I don’t know

[Noro]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this? The self is an unexplored assumption, belief or thought that there is a someone who is doing something or that things can happen to that someone.

What are you looking for at LU? I would like to be part of a group of explorers of non-duality who are into deep questioning of what’s appearing rather than trying to understand what’s happening. I have read a lot of Ilona’s blog and her book.

What do you expect from a guided conversation? I would like to have new fresh questions to look at. That there is no self has been seen. There is an expectation that a guided conversation might lead to nothing. That feels the most peaceful answer, if that makes sense.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry? Over ten years of different approaches, recently only the most radical, no nonsense approach is of interest.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

[Vivien]

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 realization, 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 investigating that what it is that you mistake for a 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.
Also, post daily, or at least every other day. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Over ten years of different approaches, recently only the most radical, no nonsense approach is of interest.

I think my guiding style is the no-nonsense type :)

Please look at this thoroughly for a full day, repeatedly (aim for 20-30 small lookings/investigations) before replying (of course, you don't have to count it :)

What is it that you perceive yourself to be in your everyday life?

When you say or think 'I', what do you refer to with the word 'I'?

Make sure that the answers don't come form your intellect or from any learned knowledge, but from directly observing yourself in the midst of your busy, everyday life.

Vivien

[Noro]

Dear Viven, Thank you so much for contacting me. Here goes in answer to your questions.

1. What is it that you perceive yourself to be in your everyday life?

What is it…….that I perceive myself to be…….in my everyday life?
This is a beautiful question, and it snapped me right out of the little minded "me" perspective that I have been trying to break out of for the last few days
At first attention went to the perceiving of myself as a contracted sense of being a self locked within a body. While it is known and has been perceived that there is no "I" self, the body sense of being a self is still strong and hard to dis-identify from.

Then after a second the focus went to the beginning of the question. "What is it"…and there was an immediate lightness and a smile that went through the system as there was a recognition that there could be no knowing what it is that I perceive myself to be. I have no clue, and "myself" is just a word! There was an instant shift and the perception of being a self locked within a body completely dissolved.


2. When you say or think "I", what do you refer to with the word "I"?

The word "I" is a word used in thinking and communicating. Thoughts arise by themselves, there is no thinker, and so "i" is a thought like any other. But despite that knowing, when there is a sense of being a self in a body the "I" word can become entangled with that sense of self, then it can become a vicious circle as "I" try and do something about that feeling and then it is like stirring up a hornets' nest as beliefs then creep in. This was what was happening over the last few days prior to receiving your questions. After the shift from the "what is it" question the "I" has returned to being a word like any other.

[Vivien]

Hi Noro,

What name would you like me to call you? Noro? Or maybe something else?

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.
Here is the link to a video how to quote:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

You did a very nice inquiry :)

What is it…….that I perceive myself to be…….in my everyday life?
This is a beautiful question, and it snapped me right out of the little minded "me" perspective that I have been trying to break out of for the last few days
At first attention went to the perceiving of myself as a contracted sense of being a self locked within a body. While it is known and has been perceived that there is no "I" self, the body sense of being a self is still strong and hard to dis-identify from.

Instead of trying to disidentify from the I, I suggest a different approach.
Since trying to disidentifying is some sort of denial and refusal. I don’t like this I, so try to get rid of it :)

But what is it that is trying to dis-identify?
What is it that doesn’t like it, and rather not have it?

You see, there is a hidden assumption here is that there is someone/something here that this I is happening TO, and this someone doesn’t like it, and does its best to make it go away.

So my suggestion is that instead of trying to make it go away or disidentify from it, rather approach it. Like a scientist who just discovered a very strange and interesting phenomenon and would like to know everything about it.

A scientist wouldn’t push aside its object of investigation. Rather it would put it under the microscope to have a closer look.

So we need to see what this sense of I actually is.
We need to have a close look to see what is here in reality / actuality that is mistaken for an I.
Do you see the difference in the two approaches?

Thoughts arise by themselves, there is no thinker, and so "i" is a thought like any other.

Is this something you experientially see, or is this rather a learned knowledge (that there is no thinker, thoughts appear by themselves, and the I is just a thought)?

