Still looking...

[Kalama2305]

LU is focused on guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That what we commonly take as the "self" - the subject of experience - is not something to be overcome, dissolved, tamed etc... just seen through as a deeply held and apparently useful illusion.

What are you looking for at LU?
Guidance on seeing through an increasingly tedious illusion.
Practically, I’m looking for someone who is less likely to be derailed by any of the (ultimately) unhelpful abstractions that I'm prone to.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
To progress through the ‘ten fetters’, starting at the first. I'd imagine some patience will be required.
I'd hope that all of my life experiences can be usefully used in making progress. I obviously don't expect to carry everything with me on the way but knowing what's useful and what's not 'needed on the voyage' is the kind of guidance I need from someone who is farther along than me.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I was ordained as a member of the Western Buddhist Order (now Triratna) a long time ago. Prior to that, I spent some 10 years studying Buddhism and attending retreats. After ordination, I taught Buddhism and meditation (mindfulness of breathing and cultivation of positive emotion) at a Triratna Buddhist Centre for many years, attending collective and solitary retreats along the way. I have - effectively - no formal contact with Triratna anymore apart from enjoying some of the friendships made during my time being more involved.”


On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
8

[Florisness]

Hi Kalama,

I wasn't really looking to take up someone else, but saw that your post managed to reach page 2 on the gate. Sometimes some threads sneak by and then because the thread comes on the second page, and guides don't look there when they want to take up someone and then you'd wait long or don't get a reply at all. So I decided to respond.

That what we commonly take as the "self" - the subject of experience - is not something to be overcome, dissolved, tamed etc... just seen through as a deeply held and apparently useful illusion.

That's resonates.

To progress through the ‘ten fetters’, starting at the first. I'd imagine some patience will be required.

I'm interested by seeing that you're familiar with the 10 fetters, how come? Are you mentioning this because of your background, or because you know the 10 fetter group that is associated with Liberation Unleashed? What we could do is that I just respond to your questions, and if I see an opportunity to help you look at something that corresponds to some of the other fetters as well, I take the bite. Does that sound good?

Here is an exercise that I sometimes use with people. I copied-pasted it and is related to fetter 1 and 6.

Seeing through the self is just seeing through things which were assumed to be there, but aren't. If you would be experiencing a self/person/I who is controlling, perceiving, and can be things, like long or small, smart or dumb, etc, we should be able to find those things (happening). Otherwise, we aren't able to say we experience them.

So let's start out with perceiving, 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 am' 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 to see your response,
Floris

[Locutus1452]

Phew! Going on to the second page of posts is like the second page in Google search... I was beginning to think I didn't exist after all 😅

Many thanks for responding and for your patience in advance.

Given that my last guidance floundered due to my misunderstanding of what was required in terms of timely responses, I did want to say up front that although I'm semi-retired and can manage my own time fairly well, I (we) still have 2 youngish children who still need a lot of TLC. So the time I take to respond and finding an appropriate space to do and reflect on the 'assignments' might be squeezed. That said, I expect to be able to respond regularly enough to make it worthwhile for both of us, otherwise, I wouldn't have persisted. Should something come up that's obviously going to waylay me for a few days then I'll flag that up but be sure that I live an 'examined' life that persists even when I'm not online....😉 and I am committed to this.
Sound OK as a 'startup agreement'...?

[Florisness]

Hi Kalama (or is it Jim?),

I'm happy to see your response:-)

Phew! Going on to the second page of posts is like the second page in Google search... I was beginning to think I didn't exist after all 😅

Yes it is, frankly I went all to the 5th page, and found a lot of people who didn't get a guide yet. I have a hope that not everybody will respond though, haha. Ha, and that might actually end up being somewhat accurate, depending on what the word 'I' is thought to refer to there.

Many thanks for responding and for your patience in advance.

Thanking me for my patience in advance? What are you planing doing to me?:(

Given that my last guidance floundered due to my misunderstanding of what was required in terms of timely responses, I did want to say up front that although I'm semi-retired and can manage my own time fairly well, I (we) still have 2 youngish children who still need a lot of TLC. So the time I take to respond and finding an appropriate space to do and reflect on the 'assignments' might be squeezed. That said, I expect to be able to respond regularly enough to make it worthwhile for both of us, otherwise, I wouldn't have persisted. Should something come up that's obviously going to waylay me for a few days then I'll flag that up but be sure that I live an 'examined' life that persists even when I'm not online....😉 and I am committed to this.
Sound OK as a 'startup agreement'...?

Ahh, I personally don't ask people (anymore) to try to respond once every day, although this is one of the groundrules that are commenly used. I would only ask you kindly to use the quote function, if you don't know how that works please tell me. I leave it up to you as to when you choose to respond. There is the idea among many guides that responding every day will create a useful momentum, which doesn't hit me as a crazy idea, that's why guides ask that of others.

I saw that you already had a bit of a conversation with (I thought) John, but I rather not read through all that. So I'll just start somewhere. As it seems that you managed to somehow overlook or ignore responding to my exercise in the previous post, here is another (copied-pasted) exercise that I wrote for a guy yesterday:

A dream of being someone
I use the following story more times, so I copied-pasted it so that I don't have to write it over and over. I wrote this for a man, and so if you're a woman, please reverse the sexes in the following story. In that case, you'd imagine that you're dreaming being a man and not a woman. I only worked your name in the story at the end, to make it a little more convincing :-).

