The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
'Self' is a concept, a constructed identity that attaches a story to itself. We are conditioned our whole lives to believe this construct, that that is who we are a body and an identity. However this actual 'self' does not exist, we are only awareness. Awareness having an experience through sensory activities.

What are you looking for at LU?
I am looking to subside the ego, thoughts and the story that I have attached to my experience over the years. I don't see the point in continuing the suffering if it's not real. I understand that thoughts are not who we are, however it is very easy to get lost in them. I am looking to calm down the noise. I feel that intellectually I understand what is presented in front of me through ideas/teachings and yet I'm not there just yet...

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I need someone to guide me through this process. Although I'm reading and listening to talks about this, I feel like it is temporary and I revert back to being caught up in the story very quickly. Having someone consistently guiding me and explaining terms as they unfold may be something that will lead to a better understanding. The key is consistency and that is what I lack, therefore I hope this will change as there is a level of consistency expected.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I have practiced Yoga and Meditation for a while.
Attended Tibetan Singing Bowl Meditation sessions.
Read several spiritual books. My journey to self-enquiry stopped for a few years, however it came back much stronger in the last few months.
Recently I have watched several non-duality videos and am currently reading non-duality related books.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

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

Hi Vivian,

Thank you for replying to my thread. You can call me Greta.
I will commit to posting daily.

Q. Could you please tell me what are you really looking for? How would your life change if you find that?

I am looking for peace of mind. I experience glimpses of it throughout my days, however it leaves as quickly as it comes. It is taken away by thoughts, ones that are mostly related to past experiences. I am learning through meditation and other teachings that thoughts are just things that pass by and 'past' does not really exist. While this is comforting, I struggle to snap out of those thoughts, especially when the body responds physically to them. If I found that most of the experiences would have no affect. They would just come and go. It would be easier.

Q. What are you hoping for to change?

I hope my experience of life changes. My perspective of every situation stops fluctuating from negative to positive and I embrace things in front of me as they appear. I hope the attachment to emotions and everything around me is broken. I have struggled with a number of different attachments throughout the years...from people/partners to objects and emotions. I would like to believe that I broke attachments to people and objects at this point, however the bond between emotions and I is still there involuntarily.

Q. What do you hope that should happen?

I hope the illusion of the 'self' and my attachment to it will be broken. The attachment to the story that has been playing in my mind should stop influencing the experience. This story influences other thoughts, my behavior and choices. That made up story had a constant hold on my life as it constantly reminded me where I should be in life, what I should be doing, constantly concentrating on the future and what I should be.
I hope the peace of mind that I am seeking will help me realize how inconsequential that story really is.

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

I want to believe I have experienced brief moments of realization that I associate with seeing through the self-illusion, however they felt too brief...and my mind would tell me afterwards that they probably weren't realizations after all.

Thank you,
Greta

Hi Greta,

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 am learning through meditation and other teachings that thoughts are just things that pass by and 'past' does not really exist. While this is comforting, I struggle to snap out of those thoughts, especially when the body responds physically to them.

I understand what you mean. We are so used to focus on the content of thoughts that we cannot see in the moment that those are just thoughts and not reality.

If I found that most of the experiences would have no affect. They would just come and go. It would be easier.

So do you think that there is an I who is being affected by thoughts and the bodily responses to them? What if no one is affected? What if thoughts and emotions just float by without happening to anyone, without being anchored to anything?

I hope my experience of life changes. My perspective of every situation stops fluctuating from negative to positive and I embrace things in front of me as they appear.

This is a big one. It’s one thing to see that there is no separate self, and it’s another not to resist what is happening.
Basically what you are after is to not take things personally. But person is a concept. Things hurt not because of person being there, but because there is a wound inside that is touched by certain stimuli. That wound is not a person. Person is an added on narrative.

I hope the attachment to emotions and everything around me is broken.

This desire is based on the assumption that there is someone who is currently attached to things, so this attachment can be broken. But what if there is no one being attached to things? What if the one that is seemingly attached to things is just a ‘ghost in the machine’?

This story influences other thoughts, my behavior and choices. That made up story had a constant hold on my life as it constantly reminded me where I should be in life, what I should be doing, constantly concentrating on the future and what I should be.

The story by itself is not a problem. But it gets problematic when we believe that I am that story. The story is about me and my life, and I am that story. And I am the one who is attached. When we believe that the story is real and actuality and not seeing it to be just a story, that’s when things get problematic. But it’s just story that doesn’t happen to anyone, it only talks about someone.