But despite that knowing, when there is a sense of being a self in a body the "I" word can become entangled with that sense of self,

Let’s put this sense of self under the microscope. Zoom onto it, keep the attention on it, and have a good look. If it slips away, intentionally try to get back to it (I know, I am asking just the opposite you tried to do in the past :)

What is there in actuality?

What does this sense of self made of? What is the material or substance?

How big is it?

Does it have a shape? Colour? Texture?

Does it have a location?

then it can become a vicious circle as "I" try and do something about that feeling

So there is the sense of me + someone else who is trying to do something about the feeling of a sense of self…

Are there really two? A sense of self + someone who is trying to get rid of it?
Or maybe it’s the same illusion? The same character in the thought story ‘of my life’?

I’ve asked lots of questions, so if you want to you can stay with them for two whole days. Don’t rush, rather be a thorough scientist :)


Note:
I'm going to write all my questions in blue. Every blue question will be a pointer for you where to look. Please make sure that you investigate ALL the questions thoroughly in your own experience, without trying to come up with an answer from intellectual understanding, like something you've heard or read, or learned by someone else. This is something you need to see, not just understand.

So please make sure that you deeply investigate all blue questions, and you reply to them one-by-one (unless I group them into blocks).

Try to avoid replying quickly... since that would be just the mind answering with the same old beliefs or learned knowledge. Rather with each post, spend a whole day investigating it again and again, before replying. I hope you are OK with this. This deep investigation could help immensely.

Vivien

[Noro]

Dear Vivien,

Thank you for your response and the further great questions. Here goes....

First of all, do please call me by my given name which is Rowena.

But what is it that is trying to dis-identify?
What is it that doesn’t like it, and rather not have it?

It's a thought that's trying to dis-identify. Even though it is known that there is no thinker of thoughts, sometimes this is not investigated properly, especially when there is a narrative of thinking that's related to the desire for "awakening"!!
There is no "it"; there are only un-investigated thoughts about not liking "it", (the body sensations) and wanting to do something about them (another thought).

Do you see the difference in the two approaches?

Yes, I definitely do see the difference in the two approaches. I am happy to learn to be a more thorough investigator ! :)

Is this something you experientially see, or is this rather a learned knowledge (that there is no thinker, thoughts appear by themselves, and the I is just a thought)?

I do see this experientially and I know this to be true, there is no thinker of thoughts.
I also see that there are still assumptions or beliefs lurking in the system that have not been thoroughly examined and seen for what they are. I am seeing how helpful it is to spend time with your questions. I see how thoughts combined with other thoughts can create a sort of confusion in the investigation process, and how important it is to take time in clearly seeing them for what they are.

What is there in actuality?

There are the felt sensations in the body being erroneously labelled as a sense of self instead of body sensations.

What does this sense of self made of? What is the material or substance?

Sense of self is a label. It is imagined, made up, it is not made of anything, it is a thought attached to body sensations. It has no material or substance.

How big is it?

It has no size.

Does it have a shape? Colour? Texture?

It has no shape, colour or texture.

Does it have a location?

No, there is no location for a sense of self. Feeling body sensations are felt in various places within the body.

Are there really two? A sense of self + someone who is trying to get rid of it?
Or maybe it’s the same illusion? The same character in the thought story ‘of my life’?

No, there are not two. There is no such thing as a sense of self, there is only the felt sense. Nor is there any evidence of there being a someone who is trying to get rid of it. It is the same illusion. Thought, (sense of self) making a judgmental thought about the felt sensations in the body and then creating another thought, "I want to get rid of it". YES, this is the same fictional character playing in the thought-story 'of my life!"

This last question was really helpful in clarifying what was going on.

I hope I've managed the questions and answers in the correct way!

Thank you so much for your help Vivien,

Warm wishes
Rowena

[Vivien]

Hi Rowena,

There is no "it"; there are only un-investigated thoughts about not liking "it", (the body sensations) and wanting to do something about them (another thought).

Exactly. So use your emotions (the unpleasant ones) as feedbacks. They show you that you’ve just believed a thought. So whenever it happens, just look and investigate.

There are the felt sensations in the body being erroneously labelled as a sense of self instead of body sensations.