Could you imagine that tonight you're going to bed and dream that you're a woman in that dream. I say woman, because I've imaged you identify as a man, and want to create a little contrast. Please imagine what that could look like for a second. Try to imagine it very vividly, like a first-person view (so it's not like you see the backside of the body, but rather that you're looking through the eyes) and just like it is happening in your real time/present time. No need to spend a lot of time at it, just a moment will do. Okay, so when you've imaged that, you can proceed reading. I asked you to imagine this, because in our language we often say things like 'I am this, I am that, etc.' and I would like you to get an idea of what 'being something' in our language actually refers to. What experiences did you imagining being there, in order that you'd say 'I'm a woman'? I can imagine you could have imagined feeling a little different, that there might be a different self-image and thoughts of a past, maybe the voice would be more feminine sounding than usual, maybe you sometimes see a womanhand or so in your visual field. Frankly, I could imagine that the self-image/past thoughts actually contributed most to the idea/sense of being a woman, what do you think? In any case, of whatever you imaged, or could imagine, you might agree that of all the things you imaged to create a woman in your imagination, could be called like a sort of 'womanness'. But.. was there an actual woman there? Did the things you associate with 'being a woman', the womanness, constitute an actual entity that could be called a woman? Perhaps you agree that that is not true, because you could for example change the dream so that you'd now refer to it as being a horse or so, and no actual woman died there. There might have been what we call womanness, but not an actual woman, right? So we may use language to say things like 'I was a woman in my dream', and it is fine if we keep using language like that, but it's not the truth of the matter, right? Okay, so why this exercise, why is this significant? Well, because isn't what you're experiencing right now, what people sometimes refer to as reality, or waking life, not just the same situation as the dream? I asked you to imagine that you were dreaming, and frankly of course you weren't even really dreaming, but I could just have well asked if you could imagine that your experience right now was just transforming like you're becoming a woman. The experience is the same either way, either if you call it dream or waking life or whatever. So.. now in your present experience there might be a voice, certain feelings, thoughts, perceptions that you might associated with being a man, and even more so with being a biological entity, a self, a person, a you, but not an actual entity as such, is there? Perhaps we could say there is a sort of Jimness to the experience, but without an actual Jim?

Wishing you well,
Floris

[Kalama2305]

Floris,

you managed to somehow overlook or ignore responding to my exercise in the previous post

Ah, that was quite deliberate. I wanted to be sure you were OK (ish) with the ground rules from my side - I'm mindful that this is a voluntary thing and it's best to get off on the right foot with someone who's offering their time freely.

depending on what the word 'I' is thought to refer to there

. I'm probably not going to bother with putting quotes around "I" every time in here as I'm going to assume that they are implicit given the nature of this forum + they're really fiddly on an iPad too 😉

a useful momentum

I can see the sense of that too but good to know that you're more... flexible, if circumstances dictate.

On to the substance....

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 interpreting the seen thing?

- Can you find an I which is (doing) seeing?

No, not really. There may be some background 'commentary' like "what short fingers" or "I don't like my knuckles" but it's just the recognition that it's a hand and it's mine (again, I'm just gonna drop the quotes).

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

Nope. But that is unsurprising in the way that I can't bite my own teeth either. If I were to look in the mirror I'd see them and again, be convinced they were my eyes.

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

No. the recognition is automatic and completely unconscious. Because I'm having to think about the question as posed and because I've read about neuroscience over the years I'm aware of how the brain 'conjures up' everything from sight to recognition: I know it's 24 frames per second from a celluloid strip shot in a Warner backlot but when I watch Casablanca I'm right there, completely caught up in the illusion. My guess is that the illusion of self is much like that except I can't find the exit and only rarely do the lights go up.

Can you find something which is interpreting the seen thing?

[/quote] My answer here would be identical to the last point. I "know" the whole process is like making a sausage but I can't see the process.

- Can you find a difference between what you call seeing and the seen?
- Would it be accurate to say these are the same experience?

No and yes, respectively.

what do you think about the statement 'I see a hand'

It would be more accurate perhaps to say something like "a hand has been seen". But if I was, say, in a hand seeing competition (🤓) with a friend the "I" here would be useful so we know who was attached to the hand being seen. Apart from that, I see the point: I can see the hand but I can't see the I.

J

[Florisness]

Hi Jim (it's Jim, right?),

Ah, that was quite deliberate. I wanted to be sure you were OK (ish) with the ground rules from my side - I'm mindful that this is a voluntary thing and it's best to get off on the right foot with someone who's offering their time freely.

Ha, "It's best to get off on the right foot with someone", that made me laugh a little. All good.

I'm probably not going to bother with putting quotes around "I" every time in here as I'm going to assume that they are implicit given the nature of this forum + they're really fiddly on an iPad too 😉

Actually there was a time when I was putting quotes around the I every time against someone specific, so he would know I really understood that it was just a convention of speech. It was a drag..

I can see the sense of that too but good to know that you're more... flexible, if circumstances dictate.

Seems to me this piece of life in a way is a bit like an organic fluid, so I thought it would be better for my well-being to go with that:)

No, not really. There may be some background 'commentary' like "what short fingers" or "I don't like my knuckles" but it's just the recognition that it's a hand and it's mine (again, I'm just gonna drop the quotes).

Okay, good. I understand that you can look at the hand in a way in which it can be seen as my hand, but can you also look at the matter in a way that is can be seen as just a hand (thus not mine)?

Nope. But that is unsurprising in the way that I can't bite my own teeth either. If I were to look in the mirror I'd see them and again, be convinced they were my eyes.

