The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
There isn't a choicemaker that makes choices independently of everything else. I feel like I'm making choices, but in reality every choice I make is completely dependent on everything, so I'm not separate from everything. And everything just arises automatically. There's nothing for me to do. But for some reason I still feel like there is.

What are you looking for at LU?
I want to see more deeply that the 'I' does not exist. For some reason, even though I see this in some sense intellectually, it doesn't have a strong effect on my day-to-day experience. From reading dialogues on this site, it seems like a lot of people have an 'aha' moment where a lot of tension drops, and it has a long-lasting effect on their day-to-day experience. I would like to have this same sort of deep seeing.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
A guided conversation would help me pinpoint which parts of my beliefs are in error. The way I'm writing probably exhibits certain 'tells' that the belief of a separate self is still in action. I would deeply appreciate if a guide could point these out and show me where to investigate.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Around a decade ago I spent hundreds of hours doing samadhi meditation, which I used to think was a prerequisite for awakening. I made little progress at this and got frustrated, and eventually stopped thinking that "awakening" is even real, so in the past 5 years I didn't do any spiritual seeking. That changed last month. I kept seeing interviews with awakened people on YouTube on Angelo Dilullo's channel, Luchana's channel, etc. The evidence that awakening is real and possible for me kept piling up and I can no longer ignore it. Right now I'm reading the Liberation Unleashed book. I've read half of it so far.

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

Hi Paul
(is that what you want me to call you?)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU.
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.
What time zone are in?
If you're okay with everything so far, we can start.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali, thank you so much for offering to guide me.

Hi Paul
(is that what you want me to call you?)

Yes

What time zone are in?

Central U.S. (UTC - 6:00)

I've read what you suggested and can commit to post daily, look directly, and not use other spiritual teachings during this process.

Thank you again
Paul

Hey Paul
Great!

What time zone are in?

Central U.S. (UTC - 6:00)

I am GMT+2 but I think we'll manage ;)

I've read what you suggested and can commit to post daily, look directly, and not use other spiritual teachings during this process.

Awesome! First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

3. What do you want not to happen?

4. What are you hoping for?

5. What is missing?

Love
Rali

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

The main difference would probably be a stronger sense of immediate presence. Self-centered thoughts are often about the past or the future, so if the self is seen to be illusory, these thoughts will be regarded as less important and gradually arise less often. Experience would probably feel more spontaneous. There would probably be less compulsion to protect or defend myself or my reputation beyond what is practical. I find this question a little difficult to answer because it feels like I'm just speculating.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

I don't think anything in particular would have to happen. It's more like something will stop happening. The self-centered thoughts would no longer be taken so seriously. This would probably open up opportunities in the present that otherwise feel unavailable, but I don't have strong ideas about what those are.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I don't want to persuade myself that there is no separate self if I don't really see it. I want to look deeply and genuinely see it. If I do see, I don't want to go crazy or act irrationally. I don't know why but that's a fear I have somewhat, even though I don't see a good reason to have that fear.

4. What are you hoping for?

My main hope is just to see what's true. In the long run I hope I'll be glad to see what's true.

5. What is missing?

I'm missing the interpretation of experience to see with no doubt that I'm not a separate self. The "no separate self" view feels very plausible and increasingly likely to me, which is why I am here. But the conventional view, that I am one of 8 billion humans born into the world who will one day die also seems plausible albeit increasingly suspect. The latter view is the "operating system" I'm currently using by default in day-to-day life.

Hi Paul
Thank you!
It can be challenging to become aware of what we really believe. The questions were a means to seeing what expectations you have, as everyone has some “idea” about awakening. There is so much information out there now with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel, that to have no expectations is almost impossible.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable, but ultimately, expectations are a hindrance. They cling to an idea of how it is supposed to go, which is not necessarily correct, and this is why I asked you to read the FAQ’s of what Liberation Unleashed is NOT. When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end. If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary.

3. What do you want not to happen?

... If I do see, I don't want to go crazy or act irrationally. I don't know why but that's a fear I have somewhat, even though I don't see a good reason to have that fear.

Like I said, it’s just a shift of perception. How can an illusion do anything? An illusion is an illusion. It has never done anything and that will not change. A fear usually is there to protect us from harm. In this case it protects “you” from changing and losing your ”sanity”. You said yourself that you don’t see a choicemaker, so what is going to change if “you” never did/chose anything? So why would you “choose” now differently if you have never chosen before …but more about it later.

Now what comes up when is read that there is no self never has been and never will be? If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,
Thank you so much for your questions. I see your point about the problem with having expectations.

