Through the veil

[aldi]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That LU is a one to one communication, based on written questions and answers, that guide the questioner to look and see directly that there is no inherent self. This is not an intellectual gaining of more knowledge but a process by which the questioner is guided to see the reality of no-self.

What are you looking for at LU?
Clear and real sight that there is no inherent self.
It seems that everything I perceive is through a filter, the filter called me, even though I have never been able to see this me since the seeing itself seems also to be through the same filter! So the looking isn’t direct and results in more of the same. I’m deeply afraid of asking for guidance in such a direct format as this, so i think that I’m asking for help to be totally honest in the looking inward

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I don’t really know! I’ve read the Gateless Gatecrashers so I’m familiar with the basic format that Elena and Ilona used back in 2012. That said, what i hope is that a Guide would find the way to guide me into looking and seeing directly, without filters, without intellect.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I’ve had a dedicated meditation practice in basic Zen tradition for the past 7 years, and attended meditation retreats up to four times a year in this period. Many years previous to this I spent time in Lucknow with Punjaji when he was alive, practising self-enquiry. I first became interested in spiritual practices when i was about 30, when Osho became my teacher. I’m now 71.

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

[ty0]

Hi aldi (let me know your name if you'd like me to call you that), I'm Tyler and welcome to LU.

What are you looking for at LU?
Clear and real sight that there is no inherent self.

You seem to already believe that there is no inherent self. What would be the difference between your current state and seeing that there is no inherent self? Do you not already see this?

It seems that everything I perceive is through a filter, the filter called me, even though I have never been able to see this me since the seeing itself seems also to be through the same filter!

How do you know that everything you perceive is through the filter called you? How do you know that there's a you that can't be seen? You seem dead-set on confirming your hypothesis of "there is no inherent self", but now you're saying there is a you which is a filter? Where's the filter?

So the looking isn’t direct and results in more of the same.

What would direct looking look like?

[aldi]

Hi Tyler - thanks so very much for replying to my request. Sitting here with the first part of your question - it’s as if there’s a me looking for “a me”. It’s seems clear that I’ve never found this me (that I’m looking for!), but that absence doesn’t extend to the one who is looking.. which feels like a dense-ness. Seeing that this “looking self” is also a thought.
Pressure sensation in my head and throat.
So the filter is that this all feels mental, intellectual even. I’m still acting/feeling/perceiving as if I’m a separate individual, looking outwards. Somehow I think that’s wrong! Am I just caught/believing in my own endless thinking loop..
I’ve sat here for a while - there’ve been microscopic moments of tears in my fabric, much longer moments of tears in my eyes and a frustration at myself, and a few moments of laughter, both at myself and the absurdity.
You ask “do you not already see this?” The short answer is really “I don’t know”.
And it’s midnight. I’ll continue in the morning!
Night night

[aldi]

Hy Tyler - thanks also for your welcome to LU, and your time. Since I first read your post last night I’ve felt thankful to you.5
This morning I’ve come back to realising that most of what I say is from a Teaching, a book - something I’ve taken on to try and address the sense of “not being really real”! Even when trying to describe my understanding of things, I feel dishonest - not in a deliberate or malicious way, but from an ignorance of any truth.
So, the looking inward doesn’t find an entity or a solidity that I can call me. But something is looking for that me and that is what I’ve called the filter.
Just now seeing that really I’m simply describing looking itself and attributing the name “me” to that looking.
Curtain seems to open a crack and then close again.. a flip flop - now, again, looking seems to come through a sense of something in here looking at something out there.
What would direct looking look like? Before the curtain closed I’d written -
Like this. Unlabelled. Direct as opposed to indirect via the label “me”. Looking itself, not attributable to the me. Seeing with no consequential thoughts.
Hope this isn’t too much of a rant Tyler - I’ve never really tried to describe any of this before. And, I’m a bit unreliable with technology, not entirely competent that is!
I still feel some nervousness at this exploration, but also deeply want it. So thank you, thank you

[ty0]

Morning aldi, watch this quick video on how to use the Quote function. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCbZYSvnTpc

This morning I’ve come back to realising that most of what I say is from a Teaching, a book - something I’ve taken on to try and address the sense of “not being really real”! Even when trying to describe my understanding of things, I feel dishonest - not in a deliberate or malicious way, but from an ignorance of any truth.

