Shut the Gate

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:11 am

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
The self is a *belief* in being an independent and enduring entity who is the thinker of thoughts and the doer of actions. Moreover, the self is a *feeling* of standing apart from the body and the world, and/or being located in the head somewhere, which is wherefrom it seems the body and world must be managed/navigated.

What are you looking for at LU?
I'm looking for help in uncovering and peeling back more layers of false beliefs re the sense of self. I feel I've had some outer layers peel away already, but as I've primarily pursued contemplative practice/self-inquiry on my own, I believe that more layers could be exposed if I were to work with another person perhaps.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Whilst I don't think I *expect* anything, I would *like* an honest and productive conversation with a guide/contemplative peer, and I would *like* to have the sort of dialectic that could potentially provoke an insight or two into who/what I am and how I might reduce unnecessary forms of suffering in me and enhance my capacities for love and friendship.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I've been drawn to, and engaged in, contemplative practice for about ten years now. I've primarily worked with contemporary Buddhist methods and models, which have been quite fruitful, producing on occasion mystical/non-dual experiences and lasting insight. Some contemplative figures I've found influential/resonant are as follows: Sam Harris, Loch Kelly, Cynthia Bourgeault, Glen Wallis, David Chapman, Culadasa, Daniel Ingram, Hokai Sobol, Justin Wall, Nisargadatta Maharaj. I've also found the accounts of awakening of everyday people particularly compelling.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
9

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:53 am

Hi,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I can assist you with your inquiry.

This is going to be your inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have. We can have a conversation and see where it takes you.

The purpose of which would be for there to be a realisation, more than just intellectually, that there never was and never will be a separate self, as, such. All our efforts will focus on that.

I will tend to ask many questions. That's my job here. These, will be pointers towards no self. It will be for you to examine your experience to find out what's true or not.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily.
If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Could you please tell me what are you really looking for? How would your life change if you find that?
What are you hoping for to change?
What do you hope that should happen?
Do you have an image in mind how seeing through the self-illusion would be like or feel like?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:59 pm

Thanks, Vivien. I appreciate you taking the time to help me with this inquiry.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know. Can we agree on these?


Yes, I can agree to those terms.

Could you please tell me what are you really looking for?

I suppose I’m looking to find out if it’s possible to deepen my experiential understanding of the illusion of self. Over the years, I’ve reflected on this illusion a bit. I’ve had a number of direct experiences of the self dropping away, ranging from very brief glimpses to a 2-3 day shift into non-dual perception. Moreover, any time I ask myself if there exists in me a separate, enduring entity, the clear answer from experience is “no”. But, I guess I’m just curious how deeply the illusion of the self can be realised, and if and how that realisation can be stabilised.

How would your life change if you find that? What are you hoping for to change? What do you hope that should happen?

Given that many forms of unnecessary suffering for me can be traced back to this illusory self, I suspect that seeing more and more clearly its illusory nature might reduce some of that unnecessary suffering, and perhaps even open up my capacity for love/compassion. But, ultimately, I don’t know if/how life might change. I guess I’d like to find out.

Do you have an image in mind of how seeing through the self-illusion would be like or feel like?

I suppose I can’t help but have an image of seeing through the self-illusion, because I’ve had such experiences. I guess I’m now looking to find out if it’s possible to deepen that seeing, perhaps even stabilise it.

Again, thank you, Vivien, for taking the time to work with me here.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:59 am

Hi Nels,

What name would you like me to call you?

I would like to ask you to learn to use the quotation function, so our conversation will be easier to read later for both of us.
So here is the link to a video how to quote:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

Thank you for getting through these questions about expectations. It’s important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now.

Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations result in comparison. Comparison between what is happening, and the imagined expectation. Thus what has been seen can be thrown out or ignored, since it doesn’t match the expected outcome.
I suppose I’m looking to find out if it’s possible to deepen my experiential understanding of the illusion of self. Over the years, I’ve reflected on this illusion a bit. I’ve had a number of direct experiences of the self dropping away, ranging from very brief glimpses to a 2-3 day shift into non-dual perception. Moreover, any time I ask myself if there exists in me a separate, enduring entity, the clear answer from experience is “no”. But, I guess I’m just curious how deeply the illusion of the self can be realised, and if and how that realisation can be stabilised.
OK. We can dig deep together to see what beliefs are still there. The separate self is being held together by several beliefs and assumptions, and also by the emotional wounds we carry inside.
Given that many forms of unnecessary suffering for me can be traced back to this illusory self, I suspect that seeing more and more clearly its illusory nature might reduce some of that unnecessary suffering, and perhaps even open up my capacity for love/compassion.
When there is suffering, it’s not just because there is a belief in a self. Suffering happens when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added on narrative.