Now what comes up when is read that there is no self never has been and never will be?

When I read this and sit with it, some restless energy comes up. There's the desire to stop the inquiry and do something else. I have some pain in my body right now (which I already had before), and the thought arose, "the resistance you have to the pain in the body right now comes from the self." But when I look, I don't choose to make that resistance happen and I don't feel like I can choose to make it stop. So it doesn't make sense that it really comes from a self.

If you look for the I, what is there?

The 'I' feels more real before I start looking. When I do start looking, I don't find anything that stands up to scrutiny. It's like watching a 3D movie and reaching out to grab what looks like it's right in front of me, only to find that there's nothing to grab.

If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

The desire arises to experiment with this, let's see.

doer - I feel like I can alternate my perspective on what it's like to 'do' something. For example, in one way of looking, I pick up my teacup and take a sip of tea. In another way of looking, the intention to take a sip arises, the hand extends, the cup is lifted, the sip is taken, and that's it, I'm not even there.

thinker - If I sit still and don't do anything, thoughts eventually arise on their own. It's clear that I am not the thinker of these thoughts, because I didn't choose them. But there's another type of thought that I'm less convinced I am not the thinker of. For example, I can form the intention to spell the word "liberation" in my mind. Then the next thoughts that arise are "l-i-b-e-r-a-t-i-o-n," each letter appearing as a thought one at a time. Since I intended for those thoughts to happen, it feels more like I am the thinker of them.

experiencer / witness - there's a way of looking where literally everything is just experienced and there is no experiencer. Feelings, sensations, intentions, thoughts, literally everything is just arising, and there's no experiencer separate from what's arising. This way of looking feels like it only happens occasionally like when I'm doing self-inquiry or taking a walk in nature. When I was writing this, that perspective happened briefly. It feels peaceful. Eventually 'I' comes back and this perspective is lost.

decision maker - During everyday life I feel like I'm in control of many decisions. But let me look into this right now. I'm going to decide right now to lift either my right hand or my left hand. Pause. The right hand was lifted. Where did that decision come from? I have no idea. I don't think it was really mine. There isn't some separate entity that can make decisions independent of everything else.

The self felt more solid or convincing when I started writing the beginning of my post than it does here at the end. There was a restless energy that sort of dissipated once I remembered how to shift into the "no experiencer" perspective I was writing about.

Hi Paul

Thank you very much for your honest reply! Honesty saves a lot of time when it comes to guiding : )

When I read this and sit with it, some restless energy comes up. There's the desire to stop the inquiry and do something else. I have some pain in my body right now (which I already had before), and the thought arose, "the resistance you have to the pain in the body right now comes from the self." But when I look, I don't choose to make that resistance happen and I don't feel like I can choose to make it stop. So it doesn't make sense that it really comes from a self.

Fear and resistance serve to preserve the status quo. It takes a bit of effort to shift to a new status quo. Seeing that no one is here doing, thinking, living a life of a separate entity does not automatically end all resistance. All that constructs “you”- thoughts, beliefs, emotional pains and fears, habits - did not form in a day, so it does not usually disappear in a day either. What you can do is acknowledge this resistance and thank it for doing its job. Then you inquire if that protection is needed – what is protected here, what is behind it?

The 'I' feels more real before I start looking. When I do start looking, I don't find anything that stands up to scrutiny. It's like watching a 3D movie and reaching out to grab what looks like it's right in front of me, only to find that there's nothing to grab.

Like any other illusion, right? But we’ll do a bit more than just calling it an illusion from a first glimpse. We are going to see from every angle that there is nothing real there.

The desire arises to experiment with this, let's see.

I think you going a bit ahead of yourself here. I just wanted to assess where you “feel the self” the strongest so we can start from there. Let’s do this properly and take all the steps needed to give this inquiry a proper chance. Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises:
There is a big difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what color socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:

1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what color they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what color they ACTUALLY are!

You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here - not how you've imagined it to be, heard from others, remember that you've seen before, thought about etc, but what you see when you LOOK now. You get where I'm going with this, right?

Direct or Actual Experience is:
Seeing
Hearing
Sensing (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.

Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's color, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe? While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, color(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Color (visual information) labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

Love
R

Hi Rali, thank you for your guidance.

What you can do is acknowledge this resistance and thank it for doing its job. Then you inquire if that protection is needed – what is protected here, what is behind it?

I am not feeling restlessness or fear right now but I will try this the next time they come up.

You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

Yes

You get where I'm going with this, right?

Yes. I read about this in another LU thread before I registered so I've experimented with it some.