Okay, just try to speak only from your own experience from now on. Hm, do you feel that you're ignorant of the truth? What would truth be? What does it mean for something to be true? Do you think I know something that you don't?

So, the looking inward doesn’t find an entity or a solidity that I can call me. But something is looking for that me and that is what I’ve called the filter.

When there seems to be looking, why must there be something looking? When a light shines, is there both a light, as well as a shining? Or is the light and the shining one and the same? Where is the boundary between the light and the shining? When the wind blows, is there both the wind, as well as a blowing?

What would direct looking look like? Before the curtain closed I’d written -
Like this. Unlabelled. Direct as opposed to indirect via the label “me”. Looking itself, not attributable to the me. Seeing with no consequential thoughts.

What is the "you" that the looking is attributable to? Even if you have consequential thoughts, are those thoughts you?

Just now seeing that really I’m simply describing looking itself and attributing the name “me” to that looking.

Who attributes the name "me" to that looking? Does it attribute itself to the looking? If you are aware of the looking, how can you be the looking? If you are aware of being aware of the looking, how can you be the initial awareness? If you are aware of being aware of being aware of the looking, are you the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd awareness? Do you see how absurd this is? What if we tack on a 4th awareness?

Where are you?

[aldi]

[/Hi Tyler.. trying out the quote function now! Thanks for the heads up.

Okay, just try to speak only from your own experience from now on. Hm, do you feel that you're ignorant of the truth? What would truth be? What does it mean for something to be true? Do you think I know something that you don't?

I don’t seem to be able to answer.. about truth. Since nothing I think tells me what truth is.. I think either I simply can’t really define it with thinking or that it is what’s left when I have exhausted that thinking! So yes, in some way I feel that I’m ignorant.
In a similar way, I can’t even say what it means for something to be true, or even whether I believe you know something I don’t!! Blimey!

When there seems to be looking, why must there be something looking? When a light shines, is there both a light, as well as a shining? Or is the light and the shining one and the same? Where is the boundary between the light and the shining? When the wind blows, is there both the wind, as well as a blowing?

The looking without something doing the looking .. yes! And when I look I’m not sure I can find the boundary between the looking and the seen.

What is the "you" that the looking is attributable to? Even if you have consequential thoughts, are those thoughts you?

Again, I don’t know what this me is, apart from a collection of thoughts, habits. Have never found “it” or seen “it”. So no, no consequential thoughts are me.

Who attributes the name "me" to that looking? Does it attribute itself to the looking? If you are aware of the looking, how can you be the looking? If you are aware of being aware of the looking, how can you be the initial awareness? If you are aware of being aware of being aware of the looking, are you the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd awareness? Do you see how absurd this is? What if we tack on a 4th awareness?

Yes, completely absurd! The sentence “I am looking” is a thought (I) attached to the act of simply looking. There is just looking.

Where are you?

Right here, and yet nowhere to be found. I’ve asked that question many times today while I was working outside. The answer was immediate every time - Here. But now that I’m sitting quietly, the question becomes an enquiry - I don’t find any place where there is a discrete me, yet with my eyes open there’s some sense of everything altogether being “me”, though an impersonal me. Not sure that that makes any sense at all?

More thanks Tyler, no tears tonight, a good laugh at your pointer to the absurd. And now sleep - I’m on South Australian time.

[ty0]

Morning, I'm in Singapore so only an hour or 2 behind you I think. The quote function seems to have malfunctioned for you hahah, but it did make your answer easier to read, so there's that.

I don’t seem to be able to answer.. about truth. Since nothing I think tells me what truth is.. I think either I simply can’t really define it with thinking or that it is what’s left when I have exhausted that thinking! So yes, in some way I feel that I’m ignorant.
In a similar way, I can’t even say what it means for something to be true, or even whether I believe you know something I don’t!! Blimey!

Okay, so you're not sure what it means for something to be true, yet you seem to believe that truth exists and you haven't found it. Why should truth exist? You said it could be what's left when you have exhausted thinking, but the only stuff apart from thought is the 5 senses. Are the 5 senses "truth"? Are they more true than thought? If so, are they not with you all the time?

The looking without something doing the looking .. yes! And when I look I’m not sure I can find the boundary between the looking and the seen.