So it’s not about not having any negative or unpleasant emotions. It’s not about getting into a blank state where there is no more fluctuation of emotions. Freedom doesn’t come from wanting to get rid of unpleasant experiences. That is not freedom. That is a resistance to half of the human emotions. Freedom is about feeling ALL emotions freely without the need to run away from them. Freedom is about realizing that no emotion can touch you so you are free to feel them all fully.

The thing is that it cannot be know 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, 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

Hi Vivian,

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 agree with that. If there were expectations present in any way in relation to any situation that occurred, the outcome never met the expectation. Naturally, I've had many expectations for my life and the outcomes never matched them, however they were equally rewarding.

I understand what you mean. We are so used to focus on the content of thoughts that we cannot see in the moment that those are just thoughts and not reality.

I have started to acknowledge that the content of thoughts is not real. It began when the thoughts would appear of really intense, crazy images or ideas that had absolutely nothing to do with Greta as a person. It was easy to not pay much attention to them because I felt like they weren't part of the story. It gets trickier when thoughts appear based on past experiences that have caused much suffering. These felt personal. Similar evets occurred in Greta's life, therefore suffering resurfaces.

So do you think that there is an I who is being affected by thoughts and the bodily responses to them? What if no one is affected? What if thoughts and emotions just float by without happening to anyone, without being anchored to anything?

That belief was there for my whole life, however now I'm starting to question that. If no one is affected by thoughts then we shouldn't pay so much attention and energy to these thoughts. They would still be there but in the background, flowing in and out like a breath.

This is a big one. It’s one thing to see that there is no separate self, and it’s another not to resist what is happening.
Basically what you are after is to not take things personally. But person is a concept. Things hurt not because of person being there, but because there is a wound inside that is touched by certain stimuli. That wound is not a person. Person is an added on narrative.

If there is no separate self, no Greta, things will not be taken personally because there will be no point. There will be nothing to attach it to.

This desire is based on the assumption that there is someone who is currently attached to things, so this attachment can be broken. But what if there is no one being attached to things? What if the one that is seemingly attached to things is just a ‘ghost in the machine’?

If there is no one being attached to things then the one experiencing them should be indifferent. If one is just a 'ghost in the machine', there should be no attachment to any of it.

The story by itself is not a problem. But it gets problematic when we believe that I am that story. The story is about me and my life, and I am that story. And I am the one who is attached. When we believe that the story is real and actuality and not seeing it to be just a story, that’s when things get problematic. But it’s just story that doesn’t happen to anyone, it only talks about someone.

I guess it's like watching a movie about someone's life. Events are occurring in front of one, however it has no direct affect on one's life.

So it’s not about not having any negative or unpleasant emotions. It’s not about getting into a blank state where there is no more fluctuation of emotions. Freedom doesn’t come from wanting to get rid of unpleasant experiences. That is not freedom. That is a resistance to half of the human emotions. Freedom is about feeling ALL emotions freely without the need to run away from them. Freedom is about realizing that no emotion can touch you so you are free to feel them all fully.

I spent years trying mentally to get away from certain emotions. I did this by keeping myself busy with college projects/ work from early morning to late evening every single day. I broke down after years of doing this and realized that you can't runaway from emotions. All that was a cause of fear, fear of facing these emotions and facing suffering.
Similarly as with thoughts, if there is no attachment of emotions to the story, then the experience of them should be indifferent.

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?

Yes we can.

Is there any resistance to any of it?

There is no resistance to any of it.

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?[/quote
I do feel ready.

Greta

Hi Greta,

If there is no separate self, no Greta, things will not be taken personally because there will be no point. There will be nothing to attach it to.

But what I am saying that there is no person here already, and yet things are being taken personally. But what does that even mean to take something personally? It means that if someone says something nasty, that could hurt. But it hurt not because there is a person, but because there a wound inside. So just because it’s recognized that there is no person in reality, things still hurt, since the wounds are there. These wounds won’t go away until they are addressed.

If there is no one being attached to things then the one experiencing them should be indifferent. If one is just a 'ghost in the machine', there should be no attachment to any of it.

Dear Greta, your expectations are high. What I am saying that just because the self is seen through, hurt or any other unpleasant sensations can still be there. Even thoughts and emotions of attachment. And yet, at the same time it can be seen that these don’t belong to a person, but they still appear. These things won’t just disappear because the self is seen through. Seeing that there is no person at the core is just the beginning, the first step and not the end. Seeing through other beliefs and working through conditionings can last at the end of the organism.

I guess it's like watching a movie about someone's life. Events are occurring in front of one, however it has no direct affect on one's life.