In my view that's not quite how it works, but how to communicate that properly. I'll try it this way: aren't YOU seeing the hand? If the eyes are seeing the hand, then you would either be the eyes, or the eyes would be a part of you. If the eyes would go out, are you missing a part, or would you feel that you're still fully you? Okay, another way through which you might understand: You are seeing it, thus what is seeing it must be present for you now. Can you say the eyes are present for you? Actually, I think you think they might be. Okay wow, here is a good one for explaining it too: when you're dreaming, you're seeing too, yes? But you probably wouldn't say that the eyes are seeing there, so there you're seeing without eyes. Is your experience of dreaming not pretty much the same as the experience you're having now? Of course, I'm not saying that you might as well lose the eyes and still see, but they are not what are seeing. Love to see your thoughts.

No. the recognition is automatic and completely unconscious. Because I'm having to think about the question as posed and because I've read about neuroscience over the years I'm aware of how the brain 'conjures up' everything from sight to recognition: I know it's 24 frames per second from a celluloid strip shot in a Warner backlot but when I watch Casablanca I'm right there, completely caught up in the illusion. My guess is that the illusion of self is much like that except I can't find the exit and only rarely do the lights go up.

I understand. However, I'm talking about your actual experience right now. In your actual experience right now, is what you're seeing literally going to a head, brain, neurons, whatever, to be processed OR is what you're seeing just sort of 'there', or 'out there', not going anywhere?

My answer here would be identical to the last point. I "know" the whole process is like making a sausage but I can't see the process.

I understand, and understanding things that way can probably have its use. But science isn't going to save your belief system in our talk, so better make peace with it ;-) Can you try it again, but this time about your actual experience? I could imagine you being slightly confused by that, if that is so, please tell me.

It would be more accurate perhaps to say something like "a hand has been seen". But if I was, say, in a hand seeing competition (🤓) with a friend the "I" here would be useful so we know who was attached to the hand being seen. Apart from that, I see the point: I can see the hand but I can't see the I.

Okay, so you agreed with me that 'seeing' and 'the seen' are the same thing in your experience. So wouldn't that mean, that a hand is not seen, but that the hand is seeing itself? Like the hand is made of seeing, can you get what I mean?


Wishing you well,
Floris

[Kalama2305]

but can you also look at the matter in a way that is can be seen as just a hand (thus not mine)?

I could as an intellectual exercise but if someone were to stab it with a needle I feel sure I'd withdraw "my" hand pretty quick so I'm not sure what that would prove ...

when you're dreaming, you're seeing too, yes? But you probably wouldn't say that the eyes are seeing there, so there you're seeing without eyes

I'm also flying and talking to people who are occasionally dead in my dreams - which are impossible, so again I'm not what this reflection would achieve. I know it seems like I'm seeing in my dreams but I'm not am I?
I totally get that my eyes and the rest of the stuff that collaborates to deliver the illusion of 3-d vision are not me any more than a CCTV system showing me a shopping centre is "me" but the experience that immediately follows of recognition and judgement and consciousness of what I see .. that's the fella we're after 😌 no? Hard to get at but then it IS called the "hard problem" in philosophy for a reason.

In your actual experience right now, is what you're seeing literally going to a head, brain, neurons, whatever, to be processed OR is what you're seeing just sort of 'there', or 'out there', not going anywhere?

It is the latter. Were the process apparent to us we'd be less drawn in - possibly unable to operate. To continue the analogy, if I could see the edges of the set or hear the actors call themselves by their real names the illusion would be lost...

What's above are not arguments against what you're trying to point to. But they do at least show you some of me, how I think, what I've accumulated (in every sense of the term!) and therefore might be useful to you

Can you try it again, but this time about your actual experience?

My actual experience is pretty seamless. A lot of the time there's no obvious director in his seat saying this or that. I guess that the sense of I - the sense of a director who's running the shoot - is when decisions have to be made. Once these are done - big or tiny decisions - then the cameras roll and the drama gets on its way without any persistent annoying sense of self either experienced or required, a lot of the time.

but that the hand is seeing itself? Like the hand is made of seeing, can you get what I mean?

I'm afraid not. Hands are for grasping, eyes are for seeing with/thru brains are for making sense of the incoming chaos of sense-impressions. Just because I'm unaware of the processing (thank God!) doesn't mean it ain't happening. Or... so it seems 🧐

[Kalama2305]

Also, just FYI I'm off for a few days to Cambridge tomorrow afternoon, till Sat. I'll have my laptop and will try to login but don't worry if there's a lag...

J

😘

[Florisness]

Hi Jim,

So I notice that you keep going back to your thinking about how things work, instead of checking it with your experience. I know what it's like to think in more conventional ways about these subject matters, and how crazy some of the things may sound that for example I or others may say here. Probably everyone on this forum has had more conventional ways of thinking and experiencing here. But my own explorations and contemplations over the years have given me a very different view or interpretation on life, and therefore also led to quite a different experience, that is really not in line with the conventional life views. Of course, if you wish you to keep thinking and thus experiencing life in a way that is more conventional, than of course you are very free to do so. However, I like the way life is now without many of the conventional assumptions much more. And since you are here, I will keep pointing to what you actually experience instead of what ideas you, and so many other people in this world, might have been programmed/conditioned with.

I could as an intellectual exercise but if someone were to stab it with a needle I feel sure I'd withdraw "my" hand pretty quick so I'm not sure what that would prove ...