Yes. When it feels like that the sense of self is present and it really feels to be true and real, you can investigate it, like this:

Focus on the sensation, on that feeling that seems to be the sense of self. FEEL it.
While you are feeling it, ask and investigate:

Is this sensation Rowena?
Is this sensation the experiencer?
Is this sensation the one having this emotion?
Is this sensation the feeler?
Is this sensation the thinker?
Is this sensation the doer?

You can use any questions that are usually associate with an I. The important part is to FEEL the sensation and direct the question to that feeling.

No, there is no location for a sense of self. Feeling body sensations are felt in various places within the body.

Yes, but if you look more closely, you can discover that there are more favourite places / spots of the body when the sense of self shows up. It could the chest as the feeler. It could be the throat, the face, the eyes and around the eyes, or behind the eyes. Those sensations are mistaken for the seer. The thinker often shows up in the forehead, or behind the eyes.

Thought, (sense of self) making a judgmental thought about the felt sensations in the body and then creating another thought, "I want to get rid of it".

FEEL that sense of self… feel that sensation, and ask:

is this sensation making a judgemental thought?
Is this sensation the thinker?
Can this sensation think?
Can this sensation judge?

Is this sensation conscious or aware?
Does this sensation know anything?

Thank you so much for your help Vivien,

You are most welcome. You are doing a beautiful inquiry.

Vivien

[Noro]

Dear Vivien,

Your questioning is so clear and precise, it is really helping me to see what's happening with much more clarity.
I am so, so grateful, and I am loving this inquiry with you.

Is this sensation Rowena?

No, it is just sensation, it remains the same sensation with or without the label Rowena.

Is this sensation the experiencer?

No, this sensation is just happening. It feels like it is being experienced by someone or something, but that someone or something can't be found

Is this sensation the one having this emotion?

No, the sensation is just happening. And at the same time, thinking is also happening. Thinking/mental activity seems to be 'scanning' the sensation and wanting to interpret it in some way, it wants to 'know" it, create a belief relating to the feeling. Wow, this is so subtle! I can see how this is working: almost imperceptible feelings combined with almost silent thinking/mental activity that appear to 'create' a sort of fine emotional tone "belief" holding some sort of judgement. All just happening.

Is this sensation the feeler?

No, feeling is just happening.

Is this sensation the thinker?

No, there is no thinker, thinking is just happening.

Is this sensation the doer?

No, there is no doer, doing is happening. Sometimes when there is efforting or focusing it seems like there is a doer, but no doer can be found. Doing is a thought.

Yes, but if you look more closely, you can discover that there are more favourite places / spots of the body when the sense of self shows up. It could the chest as the feeler. It could be the throat, the face, the eyes and around the eyes, or behind the eyes. Those sensations are mistaken for the seer. The thinker often shows up in the forehead, or behind the eyes.

Yes, this is very true, there are definitely those favourite places in the body! When I was working with this yesterday I saw how the assumption of there being a sense of self was faulty labelling, even though sensing can feel so close, intimate and personal. But I saw that sensing remains as sensing happening with or without a personal label of 'self'. Adding the word "self" is a habitual afterthought that creates great confusion within the system.

is this sensation making a judgemental thought?

No, this sensation is not making a judgemental thought, judgemental thoughts are just happening .

Is this sensation the thinker?

This sensation is not the thinker.

Can this sensation think?

No, sensation is happening and thinking is happening.

Can this sensation judge?

No, this sensation cannot judge, it is simply sensation happening, and there might be judgemental thinking happening at the same time.

Is this sensation conscious or aware?

No, this sensation is neither conscious or aware, it is just what's happening.

Does this sensation know anything?

No, this sensation doesn't know anything.

As a result of today's inquiry I can feel lightening of 'tone' of my being. It is so subtle that I can hardly identify the thought/belief that has been playing over and over, together with a subtle body sensation of restriction, but I think it was a repetitive drone of "things are not the way they should be." This "emotional tone" has been with me for so long!

A thousand thank you's Valerie!

Sending love,
Rowena

[Vivien]

Hi Rowena,

You did a really nice investigation :)

What is that not on autopilot? What is not happening on its own?