What you are talking about is some sort of dissociation. It’s not about watching life from the distance. It’s not about increasing the separation between me and life. Quite the opposite. It’s about seeing that all there is is life.

All that was a cause of fear, fear of facing these emotions and facing suffering.
Similarly as with thoughts, if there is no attachment of emotions to the story, then the experience of them should be indifferent.

It’s not indifference. Being indifferent would be some detachment which is a sign of certain mental disorders. We won’t become indifferent to life, suffering or pain. Quite the contrary. Instead of pushing them away, we are embracing them. Holding them with acceptance. Acceptance is not indifference. Acceptance is the lack of resistance.

I have started to acknowledge that the content of thoughts is not real. It began when the thoughts would appear of really intense, crazy images or ideas that had absolutely nothing to do with Greta as a person. It was easy to not pay much attention to them because I felt like they weren't part of the story. It gets trickier when thoughts appear based on past experiences that have caused much suffering. These felt personal. Similar evets occurred in Greta's life, therefore suffering resurfaces.

Let’s start here.

Is there a Greta outside of the story of Greta?

Is there a difference between Greta and a person? Is Greta = person?

Where is the me, the person, in this very moment?
How does the me, the person experienced?

How does Greta experienced here now?

Can the person be experienced, or the person is purely in imagination?

Please investigate these thoroughly. Make sure that you don’t think about the answers, rather investigate your immediate experience.

Vivien

Hi Greta,

I've got your message. You don't have to write a separate email, you can post freely here (unless there is something personal that you don't want to share here).

Have a nice day,
Vivien

Hi Vivien,

There seems to be some resistance and opposition to what you are saying, not necessarily to the content of the messages but simply the fact that you are telling me I'm wrong. I understand and accept what you are saying. It all makes perfect sense. Ego on the other hand seems to disagree. This has been something that has been there for years, this need to be in agreement with everyone, all the time. I guess this is the story I've been telling myself, and following through with until now.

Is there a Greta outside of the story of Greta?

There is no Greta outside of the story of Greta. Greta is a constructed identity. A name given to one by the parents. Every event, experience, circumstance has been added to this identity for years. Opinions and thoughts are being constantly formed according to those experiences. Some experiences become Greta, others are forgotten about...depending on what suits the story.

Is there a difference between Greta and a person? Is Greta = person?

I think there is no difference between Greta and a person. Greta is a person. However each person has a different story. Greta's story differs from Jennifer's story because they both had different experiences. Their thoughts and emotional responses may differ because they both had different experiences.

Where is the me, the person, in this very moment?

The me, the person is currently sitting at a kitchen table, at a laptop trying to answer these questions. My focus is jumping between this, the people around me and other noises. I am also distracted by the smell of toast. I seem to be getting easily distracted mostly because I am struggling with these questions.

How does the me, the person experienced?

The person seems to be experienced through thoughts, memories and emotions. The thoughts that appear in mind seem to be those of Greta, even though as I said before they are selected to see whether they suit the story or not. Some thoughts are actually just opinions from people around that have been adapted by the person, and were selected as the ones to be part of the story. Memories of previous events and experiences pass through as part of those thoughts. The me is experienced through emotions and responses to situations. If a situation arises and the person responds to that situation with the usual emotions they have responded with before to similar situations, it feels like that's part of the person.

How does Greta experienced here now?

Greta is experienced through self reflection and thoughts. One is trying to reflect on the story of Greta to find answers to these questions. External things that are happening around Greta right now are also adding to the experience of Greta. People in the room are acknowledging that I am Greta too, but that is only because I told them to.

Can the person be experienced, or the person is purely in imagination?

If Greta is a person, and Greta is experienced through thoughts, memories and emotions, then she is experienced purely in imagination.


Greta

Hi Greta,

There seems to be some resistance and opposition to what you are saying, not necessarily to the content of the messages but simply the fact that you are telling me I'm wrong. I understand and accept what you are saying. It all makes perfect sense. Ego on the other hand seems to disagree. This has been something that has been there for years, this need to be in agreement with everyone, all the time. I guess this is the story I've been telling myself, and following through with until now.

Thank you for your honesty. This will probably come up during our investigation since we are looking at the beliefs you are holding. When it comes up, just notice that it’s here. Notice all the thoughts and emotions that come with it. Don’t try to push it away, or change it in any way. Just gently hold it, and notice what is going on.

There is no Greta outside of the story of Greta. Greta is a constructed identity. A name given to one by the parents. Every event, experience, circumstance has been added to this identity for years. Opinions and thoughts are being constantly formed according to those experiences. Some experiences become Greta, others are forgotten about...depending on what suits the story.