Well.. What would the actual experience be of being stabbed with a needle? Can you try the following: Can you put your hand on something (for example a table), so it gives some sensations. Now go to the sensations and investigate the following questions with your actual experience: Can you find something, an I, a self, a hand, anything, that is feeling those sensations, or are there just sensations? Can you really say a table is felt/experienced or do you just find sensations? Could it be that what we call 'feeling' and 'sensations' are referring to the same experience? Because when we say we are feeling, aren't we referring to the presence of sensations?

I'm also flying and talking to people who are occasionally dead in my dreams - which are impossible, so again I'm not what this reflection would achieve. I know it seems like I'm seeing in my dreams but I'm not am I?
I totally get that my eyes and the rest of the stuff that collaborates to deliver the illusion of 3-d vision are not me any more than a CCTV system showing me a shopping centre is "me" but the experience that immediately follows of recognition and judgement and consciousness of what I see .. that's the fella we're after 😌 no? Hard to get at but then it IS called the "hard problem" in philosophy for a reason.

Okay, so check this, and you may have the possibility of groking something that could be a bit mind blowing: take an object to look at, for example a table and now imagine that you're dreaming and dreaming a table that looks just identical to the table you might think of being in the real world. Now for your imagination put the dream table right next to the actual table, and imagine that the dream table comes to look exactly like the "real" one, so just as vivid and everything. You may not be able to imagine that completely, but you can just imagine/pretend that they are completely look alike while contemplating these questions: Now, is an actual difference experienced between the two? If no actual difference is experienced, that means they are the same, yes? If they are the same, well than it's the same and when it's the same you can't actually say that one is real/reality and the other fantasy/fake/unreal, right? Because that would indicate a difference, which you don't experience. Just again, to make it easier for you to come aboard with me, I'm just talking about your actual experience.

It is the latter. Were the process apparent to us we'd be less drawn in - possibly unable to operate. To continue the analogy, if I could see the edges of the set or hear the actors call themselves by their real names the illusion would be lost...

What's above are not arguments against what you're trying to point to. But they do at least show you some of me, how I think, what I've accumulated (in every sense of the term!) and therefore might be useful to you

Okay, thank you for sharing. That may indeed be useful.

My actual experience is pretty seamless. A lot of the time there's no obvious director in his seat saying this or that. I guess that the sense of I - the sense of a director who's running the shoot - is when decisions have to be made. Once these are done - big or tiny decisions - then the cameras roll and the drama gets on its way without any persistent annoying sense of self either experienced or required, a lot of the time.

Okay, so if you can think of some decision to be made, or just imagine making a decision or something, then what is your experience of that director/decider exactly? Is it accurate that when you say the sense of I is present, that there is only a thought and certain feelings present?

I'm afraid not. Hands are for grasping, eyes are for seeing with/thru brains are for making sense of the incoming chaos of sense-impressions. Just because I'm unaware of the processing (thank God!) doesn't mean it ain't happening. Or... so it seems 🧐

Ha, it seems that you've gone into thinking land again. So I'm going to point you to experiencing land again. If you look at something, like a pot, or table, whatever. Now, could we call that table, or whatever is experienced also label perception/color/experience/appearance? Isn't that what that table is, just an experience, or a perception? Now does that tableappearance really have a weight, a function, a backside, a history? Or could it be that these are just ideas that are mentally associated with the experience? So, could we say that what you're seeing is color? And can we say that is what seeing is, the presence of color? So could we say that color=seeing? So the hand=seeing? Can colors grab something? I could use different words as seeing, for example experiencing/awareness/being, but let's not go there now. Again, I'm just referring to your actual experience. Hope it makes some sense to you, or rather that you see/recognize what I'm attempting to point to.

And sure, I'll just wait for your response and wish you well on your journey.

love,
Floris

[Locutus1452]

when we say we are feeling, aren't we referring to the presence of sensations?

I agree - using the term "feelings" to refer to sensations ("I can feel the table under my hand") rather than an emotional reaction.

is an actual difference experienced between the two?

Yes. The imagined table is rather vague and more obviously a mental exercise - it requires effort and there's little emotional power to make it more vivid (it's a table). It's a lot less "convincing" than the real thing.

Is it accurate that when you say the sense of I is present, that there is only a thought and certain feelings present

Yes, that's accurate. Again it seems to come down to a perception of effort. When a decision is to be made like "shall I do x or shall I do y?" it seems that I need to pull back slightly, pause and see the 2 options in front of me. In this way I kind of move apart from 2 paths to consider them and once the decision is made, fold back into experience. So I agree that its "thought and certain feelings" but they are animated by intention rather than execution and it's this difference that takes me out of flow and sharpens the sense of I.

Now, could we call that table, or whatever is experienced also label perception/color/experience/appearance? Isn't that what that table is, just an experience, or a perception?

I'm more than familiar with the argument here, it's been the subject of many a philosophical primer. And I think this is a chain of reasoning (an "argument") at least when it's expressed in words: I can't possibly experience it as you do for obvious reasons. On the basis of my own reflections on these types of investigations, it's impossible to disagree. However, that intellectual understanding does not easily and at all times translate into a shift of perception, of the I. This is why I'm here for a shift of perception - honestly. Not so much for an exchange of ideas, although that might be necessary from time to time.