This "emotional tone" has been with me for so long!

Even if this ‘emotional tone’ is present, does it belong to a me? To a person, called Rowena?

Or there is just this familiar ‘emotional tone’ by itself, freely floating, without belonging to anyone or anything?
Does this emotion require a feeler? A receiver? Someone that it is happening TO?

Is there someone being bothered by it? Wanting it to be gone?
Or it can freely be as it is, as long as it wants to stay?

Does it really matter if it stays or not? For who?

Vivien

[Noro]

Hi Vivien,

Getting clearer now!

What is that not on autopilot? What is not happening on its own?

<This "emotional tone" has been with me for so long!>

Yes, it seems to be happening on autopilot, happening on its own. The above quote was simply thinking happening, no one doing the thinking.

Even if this ‘emotional tone’ is present, does it belong to a me? To a person, called Rowena?

'Emotional tone' is thinking happening relating to a sensation happening. The sensation is happening to no one and belongs to no one, it is simply what's happening. Me is a thought, there is no 'me' that exists any more than there is a person called Rowena that exists, all is thinking happening.

Or there is just this familiar ‘emotional tone’ by itself, freely floating, without belonging to anyone or anything?

Yes, this familiar 'emotional tone' is happening by itself, freely floating, without belonging to anyone or anything. What recognises it as familiar? No one to recognize it as familiar, only thinking happening with the word 'familiar.'

Does this emotion require a feeler? A receiver? Someone that it is happening TO?

This sensation or emotion is what's happening; there's no need for there to be a feeler or receiver of this sensation or emotion, it's just what's arising and it's not happening TO anyone.

Is there someone being bothered by it? Wanting it to be gone?

There is no one that can be bothered by it, no feeler or receiver. There may be thinking, but there is no thinker, only thinking happening about being bothered by it or wanting it to be gone….. Just thinking happening.

Or it can freely be as it is, as long as it wants to stay?

Yes, it can freely be as it is, as long as it wants to stay!

Does it really matter if it stays or not? For who?

It doesn't matter if it stays or leaves because there is no one to whom it can matter. It is not happening to anyone, there is no one who could possibly be bothered whether it stays or not. It simply doesn't matter!

[Noro]

Once again thank you for the great questions.....

Sending love and thanks,
Rowena

[Vivien]

Hi Rowena,

You did a really nice inquiry.

The answer for this question is missing, so let me ask it again:

What is that not on autopilot? What is not happening on its own?

Here is an exercise along the same lines.

Please sit for some time and just notice how everything is just happening effortlessly.

Look around.
What is being done for colors and shapes to be? Is there anything be done for colors and shapes to be, or they are just there effortlessly?

Listen to the sounds.
What is being done exactly for the sounds to be?

And when the attention is on a sound, what is being done to know the sound? Is there any doing? Or it’s just known effortlessly?

Now shift the focus on FEELING the body.
What is being done exactly for the body to be?
Or the body just IS, effortlessly?

Focus on the sensations of the hands.
What is being done for the sensations to be?
Aren’t the sensations happens effortlessly?

Look at the hands.
What is being done exactly for the image of the hand to be, to exist?
Is there a you making the image of the hands happen?
Is there any effort in seeing?

Now notice thoughts.
What is being done for thoughts to be?
Is there any effort for thoughts to appear? Or they just appear effortlessly?

What is not happening effortlessly and needs a doer?

When there is a seeming effort, even that efforting is just happening effortlessly, on its own?

Is there any effort in being / existing?

Vivien

[Noro]

Hi Viven,

What is that not on autopilot? What is not happening on its own?

Mental confusion about understanding is happening with this question regarding the way the language is phrased in the first part. Seeing and reading the words is happening and not understanding is happening, but to no one. Confusion just is what's happening. Strong sensations are also arising in the solar plexus region of the body related to this confusion. Thinking is happening about understanding and efforting to understand is also happening, but no one is doing the thinking, not understanding or efforting. They are all arising effortlessly!

Regarding the second question, again some confusion from not fully understanding the question. But it seems that everything is happening on its own. Seeing is happening, hearing is happening, thinking is happening etc. everything is just happening, perhaps you could say, on its own….but they are just happening.