Is this something you see in this very moment, or is this rather an intellectual understanding?

The me, the person is currently sitting at a kitchen table, at a laptop trying to answer these questions.

Are you sure that a me or a person is sitting at a kitchen table, or is it the body that is sitting?

Isn’t the me supposed to be an entity INSIDE the body?

The body is a body. And the body is sitting.
But is there a me here now in this very moment doing the sitting? Or sitting is just happening?

Greta is experienced through self reflection and thoughts.

And what is self reflection? Is that just more thoughts?

One is trying to reflect on the story of Greta to find answers to these questions.

You say that ONE is trying to reflect on the story of Greta. So where is the one that is reflecting on the story of Greta?

Is there actually someone reflecting on the story, or ‘reflecting on the story’ is already the part of the story? As the current thought?

Vivien

Hi Vivian,

Is this something you see in this very moment, or is this rather an intellectual understanding?

I would like to say both, however it is still feels like an intellectual understanding as the story of Greta is still strongly intact.

Are you sure that a me or a person is sitting at a kitchen table, or is it the body that is sitting?

It is the body that is sitting at the kitchen table. I am still viewing consciousness and body, to be connected and intertwined with Greta. It is quiet hard to let go of the idea of Greta because I can see the body that has been labeled Greta. I see hands with long nails and and several rings...these little details have been associated with the image of Greta so when I see them and I see them often of course, the thought that pops up is ''Greta''. The label pops up.

Isn’t the me supposed to be an entity INSIDE the body?

That is what it feels like. It feels like there is an entity inside the mind...that consciousness is inside the mind, behind the eyes. Is the mind made up of just thoughts or does it share space with consciousness?

But is there a me here now in this very moment doing the sitting? Or sitting is just happening?

Sitting is just happening. I don't think there is a me doing the sitting. The entity or consciousness is experiencing the sitting, while the body is doing the sitting. I find it easier to compare it to noises. Noises around are just happening, the entity is experiencing the noise. The body hears the noise.

And what is self reflection? Is that just more thoughts?

Yes, I guess self reflection is just more thoughts. Thoughts about the constructed identity.

You say that ONE is trying to reflect on the story of Greta. So where is the one that is reflecting on the story of Greta?

By one I mean an entity/consciousness has thoughts about the story. I would like to say that the one reflecting on the story of Greta is in the mind, however wouldn't that make it just another thought?

Is there actually someone reflecting on the story, or ‘reflecting on the story’ is already the part of the story? As the current thought?

I don't think there is anyone reflecting on the story, these reflections are more thoughts. If Greta is a person but it is also a constructed story then there is no person. If there is no person, there is no one to do the reflecting. It's just thoughts about other thoughts.

Greta

Hi Greta,
It seems that you use the words Greta, body, consciousness, me, entity interchanably.
And this is what we are investigating here, if they are actually interchanable, or they point to different things in reality.

It is quiet hard to let go of the idea of Greta because I can see the body that has been labeled Greta. I see hands with long nails and and several rings...these little details have been associated with the image of Greta so when I see them and I see them often of course, the thought that pops up is ''Greta''. The label pops up.

OK. But just because the hands is being labelled by thoughts as ‘Greta’, does that mean that the hand is a separate entity with autonomy and volition?

Or the hand is just a hand, and only thoughts add an extra meaning to those hands with a life story of Greta?

Just notice that a hand is just a hand.
The rings on the hand are just rings.
But the thought that these are the hands of Greta is just an added narrative.
Can you see this?

That is what it feels like. It feels like there is an entity inside the mind...that consciousness is inside the mind, behind the eyes. Is the mind made up of just thoughts or does it share space with consciousness?

You say that if FEELS LIKE that there is an entity INSIDE the mind. And IN that mind there is consciousness, and all of these are BEHIND the eyes. So you say that this is a FEELING.

So please describe to me this FEELING as precisely as you can, but without any speculation, any theory, without adding anything extra. Just the raw feeling itself.

The entity or consciousness is experiencing the sitting,

Where is this entity in this very moment?

I don't think there is anyone reflecting on the story, these reflections are more thoughts. If Greta is a person but it is also a constructed story then there is no person. If there is no person, there is no one to do the reflecting. It's just thoughts about other thoughts.

The thing is that this is coming from thinking.

Please be careful not to think about the answer. The whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts, so you cannot see through the illusion by the very thing that is creating it in the first place.