So the hand=seeing? Can colors grab something? I could use different words as seeing, for example experiencing/awareness/being,

Not sure what you mean here. If I was a bat for example - who locates in space thru sound in just as sophisticated a way as a human uses light I would say to my fellow bats, "you'll never guess what I just heard" and mean the same thing as a human referring to something he/she just saw. But the labels for the sense perception and processing are obviously irrelevant - it's the same fundamental process: incoming sense data is organised to make an instant and unconscious model of a world which - when matched against reality - is more than accurate enough to function within it. The fact that it 'matches' is what makes it effective. I'll avoid saying 'accurate'!

[Florisness]

Hi there,

I agree - using the term "feelings" to refer to sensations ("I can feel the table under my hand") rather than an emotional reaction.

that's not quite what I meant, so let me try again. Please not too much thinking on this one and try to follow me by seeing if you can see what experiential reality I'm pointing to. Put your hand on something so you have some sensations. Let's say you put your hand on a table. Now in everyday human language we could say 'I feel a table', right.. nothing fancy there. Why though, do we say that you're feeling something? Because sensations are present, yes? If no sensations were present, you wouldn't say you were feeling anything, agreed? I can also turn it around, could you say that you feel sensations and at the same time say you're not feeling something? No. Because the words feeling, or 'I'm feeling' and the presensce of sensations, refer to the same experience, yes? So what I meant is feeling = sensations. Can you get what I mean? And you don't find any I/self/entity feeling anything, agreed? You can also not say that when your eyes are closed and just having your hand on the table, that a table is felt. You don't have an experience there of something you could point to and say 'this experience right here, is a/the table'. Do you agree with that. I'm just referring to your experience, to nothing else. I'm also not trying to make you believe me, or make you conclude anything at all, just trying to get you to see that when you for example close your eyes and have your hand on a table, your experience is not 'I feel a table', it is just 'sensations'. Can you see what I mean? There is just sensations floating in space so to speak, no feeler, no hand feeling, nothing that is felt, just sensations. Isn't that your experience?

Yes. The imagined table is rather vague and more obviously a mental exercise - it requires effort and there's little emotional power to make it more vivid (it's a table). It's a lot less "convincing" than the real thing.

Ha, okay that again that wasn't quite how I meant the exercise. But it's okay, thank you for your trying and let's leave it.

Yes, that's accurate. Again it seems to come down to a perception of effort. When a decision is to be made like "shall I do x or shall I do y?" it seems that I need to pull back slightly, pause and see the 2 options in front of me. In this way I kind of move apart from 2 paths to consider them and once the decision is made, fold back into experience. So I agree that its "thought and certain feelings" but they are animated by intention rather than execution and it's this difference that takes me out of flow and sharpens the sense of I.

Yes I know what you mean with pulling out and moving more back into physicality. And when you look/sense what that is that is pulling back and moving back into physicality, what is that? Is it something with a form, something physical? Not wanting to suggest that there is an actual entity there folding back and then back to physicality, but maybe it will loosen something up a bit.
You are saying thoughts and feelings are animated by intention. What do you mean by that? Does an intention literally do anything?

I'm more than familiar with the argument here, it's been the subject of many a philosophical primer. And I think this is a chain of reasoning (an "argument") at least when it's expressed in words: I can't possibly experience it as you do for obvious reasons. On the basis of my own reflections on these types of investigations, it's impossible to disagree. However, that intellectual understanding does not easily and at all times translate into a shift of perception, of the I. This is why I'm here for a shift of perception - honestly. Not so much for an exchange of ideas, although that might be necessary from time to time.

hmm, I'm however not trying to make an argument so much, or have you make conclusions or anything like that. But what I am trying to do is to give you a sense, or recognition, that when you say you're looking at for example a room, and point to something and say 'that table', that that what you're referring to, is an experience/perception/color. I'm not trying to make you believe it, but it can be a little tricky to communicate this. And recognising this WILL result in a change of perception, anyway it did for me. Let me try again and try getting what I'm trying to point to/say. Let's say you're looking at a table. Now imagine someone coming and saying 'what are you looking at', you point and say 'to that, I'm looking at that table'. Now the other says 'ah okay, I'm looking at it too' and you conclude you're both looking at the same thing. That's what a lot of people would say, that they are looking at the same thing. Please pay some attention now, otherwise you may gloss over it. What is it though, that you are really looking at? Isn't when you're saying that you're seeing/experiencing a table, that you refer to what you are actually experiencing? Aren't you actually -and this isn't completely a fully accurate description, but it's a step in the right direction- looking at your experience? Or you could replace the words 'your experience' in that sentence with colors/color field/perception/etc. Do you get what I mean? Is the other person looking at that?? By that I mean, is the other person looking at your experience? Are you really seeing the same thing? OR could it be, that you think you are experiencing/seeing/observing objects that have an independent existence and that are or can be experienced by others, but actually, that is actually not the case?


Maybe after doing that, and getting what I tried to point at, you can answer the last question again from the previous post? Maybe after the above message it's clearer to you what I meant:
So, could we say that what you're seeing is color? And can we say that is what seeing is, the presence of color? So could we say that color=seeing? So the hand=seeing? Can colors grab something?


Wishing you well,
Floris

[Locutus1452]

feeling, or 'I'm feeling' and the presence of sensations, refer to the same experience, yes?

Happy to go with that.

And you don't find any I/self/entity feeling anything, agreed?

When my attention is taken to the hand and the question is asked "what can I feel?" the answer is ... a table. I'm not surprised by this because: I could see it and I placed my hand on it.

You can also not say that when your eyes are closed and just having your hand on the table, that a table is felt.