Thinking arises "what or who wants / needs to understand or know those words." Strong sensations arising similar to the confusion above. There is no thinker who wants to understand or know, just the thinking questioning, and the sensations in the body appearing in reaction to the not knowing or understanding.

What is being done for colors and shapes to be? Is there anything be done for colors and shapes to be, or they are just there effortlessly?

There is nothing being done for colors and shapes to be. Seeing is happening and then perceiving of colors and shapes is happening effortlessly. Thinking about the colors and shapes is also happening. There is no doer.

What is being done exactly for the sounds to be?

Nothing is being done exactly for the sounds to be, just the hearing of sounds happening.

And when the attention is on a sound, what is being done to know the sound? Is there any doing? Or it’s just known effortlessly?

Attention to the sound is happening and knowing or not knowing of the sound is also happening. Perhaps together this could be called doing happening, but without a doer. Mostly knowing / understanding happens effortlessly, but sometimes when there is not knowing (of a language), or sound is unclear, efforting might be happening in order to understand or know the sound.

What is being done exactly for the body to be? Or the body just IS, effortlessly?

Nothing is being done exactly for the body to be, the body just IS, effortlessly.

What is being done for the sensations to be? Aren’t the sensations happens effortlessly?

Nothing is being done for the sensations in the hands to be. The sensations in the hands are happening effortlessly.

What is being done exactly for the image of the hand to be, to exist?

Seeing is happening and perceiving of an image of a hand is happening which allows for the image of the hand to be, and thinking of the word 'hand' is happening at the same time also allowing the hand to be, or to exist, apparently.

Is there a you making the image of the hands happen? Is there any effort in seeing?

There is no me making the image of the hands happen. And there is no effort in seeing.

What is being done for thoughts to be?

Nothing is being done for thoughts to be, thoughts are just happening.

Is there any effort for thoughts to appear? Or they just appear effortlessly?

Thoughts are just appearing effortlessly.

What is not happening effortlessly and needs a doer?

There is no thing that is not happening effortlessly. There is sometimes a sensation or movement that can be described by thought as efforting, but there is no need for any doer. This too is just happening effortlessly. Efforting happening effortlessly!!

When there is a seeming effort, even that efforting is just happening effortlessly, on its own?

Yes!

Is there any effort in being / existing?

No. There's no effort in being / existing.

As you can see there was a trigger regarding the first question and a strong reaction to not being able to answer the question happened.....to no one! Curiosity is now happening regarding this triggering and thoughts of wanting to know why there was this reaction are also happening. Memories of similar situations were also happening, to no one.

Many thanks Vivien,

With love,
Rowena

[Vivien]

Hi Rowena,

You did a beautiful investigation. :)

By the first two questions, which stirred up confusion, I just simply meant the same thing… if there is any doer, or everything is just happening effortlessly. I just used different words, but the meaning is essentially the same.

Now, how do you feel about our inquiry?

Is there something that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Is there something missing?

Vivien

[Noro]

Dear Vivien,

The last few questions.....

Now, how do you feel about our inquiry?

Our inquiry has been absolutely wonderful, I am so grateful that "I" came across Liberation Unleashed; Iliona's book and the website, and that you became the friendly guide who has helped "me" in deepening the inquiry. It is all so much clearer now! Your questions were spot on every time, and "I" actually loved that last question which created such a sense of confusion in the system; this really showed up a pattern regarding how this system reacts to not knowing /understanding!! There is no thinker and no knower, only thinking about knowing or thinking about not knowing and the sensations that accompany the thinking.
All happening to no one.

Is there something that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

I can't think of anything that isn't totally clear at this time, and thanks to you "my" ability to investigate more deeply has gone to a whole other level. When something arises that needs to be investigated I feel that I now have the ability to do that.

Is there something missing?

There is nothing missing, nothing could ever be missing.

Feeling great joy and endless gratitude Vivien,
Thank you so much!

With love,
Rowena

[Vivien]

Hi Rowena,

You are most welcome :) thank you for your beautiful replies.

What we usually do at this stage is to ask some checking questions to see if everything is clear and no stone left unturned.

Please answer the following questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

Vivien