Seeing how things are cannot come from thinking, only from looking at experience here now.

There is a big difference between intellectual understanding and experiential recognition of being it a fact.

There is nowhere else to look, but here now.
The real answer never comes from a thought.

Vivien

Hi Vivian,

I will need some more time to answer these.

Thank you,
Greta

All right, thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

Hi Vivian,

It seems that you use the words Greta, body, consciousness, me, entity interchanably.
And this is what we are investigating here, if they are actually interchanable, or they point to different things in reality.

The words are labels. But I don't understand if they are interchangeable or they point to different things in reality. I understand that we are in the process of investigating but I don't really understand the two concepts.

Just notice that a hand is just a hand.
The rings on the hand are just rings.
But the thought that these are the hands of Greta is just an added narrative.
Can you see this?

Yes I can see that. Similarly as with everything else, for example ''my phone'' is not really...It is just a phone ...but the idea of owning it is just an added narrative.
A thought is just a thought...until the narrative of Greta is added to it and that's when it seems personal, even though it's not.

So please describe to me this FEELING as precisely as you can, but without any speculation, any theory, without adding anything extra. Just the raw feeling itself.

I don't think I can actually describe the feeling of an entity inside the mind. I don't know how to. I guess the feeling is more a thought than anything else.

Where is this entity in this very moment?

In a room.

Please be careful not to think about the answer. The whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts, so you cannot see through the illusion by the very thing that is creating it in the first place.

Seeing how things are cannot come from thinking, only from looking at experience here now.

I'm struggling to see how I can answer these questions without thinking. I constantly overthink every detail and situation, therefore not thinking about an answer is very challenging.

I put books and videos about non-duality aside for the last while. Will it interfere with the process if I go back to reading?

Greta

Hi Greta,

V: It seems that you use the words Greta, body, consciousness, me, entity interchanably.
And this is what we are investigating here, if they are actually interchanable, or they point to different things in reality.

G: The words are labels. But I don't understand if they are interchangeable or they point to different things in reality. I understand that we are in the process of investigating but I don't really understand the two concepts.

Words are just symbols, by themselves they are not actual things.
Like the word ‘apple’ is just a symbolic representation of something that is real.
But the word ‘apple’ is not the real thing itself.
Is this clear?

So there is the real deal, something that can be experience by seeing it, touching it, tasting it, smelling it. And we label this experiencable thing as ‘apple’, ‘fruit’, ‘food’.
But even if we use a different label, like ‘fruit’ or ‘food’, that would point to the same thing.
In this case, all the three words points to the same experiencable thing.

So what we are investigating if the words of Greta, body, consciousness, me, entity are pointing to a same thing, or not.
We are also investigating if all these words are actually pointing to something real, something experiencable, or there is no actual experience, actual reality behind these words, or some of these words.

Like the word ‘economy’ doesn’t point to anything real.
It’s purely just a concept, which can ever be defined by other concepts, but not with experience.
So it’s just a man-made idea, just a fictional concept, and not a reality.
The word ‘economy’ doesn’t point to anything real, just to other ideas, just to more thoughts.
Is this clear?

Yes I can see that. Similarly as with everything else, for example ''my phone'' is not really...It is just a phone ...but the idea of owning it is just an added narrative.
A thought is just a thought...until the narrative of Greta is added to it and that's when it seems personal, even though it's not.

Exactly.

I don't think I can actually describe the feeling of an entity inside the mind. I don't know how to. I guess the feeling is more a thought than anything else.

Right spot on. We often say or thing that “I feel like” without any actual feeling behind it. It’s often just an expression we use, but not an actual feeling. It’s just a thought. But if we don’t see it that this is just a thought, just words without actual feeling behind them, rather we take these thoughts for granted, then the illusion of it being an actual feeling is created.
Can you see this?

Just notice how many times in a day you thing or say “It feels like” without any actual feeling behind them.

I put books and videos about non-duality aside for the last while. Will it interfere with the process if I go back to reading?

Yes, and for several reasons. Firstly, while you read or listen to a video, then you are not investigating. Rather you are using your time watching a video instead of investigating your own experience.

Furthermore, no amount of intellectual knowledge will help you see how things are in reality.
Only investigating your own experience can help with that.
Learning more concepts and more ideas are actual in the way.
Since those are just more beliefs.
You already know too much.
You don’t need more intellectual knowledge.
What you need is a first-hand experience.

And not once, not twice, but several hundreds of times. Looking and investigating the same thing again.
But if you read a book, you don't investigate. You spend your time with reading, not investigating.

Vivien