And the personality stays almost completely intact when the self is seen through. All the conditionings from childhood, all the traumas, all the gathered emotional pains won’t dissolve in an instant just because the self is seen through. These most likely will stay, however, they are much more accessible and easier to work with after seeing through the illusion. This is just the first step, just the beginning, and not the end. The falling away of conditioning can last at the end of the organism.
and perhaps even open up my capacity for love/compassion.
Love or peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about seeing that emotions don’t belong to anything. They are free floating without being tied to or anchored to anything.

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (love, happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual. Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.
I suppose I can’t help but have an image of seeing through the self-illusion, because I’ve had such experiences. I guess I’m now looking to find out if it’s possible to deepen that seeing, perhaps even stabilise it.
OK. So you had certain experiences. But experiences are always subject to change. Experience is never fixed, it’s always in flux or motion. But seeing that there is no separate self living and governing life is not an experience or a state. Rather it’s a deep recognition of it being a fact.
But, ultimately, I don’t know if/how life might change. I guess I’d like to find out.
Yes, it cannot be known in advance how it will be. Why? Because all expectations come on behalf of a separate self, who is always in a search for peace, happiness, lack of fear and suffering. We simply cannot imagine it, since we cannot step outside from the separate self’s perspective. We can only imagine it within the dream of me. The illusionary me is simply unable to imagine how it would be if it were discovered to be just a fictional character and not a reality. It can only imagine what it wants for itself.

Please ponder on my comments to see your expectations from a different perspective. Because what I can say for sure, it won’t be how you imagine it to be. Since it cannot be known in advance. It’s never how one imagines it to be.

So it would be the best, if you could drop all your expectations (including wanting back the experiences you had before), and just to be a clean slate.

Please, put all the books and videos aside, we are going to be focusing on what you see, rather than what you have learned. Can we agree on this?

Before starting, please read my above comments carefully a few more times and tell me what comes up by reading the comments about the expectations.
Is there any resistance to any of it?

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:00 am

What name would you like me to call you?
Thanks, Vivien. You can call me Nelson.
Please, put all the books and videos aside, we are going to be focusing on what you see, rather than what you have learned. Can we agree on this?
Agreed.
Before starting, please read my above comments carefully a few more times and tell me what comes up by reading the comments about the expectations. Is there any resistance to any of it?
I agree with much of what your wrote. To be clearer, I don’t think I have expectations as such, as in I don’t think anything in particular should happen. Rather, I think there could be a bunch of possible outcomes, including nothing that interesting at all happening. Again, I’m just curious to find out what’s possible.

That said, I'm sure we could discover some hidden/subtle expectations that I’m not currently aware of, and if so, hopefully this process might weed them out. In any case, I will do my best to park my expectations, hopes, hypotheses, etc. for the time being.
Do you feel ready to start the investigation?
Yes. Let’s do it.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:39 am

Hi Nelson,

All right, let’s start it then. We are going to start to investigate thoughts. Seeing thoughts clearly is essential part of the inquiry.

It is very important that you never think or ponder on the questions. Rather you actually have to look what you can see in your immediate experience before any thought interpretation.

Please always be thorough with looking. Look repeatedly several times before replying.

What do you do exactly in order to think?

How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?


Please be careful not to think about these questions, but actually sit and NOTICE how you think, how you do it exactly. So don’t go to theories, speculations, philosophy, or any learned information. Just notice what is happening here now in the immediacy of your own experience.

Please spend a whole day investigating these questions. Look again and again and again. Even if the answer seems to be clear, look more.

This investigation is about persistent repetition. Looking at the same thing again and again in experience, what brings about any realization.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:48 am

Hi Vivien,

Hope your day was good. My response below.
What do you do exactly in order to think? How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?

Please be careful not to think about these questions, but actually sit and NOTICE how you think, how you do it exactly. So don’t go to theories, speculations, philosophy, or any learned information. Just notice what is happening here now in the immediacy of your own experience.

The pronoun “you” in the question/instructions makes this exercise a little bit of a challenge. Whilst I know you’re just using “you” as a convention of language, it nevertheless implies/assumes a doer of thinking, a maker/birther of thoughts, etc. When I sit with the question as stated, I can’t help but think about it, and think about it from the perspective of a separate self, which is itself a sort of thought. This then leads to a discursive spiral—thoughts chasing after thoughts, like a dog chasing its own tail.