However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

The 'apple' is a label coming from thought and not found in Direct Experience. The colors are seen in Direct Experience. It looks to me like that each shade of color is "extended" so this "spacial-extension" aspect of color is also in Direct Experience, independent of thought or labeling. Is that correct?

Hi Paul
It’s really my pleasure! You don’t have to thank me :)

I am not feeling restlessness or fear right now but I will try this the next time they come up.

Good! Hopefully, it won’t come in the way, but if it does you’ll know what to do…

The 'apple' is a label coming from thought and not found in Direct Experience. The colors are seen in Direct Experience. It looks to me like that each shade of color is "extended" so this "spacial-extension" aspect of color is also in Direct Experience, independent of thought or labeling. Is that correct?

Well, you know form physics point of view colours are just light behaving differently, so shades of colour are still colour. But we agreed to leave all this behind so let’s LOOK at this. Is seeing the colour and colour two separate things? Is there a seer? At which point the seeing becomes the colour?
That wasn’t my plan but let’s look at space as you mentioned 3D and “special-extension”. Does a colour/form have a fixed location? Where is "here?" Where is "there?" Where is the reference point? LOOK at the screen in front of you where you reading this. Could show from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a seer in that direction? What do you see?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali
I like to express thanks anyway :)

Is seeing the colour and colour two separate things?

No, "color" is just the label given to visual arising in Direct Experience. In DE, "color" and "the seeing of color" are no different.

Is there a seer?

No, no seer is seen in DE. Just color.

At which point the seeing becomes the colour?

There's no seeing without color and no color without seeing. Since they're the same, closest I can say is instantaneously.

Does a colour/form have a fixed location?

It's hard to answer this because I don't want to confuse thoughts for DE. Even though "left" and "right" "up" and "down" are concepts, they're derived directly from the experience being had. In the visual experience arising right now, mostly black colors in the far left and mostly white colors in the far right. When I say "far left" or "far right" I don't mean relative to "me" (I'm not there in DE), I mean relative to the other colors that make up the experience. It seems like 2D sense of location of a color is part of DE but 3D location comes from thinking.

Where is "here? Where is "there?"

In DE "here" and "there" doesn't really refer to anything meaningful. You could say all color is "here".

Where is the reference point?

There's no reference point because there's nothing doing the referencing. Although it's easy to feel that visual experience is happening "in front" of me, because of my habit of doing so, when I look in DE that isn't true.

LOOK at the screen in front of you where you reading this. Could show from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a seer in that direction?

Where I am looking at it from and what is there are thoughts not part of DE. "Seer" is another thought.

What do you see?

Colors

Hi Paul
Good effort!

No, "color" is just the label given to visual arising in Direct Experience. In DE, "color" and "the seeing of color" are no different…
There's no seeing without color and no color without seeing. Since they're the same, closest I can say is instantaneously.

So, can we say then that colour is more like a language construct (object), where we have an object, a subject and an action? Can we say there is only seeing (verb), if you can’t separate the colour from the seeing? Which one of the following describes best DE:
1. I am seeing colour
2.seeing colour
3. seeing
?

It's hard to answer this because I don't want to confuse thoughts for DE. Even though "left" and "right" "up" and "down" are concepts, they're derived directly from the experience being had. In the visual experience arising right now, mostly black colors in the far left and mostly white colors in the far right. When I say "far left" or "far right" I don't mean relative to "me" (I'm not there in DE), I mean relative to the other colors that make up the experience. It seems like 2D sense of location of a color is part of DE but 3D location comes from thinking.

That would mean that there is an object and a subject. Can you have an object without a subject – to have an object you need a reference point (something different than me, outside of me)? Is that screen separate somehow of seeing? Is it outside of seeing? Are there many objects (colours) and seeing, or just seeing without thought content? What defines the border where one thing ends and the other begins other than thought?

LOOK at the screen in front of you where you reading this. Could show from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a seer in that direction?

Where I am looking at it from and what is there are thoughts not part of DE. "Seer" is another thought.

That sounds a bit too intellectual. Is there a direction from where the looking is coming from? Is it directed at anything? Is there an outside and inside without reference point?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali

So, can we say then that colour is more like a language construct (object), where we have an object, a subject and an action? Can we say there is only seeing (verb), if you can’t separate the colour from the seeing? Which one of the following describes best DE:
1. I am seeing colour
2.seeing colour
3. seeing
?

"I am seeing color" is not accurate because no I is found in DE. "seeing color" sounds wrong because there isn't some color "out there" waiting to be seen, and redundant because there's nothing that can be seen other than color. So "seeing" sounds the most accurate.

