The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
It looks like LU guides help someone see that the Self as we normally think about it is not real.

What are you looking for at LU?
I'd like to know once and for all that there is no real Self, or I, or Me. This is somewhat apparent to me theoretically, but it is not a lived experience. I would like to know with certainty that the self as most people experience it is an illusion.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I expect that the experience of the guide will assist me in seeing that the self is not ultimately real. I will be honest, careful, and complete
in my answers. I will respond to the guide's questions and instructions once a day.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I have been a searcher for years. I have participated in Zen retreats, Yoga intensives. I have been to Vipassana 10 day retreats where we meditated 10 hours a day. I am also a fan of reading Alan Watts, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Krishnamurti, Tony Parsons, and similar writers. Earlier I attended Gurdjieff groups, and intensively practiced Self-Observation.

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

Hi Griselda,

If you'd like me to help, then we can begin.

I'd like to know once and for all that there is no real Self, or I, or Me. This is somewhat apparent to me theoretically, but it is not a lived experience. I would like to know with certainty that the self as most people experience it is an illusion.

So.. If you would take a moment, close your eyes and try to locate something that you can put the label I, self or person to, then what do you find? And what do you make of that (your findings)?

Much love,
Floris

Hi Floris! It's nice to meet you. Thank you for being my guide!

So.. If you would take a moment, close your eyes and try to locate something that you can put the label I, self or person to, then what do you find? And what do you make of that (your findings)?

The 'I' is in the center of my head. It's always there, whenever I'm awake. And it continues from moment to moment, all the time.

Thanks,
Griselda

Hi Floris,

Just wondering, aren't we supposed to exchange messages once a day? It's been two days
since I responded to your first question.

I'm OK with it if the rules have changed. Just let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

Just wondering, aren't we supposed to exchange messages once a day? It's been two days
since I responded to your first question.

I'm OK with it if the rules have changed. Just let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

Just wondering, aren't we supposed to exchange messages once a day? It's been two days
since I responded to your first question.

I'm OK with it if the rules have changed. Just let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

Just wondering, aren't we supposed to exchange messages once a day? It's been two days
since I responded to your first question.

I'm OK with it if the rules have changed. Just let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

Just wondering, aren't we supposed to exchange messages once a day? It's been two days
since I responded to your first question.

I'm OK with it if the rules have changed. Just let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

Aren't we supposed to respond every day? Maybe the rules have changed.
If so, let me know.

Thanks,

Griselda

Hi Floris,

If you're too busy, let me know, and I'll ask for another guide.

Griselda

Griselda,

I'm so very sorry for my late response! My notifications weren't turned on so I didn't see your message. Again, very sorry! Definitely won't forget to enable them this time though.

The 'I' is in the center of my head. It's always there, whenever I'm awake. And it continues from moment to moment, all the time.

Okay good. And imagine there will be something that could be labeled 'sense of center' in the head, but can you really find an I, an entity there when you look?

Normally I would stop there, as I don't have more info from you to work with. But since it's been a while since you got a message (and I still feel a little bad about that) I'll give you an exercise that I sometimes use in conversations with people, so here a copied-pasted exercise:

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?

Much love,
Floris

- 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?

Yes, I can FEEL an 'I' which is seeing.
Yes, I can feel my eyes.
No, i can't find 'the seen thing' going to a place in the head where it is recieved.
No, I can't find something which is interpreting the seen thing.

No, I can't find a difference between what I call seeing and the seen.
Yes, I guess you could say these are the same experience.

Yes, my experience can be described correctly as 'I see a hand'.

Hi Griselda,

Happy to see your response.

Yes, I can FEEL an 'I' which is seeing.

And what if you LOOK for this I? By that I mean looking "in" your experience for it for something that you can point at and say 'Yes, this very thing right here is the I that is looking'?

Yes, I can feel my eyes.

But can you look for this and see if you can find an experience to point to which you can label as the eye(s)

No, i can't find 'the seen thing' going to a place in the head where it is recieved.

Sounds good to me

No, I can't find something which is interpreting the seen thing.

great.

No, I can't find a difference between what I call seeing and the seen.