If I rephrase the question to read “how does thinking occur?” or “how are thoughts made/birthed/brought into existence?”, I can notice/observe that thinking arises on its own out of a sort of nothingness, sometimes in response to stimuli, but often not. At first, thinking appears as a murmur or a subtle movement of energy. Then, it might manifest as an image, a bit of language, some inner talk, etc., before it eventually dissipates and returns to that nothingness again.

Also, whilst this may not always be the case, thinking often seems to arise out of a sort of internalised gesture of grasping, which may be subtle or gross. This seems especially so when the “I”-thought arises more strongly. Here, the “I”-thought seems to act like a large object in space around which other thoughts begin to coalesce and orbit.

Something else I noticed was the role of attention/awareness. If consciousness collapses into a narrowly focussed attention, thoughts seem to proliferate more readily. But, if there is a broad, metacognitive awareness present, especially one anchored to the senses, thoughts seem less likely to manifest in great numbers. But, once again, all this happens on its own, and out of what seems like a void.

Be interesting to get your response/thoughts.

With thanks,
Nelson

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:37 am

Hi Nelson,
The pronoun “you” in the question/instructions makes this exercise a little bit of a challenge. Whilst I know you’re just using “you” as a convention of language, it nevertheless implies/assumes a doer of thinking, a maker/birther of thoughts, etc.
And this is exactly what we are investigating. If there is a doer, a thinker of thoughts.
When I sit with the question as stated, I can’t help but think about it, and think about it from the perspective of a separate self, which is itself a sort of thought. This then leads to a discursive spiral—thoughts chasing after thoughts, like a dog chasing its own tail.
I find it interesting that using a word makes such a big difference.

Does the presence or the absence of a thought of I have any effect on what is going on?

Please alternate between these two questions, and watch like a hawk….
What do I do in order to think?
What is being done in order to thoughts happen?


Does the single word of ‘I’ has such a power?
Does the word I have any power?

I can’t help but think about it, and think about it from the perspective of a separate self
Stay with the question with the word ‘I’ in it, and investigate:

“I can’t help but think about it” - What does the word I point to in this sentence?
What is it that can’t help but think about it?
What is it that is thinking about the answer?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:13 pm

Hi Vivien,

Sorry, I didn’t mean the phrase “I can’t help but think about it” in any strong sense. I just meant that following the instructions as stated seemed to produce thought responses, which you asked me to be careful not to do. That was just my experience.

In general, I don’t have any problem with the words “I” or “you”. I use them all the time. Moreover, I certainly don’t think they have any special power. However, I do think in the context of our inquiry, which involves deeply reflecting on and contemplating specific questions, a certain degree of precision with language can make a difference. Especially, given that our inquiry is about the sense of self, a phenomena very much linked to language and our language faculties.
Does the presence or the absence of a thought of I have any effect on what is going on?

Having said all that, I think the above question is a good one. I will reflect on it over the next 24 hours and come back to you.

With thanks,
Nelson

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:58 am

Hi Viven,

To help our conversation along a bit, I would like to make a distinction between the word “I” and the experience of “I”. The word “I”, whether spoken, written, or thought, is a linguistic symbol. It is not inherently bad or good in my view. It can, however, be problematic insofar as its automatic usage helps reinforce a delusional belief in a separate and enduring self entity (an ego, a soul, a subject, etc.)—which is typically the referent of the word “I”, or what is signified by “I” as signifier. But, again, in and of itself, the word “I” is not a problem. In fact, it is often quite useful.

In contrast, the experience of “I” is the felt sense of, and lived belief in, being a separate and enduring self entity (an ego, a soul, a subject, etc.). This, too, is not inherently bad or good in my view, but can also be problematic. Like pretty much everything, the experience of “I” seems to exist on a continuum. Which is to say, the felt sense of/lived belief in being a separate, enduring self entity can be subtle/gross, pleasant/unpleasant, etc.; as a process made up of subprocesses, it can be interrupted and altered in various ways; and as a mental construct, it can be used as a building block by the mind to form various other mental constructions.

Things really only become problematic re the experience of “I” when that mode of consciousness creates unnecessary forms of suffering—which I guess it is liable to do because it is, at bottom, a delusion and a fundamental misapprehension of who/what we are and what our relationship is to others/the world/the cosmos.
Does the presence or the absence of a thought of “I” have any effect on what is going on?

