me.

You can't feel what you don't feel. You feel only what you feel, and this is either touch or itch or whatever. You don't feel a table that is not touching your body. There are only touchpoints to be felt.
These only amount to "boundaries" or "body shape" if you compare the feelings to the memory of sight.

This is very good point because it brings us back to the question of practical implication. I know that there is the feeler, because I have a reaction to the feeling, sometimes automatic. For example, if I touch something very hot, I will jerk away my hand (automatically). Why I did it? The software inside me started to run.

An amoeba pulls back from a poisonous substance. Just as your body does. The amoeba does it without telling the story of self.

Why I did it? The software inside me started to run.

Yes, the body did it on autopilot.

So what's the difference if we label it a thought or a feeler?

Body feels pain, retracts hand. Just as the amoeba. Afterwards thought comes up: "I" burned "my" hand.

Who is the owner of the hand?

[yuri2006]

You can't feel what you don't feel. You feel only what you feel, and this is either touch or itch or whatever. You don't feel a table that is not touching your body. There are only touchpoints to be felt.
These only amount to "boundaries" or "body shape" if you compare the feelings to the memory of sight.

If we take one separate "feeling" than you may be right, but this is very theoretical approach. We have had during life millions of these "feeling moments" and so have learnt to understand from the very birth (and perhaps before it) that there is "me" and there is "not-me". Me - is where our feeling ends.

You may call it a thought, like Ramana Maharshi did (I-thought). The difference however is that Ramana had direct experience; he felt the connection with everything around him; so the meaning of "I-thought" to him was not theroretical useless knowledge. While I don't have a direct experience.

In Advaita all scholars will tell you the same as Ramana. But most of them don't have his direct experience. So what this knowledge gives them from practical point of view? Just feeds their ego; they have the impression that they know more than others.

To make it more clear - let's say I will ask you a question: "Can a man live without oxygen during 1 hour?" Yogis demonstrated it in scientific experiments many times, so the answer is "yes". But I can't. So it does not exist in my reality. And if it does not exist in my reality, so from experience point of view to me it's not true.

An amoeba pulls back from a poisonous substance. Just as your body does. The amoeba does it without telling the story of self.

How do you know? I personally think that every alive beeing has it's story, just in amoeba case, this story is very blurry.

Body feels pain, retracts hand.

In my opinion, you describe exactly the software.

Here the most important question comes. A lot of people/books says that pain is just a thought. Not only Bhagavad Gita, but also Don Juan said the same to Castaneda. But the question is NOT if this true or false, but if it exists in our reality. I.e. can we live up to this statement. If yes (like Ramana did) - it's true. If no - it's not true, and then I would like to learn how to live this truth, so it would appear in my reality.

[Ingen]

If we take one separate "feeling" than you may be right, but this is very theoretical approach.

This is not a theoretical approach, this is an experiential approach. We can do the same investigation with all senses, and then with mind and the other aspects of self you had mentioned.

You may call it a thought, like Ramana Maharshi did (I-thought). The difference however is that Ramana had direct experience; he felt the connection with everything around him; so the meaning of "I-thought" to him was not theroretical useless knowledge. While I don't have a direct experience.

You have your own direct experience, which is the only one I'm interested in. I'm not going to talk advaita theory here.

How do you know? I personally think that every alive beeing has it's story, just in amoeba case, this story is very blurry.

That's right, it is an assumption that amoebas don't tell stories. Maybe a piece of clay has a story, too, when it is rolling down the hill, trying to keep its pieces together. What I do know is that the thought "I burnt my hand" comes way after that the hand got burned. And I can't know about your experience.

In my opinion, you describe exactly the software.

I describe a hardwired reflex and body movement.

Here the most important question comes. A lot of people/books says that pain is just a thought. Not only Bhagavad Gita, but also Don Juan said the same to Castaneda. But the question is NOT if this true or false, but if it exists in our reality. I.e. can we live up to this statement. If yes (like Ramana did) - it's true. If no - it's not true, and then I would like to learn how to live this truth, so it would appear in my reality.

[/quote]

I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita, Castaneda and Ramana to find out. I can't teach you their truth.

I can only guide you to investigate if self is real, and that is done by looking if there is one in your direct experience. You have to do the looking yourself.

[yuri2006]

That's right, it is an assumption that amoebas don't tell stories. Maybe a piece of clay has a story, too, when it is rolling down the hill, trying to keep its pieces together.

There is a difference concerning self (which we are discussing). The reason that amoeba and also my hand jerk away is that both of us try to protect our body (and our self). So they have reaction(s). A piece of clay does not have a reaction (at least one which we can observe).

If there is no body, and no self - why we are protecting them? That means that we have them - at this point of time, in our experience.

What I do know is that the thought "I burnt my hand" comes way after that the hand got burned.

Agree. And also agree that I feel this as "my" hand, and later other thoughts arise like "now the pain will be for several days at least; and I will not be able to type the computer; and also how stupid I was to touch this".

I describe a hardwired reflex and body movement.

In my opinion, we are talking about the same, just use different words.

I can only guide you to investigate if self is real, and that is done by looking if there is one in your direct experience.

Let's return once more to practice vs. theory. Our self (which does not exist as you say) manifest itself through thoughts, and thoughts bring reactions. So if we say "pain is just a thought", understand and agree with this (logically) but will not be able to live this thuth - this I call theory. If we can change (eliminate) thoughts, and change reactions - this I call practice.

So let me ask you a direct question. You know and understand that pain is just a thought (no self) - so how this have changed youe experience (reactions)?