I parse this as: "Whilst my eyes are closed, I cannot say the hand feels a table." I disagree. I may have misunderstood because this is not my experience and neither does it seem logical: why would the table disappear when I shut my eyes? At the very least my hand still confirms the same sensation - eyes open or shut.

just trying to get you to see that when you for example close your eyes and have your hand on a table, your experience is not 'I feel a table', it is just 'sensations'. Can you see what I mean? There is just sensations floating in space so to speak, no feeler, no hand feeling, nothing that is felt, just sensations. Isn't that your experience?

Well... maybe. I mean if you were to approach me and ask me to keep my eyes shut and then put something weird on the table and then get me to place my hands on something that totally unfamiliar thing then yes, I can see that there would be just sensations with no clear idea of what it was... is that closer to what you what you're guiding me to...?

You are saying thoughts and feelings are animated by intention. What do you mean by that? Does an intention literally do anything?

It does seem to doesn't it? It leads to action and an effect on the world, or not... I'm going to ignore some disputed science here in the lag between intention and action you'll probably be relieved to know 😂 That decision-maker is of course the locus of I. We're right down to it now...!

OR could it be, that you think you are experiencing/seeing/observing objects that have an independent existence and that are or can be experienced by others, but actually, that is actually not the case?

I can see the problem with confirming that given each of us have apparently 'privileged' access to our own sensations and the 'sense' we make of them but for your "OR" above to be true you'd have to explain how it is that these 2 people looking a table (say) and describing what they see mysteriously seem to agree on it's shape, colour etc... I think they would and that, therefore, they are more likely to be looking at the same objectively existing thing.

So, could we say that what you're seeing is color?

what I'm seeing is something I call colour, yes. It's just a label but it's commonly agreed on so...ok.

And can we say that is what seeing is, the presence of color?

yep - 'close enough for jazz' as they say...!

So could we say that color=seeing?

Wellllll.... there's also shape, brilliance, perspective etc... By which I mean, if you ask me to describe my experience of "seeing" the garden in front of me... these are elements I'd have to include to describe what I'm seeing...

So the hand=seeing?

That's where you lose me I'm afraid ... I guess a blind person "sees" with their hands but I don't think that's what you're trying to convey...

Can colors grab something?

Not in any way I can imagine or experience....

J

[Florisness]

Hi there,

And you don't find any I/self/entity feeling anything, agreed?

When my attention is taken to the hand and the question is asked "what can I feel?" the answer is ... a table. I'm not surprised by this because: I could see it and I placed my hand on it.

I understand. However, the question was if you could FIND anything/anyone/any I that is feeling? Like can you find an experience that is (doing the) feeling? Like with other words, can you find something in your experience and go 'yes there right here, is the I/hand/entity/etc (doing the) feeling'? I know there will be feeling/sensations, but the question is, is there a feeler? Maybe you think something like "is there a feeler?? Of course! I'm feeling, I'm the feeler, who else??!!", and maybe you think of it as too obvious to even investigate. But I think you must or might have some sense that something might not be how you thought it was, because why else would you be here?

Ah wait, I see you interpreted the question like 'Isn't anything felt?' but I asked about a feeler. Can give another go?:-)

I parse this as: "Whilst my eyes are closed, I cannot say the hand feels a table." I disagree. I may have misunderstood because this is not my experience and neither does it seem logical: why would the table disappear when I shut my eyes? At the very least my hand still confirms the same sensation - eyes open or shut.

Well... maybe. I mean if you were to approach me and ask me to keep my eyes shut and then put something weird on the table and then get me to place my hands on something that totally unfamiliar thing then yes, I can see that there would be just sensations with no clear idea of what it was... is that closer to what you what you're guiding me to...?

Ha, I can appreciate your trouble with this whole thing. Let me tell you this, maybe it will help. I would say that whatever you belief, you experience. For example, if you think of yourself as a body, the consciousness that you are takes that shape. Or you could also say, that your experience is molded by your thinking. If you think you experience objects, your experience will shape or appear that way. Most people, or a little more accurate, most consciousnesses on this planet have a lot of beliefs, and newborn children just grow up with these beliefs, and therefore their experiences start taking the shape of these beliefs. I know that it might seem so very real that you, that you are there, a body or a person, surrounded by objects and others, living on a physical world that is happening in time and space. But what if that just isn't what's really going on here? I would suggest that what's actually going on here, is very different from what you think. Actually, very very different from what you think. In another way, it is exactly what you think, because your reality is just whatever you think. I myself don't hold a belief that there is a world with people and other objects, and that this experience is caused by a body walking around and perceiving things in such a world. And even more that THIS is happening in space and such. Would that sound batshit crazy to most people? Well probably, but to me these commonly held beliefs are crazy to believe in. I would invite you to be relentless, and don't take any common assumption as true, and just check it with your experience, and see what happens.