That would mean that there is an object and a subject. Can you have an object without a subject – to have an object you need a reference point (something different than me, outside of me)? Is that screen separate somehow of seeing? Is it outside of seeing? Are there many objects (colours) and seeing, or just seeing without thought content?

It took me a long time to understand this. Actually I'm still not sure I understand it. Is there any way to describe seeing without there being subject/object distinction? Any attempt to describe seeing means breaking up the seeing into separate objects which appear from a reference point. But isn't this also true one level higher? To say there's "seeing" means experience has been broken into separate parts (hearing, seeing, tasting...) and part is recognized as "seeing". So "seeing" is also an object from a reference point. Real experience, free of subject/object distinction, cannot be broken up like this and is indescribable.

What defines the border where one thing ends and the other begins other than thought?

The distinction comes from thought

That sounds a bit too intellectual. Is there a direction from where the looking is coming from? Is it directed at anything? Is there an outside and inside without reference point?

There's no direction that looking is coming from and nothing that it's directed at. The seeing is just automatic The seeing isn't broken into inside or outside. A thought about inside and outside can happen, but that's thought not seeing.

Best
Paul

Hi Paul
Good!

"I am seeing color" is not accurate because no I is found in DE. "seeing color" sounds wrong because there isn't some color "out there" waiting to be seen, and redundant because there's nothing that can be seen other than color. So "seeing" sounds the most accurate.

That honestly sounds like a logical break down. All I’m asking is how it is experienced. So how is it seen without the logic (thought content)?

It took me a long time to understand this. Actually I'm still not sure I understand it. Is there any way to describe seeing without there being subject/object distinction? Any attempt to describe seeing means breaking up the seeing into separate objects which appear from a reference point. But isn't this also true one level higher? To say there's "seeing" means experience has been broken into separate parts (hearing, seeing, tasting...) and part is recognized as "seeing". So "seeing" is also an object from a reference point. Real experience, free of subject/object distinction, cannot be broken up like this and is indescribable.

Well, language serves the purpose of communicating information, but does it reflect really what is ACTUALLY happening? Fortunately, here we all speak the language of DE so no need for subject/object, which is thought content. Seeing happens and “colour”/”seeing” labels (describes) the experience. Yes, you are correct , these are labels, but these are labels that we agreed that we’ll use during this inquiry, and I hope you can agree, they come a bit closer to describing DE. if you want to use language/labels describing your DE a level higher it is also fine.

What defines the border where one thing ends and the other begins other than thought?

The distinction comes from thought

So if there is no border in DE, is there “left” or “right”, “up” or “down”?

There's no direction that looking is coming from and nothing that it's directed at. The seeing is just automatic The seeing isn't broken into inside or outside. A thought about inside and outside can happen, but that's thought not seeing.

Good! So, there is nothing outside of looking like an object, right?
So, let’s continue the inquiry…
I hope you like chocolate…
Have a bar of chocolate of your liking prepared for this exercise (don't do it out of memory,or guessing). If you don't have or like chocolate do it with any other food that you like.
For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece chocolate…feel the sensations of it melting into your mouth, the taste, the texture, the aroma. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of chocolate as much as you can.
Then for the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of chocolate and see the difference.
Experience the chocolate with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it.
Then for another minute or so describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?
After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:

1. Imaginary piece of chocolate
2. Real piece of chocolate
3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate
Enjoy!
Love
Rali

Hi Rali
Thank you for the guiding

So how is it seen without the logic (thought content)?

"seeing color" comes straightaway when I don't think about it

language serves the purpose of communicating information, but does it reflect really what is ACTUALLY happening?

No, language can't reflect what is actually happening. At best it can point to a tiny sliver of experience.

So if there is no border in DE, is there “left” or “right”, “up” or “down”?

I see now that those are concepts coming from thinking.

Write the description here. What was the experience like?

I don't have chocolate right now so I'll use an orange instead:

Cold, soft, juicy, tangy, sweet, pulpy, tasty, refreshing, enjoyable. and noticing of the sensations of chewing the orange

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:

1. Imaginary orange - even when I imagine eating the orange as vividly as possible, it still does not feel very vivid. There's a "hollow" feeling to the imagination and made me want to eat the actual orange.

2. The experience of eating the orange feels infinitely more vivid than the imagination of it. It's also feels much more enjoyable to eat an orange than to imagine eating an orange :)

3. The description barely describes the experience. If someone had never eaten an orange before, they could read the description and probably tell that eating an orange is more like eating a pineapple than it is like eating a piece of bread. But they would still have almost no understanding of what the experience is like.