Coming back to your question above, the presence/absence of both the word “I” or the experience of “I” can have anything from almost no effect on what’s going on to quite a lot of impact on what’s going on, but only insofar as they reinforce/produce delusions which lead to unnecessary forms of suffering.

Whilst I fully grant that a certain amount of pain/suffering in life is inevitable, it seems there are many unnecessary forms of suffering that are manufactured by the mind as the result of being lost in the delusion of being a separate, enduring self entity. In-group/out-group hostility, obsessive compulsive behaviours, generalised anxiety, excessive preoccupation with self image, narcissism, etc., these all seem rather unnecessary, and they all seem contingent on the delusional experience of “I”.

If you think I’ve got anything wrong with the above, please let me know, but that’s what came up for me in response to your question.

To pivot a little, I was hoping to ask you a question, if you don’t mind. What do you think the role of “the heart” is in overcoming the illusion of being a separate self? I suppose I’ve had a growing intuition that I need to become more acquainted with “the heart” if I’m to progress further with undoing the knots of the illusory self, but I’m not so sure I know how exactly to go about that. By “heart” here I don’t mean emotion, sentimentality, delusional longing, etc., but a sort of feeling way of knowing. Actually, to be honest, I’m not sure exactly what I mean. If you can sort of intuit what I might be trying to say here, it would be great if you could offer a response.

With thanks,
Nelson

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:04 am

Hi Nelson,
Sorry, I didn’t mean the phrase “I can’t help but think about it” in any strong sense. I just meant that following the instructions as stated seemed to produce thought responses, which you asked me to be careful not to d
And yes, that’s why I asked you to investigate it. So what I ask you to do is to NOTICE what is going on when the word ‘I’ is in the question.

Investigating this is important. Since we hardly have any thought without the words of I/me/my/mine.
And if you don’t investigate what makes these words so powerful (seemingly), then you are end up staying the same.

I mean, it’s not enough to see something when you look and use only certain pointers. Seeing that there is no separate self should be clear in the midst of your everyday life, when thought contents are full of words about me.
In general, I don’t have any problem with the words “I” or “you”. I use them all the time. Moreover, I certainly don’t think they have any special power. However, I do think in the context of our inquiry, which involves deeply reflecting on and contemplating specific questions, a certain degree of precision with language can make a difference.
This is what I used to believe too. But it turned out that using a language which leaves out self-referencing words just creates an artificial division between looking or meditation and everyday life.

Our focus is not just simply to see things when looking, rather to investigate what is going on in the midst of your busy life, when thoughts are about a me.

So please investigate this, and let me know what you find.
Especially focus on this part:

Does the presence or the absence of a thought of I have any effect on what is going on?

Please alternate between these two questions, and watch like a hawk….
What do I do in order to think?
What is being done in order to thoughts happen?


Does the single word of ‘I’ has such a power?
Does the word I have any power?
If not, what is the EXACT experiential difference between the two?


You might not think that word of ‘I’ have powers, and yet, it apparently has, since you go to thinking instead of noticing what is going on.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:06 am

It seems that we posted about the same time, so I haven't read your second reply yet.

I'm going to read it now.
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:21 am

Hi Nelson,

I’ve just read your latest reply. While I don’t doubt that you have had some experiential recognition of there being no inherent self, your reply is mainly intellectual. You wrote down how you interpret things, how you see things (here by seeing I mean what is your intellectual understanding of them).

You have probably gather a plethora of information about this topic over the years.
But none of them will be helpful to actually see what is going on.
Actually, all intellectual understanding is in the way.
Since it creates a stance of “I already know”, so there is no room to discover anything new.
This is something very common, it happened to many people, including me.
And the sad thing about it that we often don’t see that this is what’s going on. It becomes a blind spot.
So my job is just to give you pointers, but also to spot your blind spots.
To pivot a little, I was hoping to ask you a question, if you don’t mind. What do you think the role of “the heart” is in overcoming the illusion of being a separate self? I suppose I’ve had a growing intuition that I need to become more acquainted with “the heart” if I’m to progress further with undoing the knots of the illusory self, but I’m not so sure I know how exactly to go about that. By “heart” here I don’t mean emotion, sentimentality, delusional longing, etc., but a sort of feeling way of knowing. Actually, to be honest, I’m not sure exactly what I mean. If you can sort of intuit what I might be trying to say here, it would be great if you could offer a response.
You see, you have heard and learned the concept of the heart, which is a quite common notion nowadays. Many teachers talk about it. But thing is that this is just a metaphor trying to explain to get of the intellect, get out of thoughts, get out of trying to understand things and analyse and interpret them, and just stay with the immediate experience BEFORE any thoughts.