Okay so now back to your question. Yes, that's closer. But would you agree that even if you did feel you were clear about what it was, the sensations would just be the same, yes? And these sensations are your experience, which is what I'm interested in. Instead of me asking you to answer the questions from your experience, let me phrase is a different way: try to describe what you're actually experiencing. Try to describe your experience. Because if I ask you what you're actually experiencing when I asked you to do the previous exercise, you are trying to tell me what you THINK you experience, or what you THINK is happening. So let me give it a go to answer the question that I asked you. So let's say I'm putting my hand on a table.. and frankly, I don't believe that a hand is put on a table, even less that I believe it's "my" hand. It's just like you watch a movie on television and describe what is happening there as 'okay now Bobby is putting his hand on the table', that's useful language, but frankly your experience of what we call that movie, is just some colors happening there. Okay, but hand on the table, eyes get closed. Okay, do eyes get closed though? If I would try to stick as close as I can to describe my experience, or what is happening for me, of what we commonly call closing the eyes, I would say a more accurate description would be 'in the visual field, a darkred/blackish field comes from the top to the bottom until it covers the entire visual field'. Notice that there is no use of the concept of eyes, or even closing the eyes in that description. Because there are no eyes in my experience, let alone the eyes being closed.
Okay so let's continue. "Hand are on the table", "the eyes are closed", now what is really there, what is the actual experience going on?.. Well so sensations are present there, and there might be a thought of hand touching a table present too, but I'd still describe the experience as just sensations. Is there a feeler? Well, let's look.. The attention goes to what we might commonly call the headspace and goes a bit back and forth, but nothing doing the feeling is found, no feeler found, just the sensations are there. Is there even a hand there? Well.. the attention goes to the space again which might be commonly called the hand. There is a thought of a hand, a concept of a hand comes up, and definitely there are sensations sort of arranged in a sort of hand shape, so to speak, but if I would describe the experience as accurately as I can, I would say something like that there are a bunch of sensations, some places there are, some places none, and it's like the sensations are happening in the shape of like a hand. But I wouldn't describe anything there as a hand there. No hand here in this experience I tell you. Even if "the eyes open" (and I'm not going to use quotes anymore for these things) is a actual hand seen? Well.. a hand is supposed to be a 3d object, with a weight, and such. But what I see, what is experienced are a bunch of colors. Do these colors/this experience have a weight? Well.. wouldn't say so, this experience could also be described as (I wouldn't say this is completely accurate either) just floating, it's weightless, this experience is just floating here. Don't experience/see a 3d object, don't see a back side of this supposed hand, either, it's rather just like a picture. A picture doesn't have a backside, right? Sure the "hand" could be turned around, but it's only still the same experience as when looking at a picture. Even more so, am I not just arbitrarily cutting out things from the visual field and labeling them as if they are separate things. Isn't it rather just one field? Who says there are separate things in the visual field? Well, experience isn't saying that. Would you agree?

Okay, that was a lot of writing. I'm going to leave your other responses hanging for now. Maybe you can let me know if it's clear to you what I mean with describing your experience, and that if you describe your experience that your description ends up being very different than what most people would say is happening? This is not a small difference. I would suggest that if you most basically describe your experience, you're much closer to how things.

[Locutus1452]

Floris,

Your position, your experience is clearer after that post. It might be worth my mentioning my own experience though less in terms of what I'm experiencing right now as what my historical experience is. That way we might proceed quicker (not that I'm in a rush!) as there might be less mutual groundwork to lay. Your last post was useful to me as it laid out where you're coming from. He's where I start from...There'll be some jargon but hopefully the type that serves to keep things tight and short rather than obscure...

I'm familiar with:

whatever you belief, you experience. For example, if you think of yourself as a body, the consciousness that you are takes that shape. Or you could also say, that your experience is molded by your thinking. If you think you experience objects, your experience will shape or appear that way.

Even if I did not have a background in Buddhism a reading in philosophy, psychology and sociology would supply these ideas. What I'm looking for of course is the radical shift in perspective that comes from distilling out these profound preconceptions from what is actually present.

I know that it might seem so very real that you, that you are there, a body or a person, surrounded by objects and others, living on a physical world that is happening in time and space. But what if that just isn't what's really going on here?

This too is not unfamiliar as an idea. It appears to be a type of "solipsism" - I mean that as a philosophical category not a judgement. It is of course a 'label' but if we were having dinner instead of typing and I asked for the "salt" - I'm sure you'd pass it anyway! Again, I cannot say how you experience this (the above quote). Only that in writing/reading online, it presents itself as an idea and one I'm familiar with. If I've misunderstood then I'm sure you'll be able to iron it out.

I'm currently the sort of person who likes to have a rough idea of where I'm going before I set off on a journey. I need to believe the end can be reached. I'm well up for some adventures and surprises on the way. I'd be very disappointed if I'm the same person by the end. But I do need to believe that the destination is desirable and that it 'exists' even if it's only dimly perceived.
I'm here because I'm looking for a profound perceptual shift. I'm a lot less interested in taking a philosophical position on what the nature of the world is. Including anything that sounds like solipsism.

With that as a preamble, here's my issue: when you say:

am I not just arbitrarily cutting out things from the visual field and labeling them as if they are separate things

I would say it's not arbitrary. And further, that when someone says this is actually how they perceive the world it's difficult for me to accept it as a statement of fact.

This may be because it isn't. Maybe, it's meant as a useful device or 'skillfull means' to nudge the hearer to a difficult to describe but necessary shift. Maybe I'm just wrong and that I lack the openness that is required here. But this is the ground we're working on at the moment. I'm committed to change not to particular positions, I hope.

To return to my journey analogy: the journey I think I'm embarked on is the suffering that flows from a profoundly deep-rooted and inappropriate identification of self, even creation of self based on a fundamental mistake. But one that can be seen thru.

Let me say right away that because I've been reading the Gateless Gate whilst I was waiting for a guide and because, well, it's who I am (😉) and thru working here with you I've been regularly, consciously and sometimes unconsciously trying to loosen the nuts on Identifying with what I see and hear. Interestingly, there appear to be liquid glimpses of what I'd call "detachment" - a shift in perspective.