This is great. Now try seeing. Seeing is quite different from looking. Seeing doesn't require any effort like looking does. When you see, is there a see-er, seeing, and the seen? Or is it so intimate that that question sounds like nonsense because there's obviously no see-er or seeing?

yet with my eyes open there’s some sense of everything altogether being “me”, though an impersonal me. Not sure that that makes any sense at all?

Does it feel like "you" are everything? Have you stopped identifying with the person aldi and instead begun to identify with everything? Why must "you" be all this? Can it just be all this? Without tacking a "you" on it?


Let's make a useful (yet artificial) distinction moving forward.
There are 2 parts of your experience:
1) Direct Experience (DE, 5 senses)
2) Thought.
Anything that is not DE is thought.

Try this:
Ask: "What's here that's not a thought?" Then, LOOK. If thoughts arise, note that those are just thoughts, don't judge them or yourself. Then, return to the question. If you find yourself judging, note that the judging itself is just more thought. Then, return to the question. LOOK in the gap between question and thought. As soon as you notice that there is a gap, note that EVEN THAT NOTICING is another thought. If you have doubts about doing this correctly, note that even the doubts are just thoughts. Go back and back and back again. "What's here that's not a thought?"

How much of your reality is really just thought? Go deep and you'll see

[aldi]

Hi Tyler - very glad to read your post today and to work with it as often as i remembered. And yes that is funny about the quotes.. this evening I’ll try writing on the ipad to see if that is better! I just looked at the preview and see that it isn’t any better! And there may be a second page missing - the preview doesn’t show it. I’ll submit anyway.

[/Okay, so you're not sure what it means for something to be true, yet you seem to believe that truth exists and you haven't found it. Why should truth exist? You said it could be what's left when you have exhausted thinking, but the only stuff apart from thought is the 5 senses. Are the 5 senses "truth"? Are they more true than thought? If so, are they not with you all the time?

Yes, I can see that belief, that there is something I have called truth. An abstract, an idea. There’s more reality in the 5 senses than in thought - I can’t taste something in the future for instance, but right now I can taste toothpaste. The senses are with me all the time that I’m awake. I don’t think of the senses as truth, but seeing as they give shape to experience, they must be part of truth. I’m saying part because I just saw that I can attach a label to a sense which stops the DE - the taste of toothpaste is just that, but I can call it peppermint which joins it to a thought. The DE is truthful but the label may or may not be!
Very mental but I see that I’ve held a concept as a goal. I’ve absorbed the idea that truth is that which doesn’t come and go. Now?

[/This is great. Now try seeing. Seeing is quite different from looking. Seeing doesn't require any effort like looking does. When you see, is there a see-er, seeing, and the seen? Or is it so intimate that that question sounds like nonsense because there's obviously no see-er or seeing?

Oh.. yes to the intimacy, the lack of effort required. Looking is the directing of attention in or out, whilst seeing seems to be almost a passive absorption. Field of vision, clarity of form, colours, all suddenly shifted slightly when i first tried this
today. I can’t find see-er or seeing - all that is left is the seen. DE, no labels! But this does take conscious effort - it’s immediately easy to go back to labelling that which is being looked “at”.

[/quote Does it feel like "you" are everything? Have you stopped identifying with the person aldi and instead begun to identify with everything? Why must "you" be all this? Can it just be all this? Without tacking a "you" on it?

[aldi]

Hi again Tyler - it looks like the second half of my writing has disappeared.. and it’s too late to start again tonight. How strange!
Will come back to it again in the morning..
Night

[ty0]

You know what, don't worry about the quote function and just write however is easiest for you hahah. I'll read it all and write you a reply once you've got the 2nd part out

[aldi]

Thanks for the quotes let up - I’ll just put ordinary quotes around your text and leave mine plain.

“Does it feel like "you" are everything? Have you stopped identifying with the person aldi and instead begun to identify with everything? Why must "you" be all this? Can it just be all this? Without tacking a "you" on it?”

The feeling that everything is me has faded, and the sense of everything altogether, no locatable boundaries, is greater, yet more ordinary, now. Identifying less with the individual aldi, so there’s much less of a me/central ‘person- feeling’ encompassing everything. The more I’m sitting here with this, the more the ‘everything altogether’ is seen. Understanding that it’s the thought-world that thinks ‘boundaries/separateness/me/not me. DE or thought!