Okay, good. So could we thus say seeing=the seen? For example a part of the seen might be a screen right now. So could we say the screen=seeing, or even the screen is made of seeing? I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Yes, I guess you could say these are the same experience.
Yes, my experience can be described correctly as 'I see a hand'.

After you've done the above questions, perhaps you've found that you didn't find an I or anything, doing the seeing. And you also agreed that seeing and the seen refer to the same experience. So what do you think of saying there is just seeing, instead of 'I see X'?

Wishing you well,
Floris

No, I can't find a difference between what I call seeing and the seen.

Okay, good. So could we thus say seeing=the seen? For example a part of the seen might be a screen right now. So could we say the screen=seeing, or even the screen is made of seeing? I hope you see what I'm getting at.

No, I don't see that just because I can't find a difference between what I call seeing and the seen, that therefore the screen is made of seeing. To me the screen is an object that exists, whether I am there or not. It's not dependent upon me.

And what if you LOOK for this I? By that I mean looking "in" your experience for it for something that you can point at and say 'Yes, this very thing right here is the I that is looking'?

No, I can't find it if I LOOK for it. But that is true of lots of things. If I say 'I love you" I just feel it; I can't POINT to something in my brain, or elsewhere, and say THAT WHICH I'M POINTING TO IS 'LOVE'. I just feel that it exists, and that is enough to me. The fact that I can't point to it visually does not mean it doesn't exist.

After you've done the above questions, perhaps you've found that you didn't find an I or anything, doing the seeing. And you also agreed that seeing and the seen refer to the same experience. So what do you think of saying there is just seeing, instead of 'I see X'?

This is very subtle. I think it comes down to the difference between the word 'find' and the word 'feel'. Could we say that I didn't 'find' an I? Yes, if you mean I didn't look to some structure in my head and recognize it as an I. But I definitely 'FEEL' an I, even when I'm seeing. If I'm very honest about my actual experience, I must say that there is always an 'I' when I am seeing. I know the 'correct' answer, according to Nondualists, is that there is just seeing with no Subject, but that's not my experience.

Hi Griselda,

No, I don't see that just because I can't find a difference between what I call seeing and the seen, that therefore the screen is made of seeing. To me the screen is an object that exists, whether I am there or not. It's not dependent upon me.

well I wouldn’t say the term made of seeing is quite correct, that just to shift your thinking a bit. Okay let’s try this again. I’m just talking about your experience. When you’re looking at the screen, could we also call that screen an experience, perception or bunch of colors for now? If you turn around, is that experience/perception/bunch of colors still there? I know it’s common to think/believe that we experience objects, and that belief will make your experience appear more that way, so I can appreciate your stance in this.

No, I can't find it if I LOOK for it. But that is true of lots of things. If I say 'I love you" I just feel it; I can't POINT to something in my brain, or elsewhere, and say THAT WHICH I'M POINTING TO IS 'LOVE'. I just feel that it exists, and that is enough to me. The fact that I can't point to it visually does not mean it doesn't exist.

But when you say you feel love, you are feeling something yes. So couldn’t you point to what you’re feeling, which might be around your chest? Maybe you think that this is then a bad example and are still not persuaded, okay.


This is an intellectual approach, and I only mention this to make it easier to come to grips with something. I don’t believe the story myself is very truthish, but since you might, it might be useful. Science would say that what your seeing is light reflected from an object, traveling through your eyes, processed by the brain. Yes? So.. according to that, is what you’re seeing outside or inside you? Is what you’re seeing in that model then objects?

This is very subtle. I think it comes down to the difference between the word 'find' and the word 'feel'. Could we say that I didn't 'find' an I? Yes, if you mean I didn't look to some structure in my head and recognize it as an I. But I definitely 'FEEL' an I, even when I'm seeing. If I'm very honest about my actual experience, I must say that there is always an 'I' when I am seeing. I know the 'correct' answer, according to Nondualists, is that there is just seeing with no Subject, but that's not my experience.

ah good. And when you say, I can definitely feel an I, what exactly is that which you are referring too? Please look at that experience. Is that feeling or sense of I an actual I or only a feeling/sense? And maybe there is a thought of an I present too when that feeling is there, but is that a real I, or only a thought?
No please stick to what feels true for you. No need to agree with me and no need for conclusions.


Have a lovely day,
Floris