It's also a fool who agrees to work with a coach and then spends his time arguing with his advice and techniques.

I hope the above makes sense to you. I include it because it might change the way we work together.

Back to your post...

ven more so, am I not just arbitrarily cutting out things from the visual field and labeling them as if they are separate things. Isn't it rather just one field? Who says there are separate things in the visual field? Well, experience isn't saying that. Would you agree?

I have to agree. But the boundaries of this way of experiencing things seem as evanescent as a soap bubble.

That said, I will continue to leave space for looking at my experience in this way whilst we work together.

[Florisness]

Hi Jim,

Good to have read your post. Seems that we're improving in our communication.

Your position, your experience is clearer after that post. It might be worth my mentioning my own experience though less in terms of what I'm experiencing right now as what my historical experience is. That way we might proceed quicker (not that I'm in a rush!) as there might be less mutual groundwork to lay. Your last post was useful to me as it laid out where you're coming from. He's where I start from...There'll be some jargon but hopefully the type that serves to keep things tight and short rather than obscure...

Okay I liked reading that you're not in a rush, then we may take things a little more slow and a little deeper.

Even if I did not have a background in Buddhism a reading in philosophy, psychology and sociology would supply these ideas. What I'm looking for of course is the radical shift in perspective that comes from distilling out these profound preconceptions from what is actually present.

Okay, I would however suggest to not look for, or wait for, a radical shift in perception. This often happens on the forum, that people are waiting for a big aha-moment, and that doesn't seem very helpful. I would say that perhaps every change in thought is a shift in perception. Sometimes perhaps so subtle that you may not notice it immediately. For many people here, it's more of a gradual thing, because an increasing clarity comes from looking at different 'places' the self is assumed to hide.
To expand on this, I would say that every dominant thought/belief you have gathered until now, that doesn't resonate with you, doesn't feel good to you, is contracting you(r experience). And realizing there is no self, or that you aren't one, although is a noticeable difference, is not what will set everything right/aligning you with your natural energy/self completely as some people hope.

I'm currently the sort of person who likes to have a rough idea of where I'm going before I set off on a journey. I need to believe the end can be reached. I'm well up for some adventures and surprises on the way. I'd be very disappointed if I'm the same person by the end. But I do need to believe that the destination is desirable and that it 'exists' even if it's only dimly perceived.
I'm here because I'm looking for a profound perceptual shift. I'm a lot less interested in taking a philosophical position on what the nature of the world is. Including anything that sounds like solipsism.

I understand. And yes, I'm not intending for you to gather more beliefs such as believing in solipsism. Ha, well impossible to be the same person afterwards. For one, because you're not a person even right now, and also because 'you' are constantly changing. But yes, I understand you'd like a significant change, but I think you might be hoping for more than is on average reasonable to expect for becoming clear that there is no self. Just as a note on if it is reasonable to expect for you to become clear on that there is no self, I would say yes. Never had anyone who didn't flee off who didn't become increasingly clear on it. I say increasingly clear, so that the pressure is off from the notion of needing to have at have a big realization.

I would say it's not arbitrary. And further, that when someone says this is actually how they perceive the world it's difficult for me to accept it as a statement of fact.

This may be because it isn't. Maybe, it's meant as a useful device or 'skillfull means' to nudge the hearer to a difficult to describe but necessary shift. Maybe I'm just wrong and that I lack the openness that is required here. But this is the ground we're working on at the moment. I'm committed to change not to particular positions, I hope.

No worries. I never intend that you just take what I say as true. You don't have to belief, assume or conclude anything. Sometimes it can be useful to question a belief, and sometimes it can be useful to just try some different thoughts/lenses and see if something sticks.
If I ask you to look at a picture or a movie, I think you would have no trouble saying that there are just colors there and that some color patterns are picked out of it, perhaps labelled and other interpretations added. Isn't this so in "real life" too? Perhaps you can try to look around slowly in your house and see if you can see this happening. Can you also notice that when your attention goes, almost like a magnet, to certain definite color patterns (and yes there is a sense of depth too)? You may notice them getting interpreted as certain things/object and that there are probably stories associated with it, but also (subtle) feelings and perhaps even slight smells may be present that change with every object, giving the sense of extra substance or thingness to the seen?

To return to my journey analogy: the journey I think I'm embarked on is the suffering that flows from a profoundly deep-rooted and inappropriate identification of self, even creation of self based on a fundamental mistake. But one that can be seen thru.

Yes, I would say partly. Because as I already said, the belief in a self is for most people only a part of all the unpleasant/unhelpful thoughts that are gathered.

Let me say right away that because I've been reading the Gateless Gate whilst I was waiting for a guide and because, well, it's who I am (😉) and thru working here with you I've been regularly, consciously and sometimes unconsciously trying to loosen the nuts on Identifying with what I see and hear. Interestingly, there appear to be liquid glimpses of what I'd call "detachment" - a shift in perspective.

Good and nice to read that some things have been loosening. And when you say that you've been attempting to loosen the nuts on identifying.. Is there a belief in a you that tried that, a you that can't be found? Can something be FOUND that is reading this and will be -that's my hope;)- replying to this question?

It's also a fool who agrees to work with a coach and then spends his time arguing with his advice and techniques.

Ah, well no problem here.

I have to agree. But the boundaries of this way of experiencing things seem as evanescent as a soap bubble.

I didn't quite get you here.

Didn't give you a lot to look at experientially, but thought there was plenty of talking already for one post.

Wishing you well,
Floris