“ Ask: "What's here that's not a thought?" Then, LOOK. If thoughts arise, note that those are just thoughts, don't judge them or yourself. Then, return to the question. If you find yourself judging, note that the judging itself is just more thought. Then, return to the question. LOOK in the gap between question and thought. As soon as you notice that there is a gap, note that EVEN THAT NOTICING is another thought. If you have doubts about doing this correctly, note that even the doubts are just thoughts. Go back and back and back again. "What's here that's not a thought?"
How much of your reality is really just thought? Go deep and you’ll see”

Since reading your suggestion I’ve had a couple of sits where I could fully engage with asking. Last night, to begin with, for what seemed like a long time, there were no discernible gaps between asking and thought. At some point there was then a disappearance - I wasn’t asleep, it wasn’t silence. Stillness? Blackness? These descriptions arose after the bell, along with the recognition of some awareness deeply in the background that must have also been present during the sit. This morning’s sit was very different - you said noticing itself is a thought - I noticed all the way through the sit! Noticing going along constantly. Noticing the body, the asking, the looking, the gaps, the thoughts. Does that mean that the entire experiential existence is thought? Or simply that I’ve seen that my reality is almost entirely thought?! I don’t mean to be overly jovial in writing that..
Tyler - thank you again! I hope I’m not testing your patience with my lack of IT proficiency? Wish there were better words to describe gratitude - I’m deeply grateful for your help in this unleashing

[ty0]

I don’t think of the senses as truth, but seeing as they give shape to experience, they must be part of truth.

You said peppermint is a thought-label that has nothing to do with DE. Is the same thing not happening when you define DE as a "part of truth"? Or when you say it "gives shape to experience"? Can anything you say or believe about DE change it Or represent it in any accurate way?

the recognition of some awareness deeply in the background that must have also been present during the sit.

Why must some awareness have been present? Even you saying it "must have also been present" tells me that you've somehow logically deduced its presence, rather than experiencing it in DE. What the heck even is awareness? Why do you assume the existence of something you can't even experience?

you said noticing itself is a thought - I noticed all the way through the sit!

I said noticing that there's a gap is a thought. When you SEE, is there any noticing of the seen? Does the noticing come and go? Are there periods where there is no noticing? If you ask yourself "is there noticing?", does the noticing immediately arise? Before you wonder if there is noticing, is there any noticing?

Does that mean that the entire experiential existence is thought?

You've seen that thought is (almost) ever-present, but does that indicate that your entire experience is thought? Sight is ever-present, even when you close your eyes you can see patterns. Does that mean the entire experiential existence is sight? Same goes for all the other senses. What's up with this tendency to make observations and then attempt to extrapolate them in search of some kind of truth that can be said?

Or simply that I’ve seen that my reality is almost entirely thought

That's just another thought. Can you really SEE "that your reality is almost entirely thought", or can you only think it?

No worries about the IT stuff, I can read your responses pretty clearly. Before you go on looking for something true that you can hold onto, it might be good to ask yourself "What is truth?". What does it mean for something to be true? Have fun :)

[aldi]

Hi Tyler..

“What does it mean for something to be true? What is truth?”

This is just a thought!

“What is here that is not a thought?”

Feel a tingling in my lips. Notice that . That’s a thought. Come back and ask question again: no thing. Notice that. Come back and ask question again.

“You said peppermint is a thought-label that has nothing to do with DE. Is the same thing not happening when you define DE as a "part of truth"? Or when you say it "gives shape to experience"? Can anything you say or believe about DE change it Or represent it in any accurate way?”

DE is simply that - cannot be changed by thought and no words accurately describe it.
No knower is needed.
I’ve sat with this for a good while now, seemingly in mental loops. What am I looking for? That’s a thought. Noticing that is also a thought and so on, ad infinitum (and, as you pointed out, absurd). So, return to the senses. Sensation of body on floor - as soon as I say that, it’s a thought! DE rules ok!
All these words - Truth/Knowing/Real/Impermanence - thoughts.
Different format tonight, hopefully ok ?
Night :)

[ty0]

Morning

So who are you? What is self? What is no-self?

[aldi]

Hi Tyler - the very succinct format feels good!

“So who are you?”

No answer!

“What is self? What is No-self?”

Heart beating fast. Shoes on the rack. A cup on the table. Feet on the ground. Ringing in the ears. Now. This. No answer.

Ahhh.. thank you again Tyler
Night