And this is what I’m asking you to do too.
As long as we don’t leave the secure realm of the intellect, there cannot be a deep, experiential recognition.
And there is a risk that we take our intellectual understanding as an experiential one.
And yes, there might have been some experiential seeing, but we are quickly jumping back to the realm of thoughts and creating a concept out of it that we can believe in from that on.
This is very common, almost all of us do this.

So I would like to ask you to back to my previous comment, and investigate those pointers I gave you.

The goal is to get out of ‘the head’, out of the intellect, and become an clean slate, where you don’t know anything.
It’s about how much you can let go and get into the realm of not-knowing.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Nels
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:08 am

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Nels » Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:42 am

Hi Vivien,

Sorry, I didn’t think I was being abstruse, but I guess that’s more a reflection of the way I write, not how I observe my conscious experience. In any case, I assure you everything I’ve written is grounded ultimately in my direct experience—which is not to say I’m observing my experience perfectly, only that I am observing it.

To be honest, I don’t think it’s possible to communicate one’s experience to someone else without a degree of interpretation and/or without using one’s intellect to some extent, but I understand the point. I get the importance of being as true as possible to one’s experience. Also, sorry, but I feel like I’m hearing a lot of spiritual tropes from you (e.g. “OK, so you had certain experiences”, “all intellectual understanding is in the way”, “the heart is just a concept”, etc.) Whilst there is definitely some truth to all of them, I think it would be helpful for me if you gave me the benefit of the doubt here. If you don’t mind, please trust that I’m aware of those sorts of pitfalls. In turn, I will trust that you are pointing me in the right direction.

I suppose what I’m really after is just as clear instructions as possible. Initially, I was sort of stumped by the contradiction between your question and instructions. Also, the follow up question “What is being done in order to thoughts happen?” doesn’t quite make sense. I’ve rephrased it below. If you can give me really clear instructions, I assure you I will follow them experientially, not intellectually.

For now, I will meditate earnestly on the below questions. I will observe, as you've requested, like a hawk.

What do I do in order to think?
What is being done in order for thoughts to happen?

With thanks,
Nelson

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6630
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Shut the Gate

Postby Vivien » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Hi Nelson,
o be honest, I don’t think it’s possible to communicate one’s experience to someone else without a degree of interpretation and/or without using one’s intellect to some extent, but I understand the point.
It’s not possible to communicate it as it is, but it can be recognized when a comment is coming from seeing and not from thinking.
Also, sorry, but I feel like I’m hearing a lot of spiritual tropes from you (e.g. “OK, so you had certain experiences”, “all intellectual understanding is in the way”, “the heart is just a concept”, etc.)
These are not metaphors or figurative speaking.

I’m one of those few guides who I communicate very clearly, without metaphors and I rarely talk figuratively. When I do so, I make it clear.

Many guides use metaphors and analogies that I don’t really find useful, since that ask for more thinking.

You might think that if you got the right or the clearest pointer, then you will be able to see it.
But it’s not about the right pointer.
It’s about discovering where you are tripping over and look into the direction that the pointer is pointing to.

The heart is literally a concept. But don’t take my words for it, but check it for yourself.
And your intellectual understanding is literally in the way.
Why? Since with intellectual understanding there is a stance that “I already know’.
So there is no room to discover how things are, since I already know. And no real looking/investigation happen, since I already know.

This investigation is about putting aside everything we know and start it as a clean slate.
Whilst there is definitely some truth to all of them, I think it would be helpful for me if you gave me the benefit of the doubt here.
And HOW do you know that what you know is how it actually is, if you don’t investigate what you already know?

This inquiry is to get into the mindset of a child, who has no knowledge about how things are.
This not-knowing is the place where discovery can happen.
I suppose what I’m really after is just as clear instructions as possible
The questions of ‘what do you do in order to think? And how do you make a thought into existence?” are very clear one.
Since there is a belief or an assumption that there is a self, a me, who is thinking. That there is a thinker of thoughts, and I am that. There is one who can decide what to think and has a control over thoughts.

This is one of the most important question I can give you. You can use it in a passive tense, if you like.

But we are investigating if thoughts are made or done or thought by someone or something, or they happen totally automatically, without an entity, a person, a me, or anything else making them happen.

Just because you cannot see clearly with a pointer, it doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the pointer.
Maybe you don't know how to look. Or maybe you are judging the pointer according to some standards, which prevents you to actually investigate.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests