Looking to sort out what I've realized from what I've memorized

[Soma]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this? There is no actual object that can be identified as the subject which beholds, or receives the experience of, the objects of reality. To me this means there is no existing "separate" system to be distinguished from "other", also meaning there is no "other".
What are you looking for at LU? Honest, consistent dialogue with someone that I can trust is skilled enough in the means of direct pointing that whatever progress is left to be done (or undone) can be brought about in the undeniable and permanent recognition of the reality of the absence of a separate self.
What do you expect from a guided conversation? Through my life there has been a heavy emphasis placed on both my identity as an intelligent person, and that knowing the right answers is the way to achieve success. My spiritual path has led me to consume a huge amount of information, because of which I feel that I benefit from operating in a context that can balance out my intellectual tendency and keep things on track, so to speak. I expect clear and to the point dialogue about what This is, and to be able to see to what extent it is being clearly seen.
What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry? I started working with "Who am I?" about 2 years ago, both sitting and walking, and have also done a fair amount of vipassana and just sitting and relaxing meditation for about 3 years. The 3 years prior, and continuing forward included a lot of every kind of psychedelic, though I'm still not sure how much that counts. I recently attended a zen intensive where I worked with "What is this?" in both dyad and solo meditation. I've had a few experiences during meditation, retreat, and in normal situations that I could describe as mystical and/or paired with a realization of some sort to some degree. As mentioned above I've read a lot of contemporary nonduality literature (much of what's in the recommended book list) and consumed an ungodly amount of youtube videos. I notice there's not really a gap of understanding what's being said, but it does feel like it's being said from a place that's more confident about all this than I am when I attempt to say anything.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

[Anastacia42]

Hi,

My name is Stacy and I can be your guide, if you would like.

One thing I want to make very clear up front is that with me, you must post every day. If you know yourself and your schedule are such that you cannot do this, tell me, "no," and someone else can guide you, please.

Yes, if once in a while you must post later, please post a note telling me when you will return.

If you know yourself to be a skeptical person, prone to doubt, I may not be the best guide for you. I never had any doubt. I can connect you with one of our other guides who did & who can guide you better than I.

If you haven't already read the disclaimer, please read it now and just confirm to me that you have read it. Here is the link.

http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

Also please read “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Here is the link.

http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

Some housekeeping guidelines:

1. Post at least once a day, or every second day. If you need more time, or are unable to post for several days, just write a quick post on your thread to let me know please.

2. There is no one judging answers given, so please be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.

3. This exploration is based on actual experience (AE) - smell, taste, sound, sensation, color and observed thoughts. Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress. This is not a self-improvement process. There is no ‘self’ to improve.

4. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies, rituals, practices, books/reading and so on for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily meditation practice, it is fine to continue that but is not necessary for this exploration.

Technology is not perfect and sometimes there is a glitch which can wipe out your responses. It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. Always save a copy of what you have done, it will save time in the long run!

To begin with, so that we both become aware of what your expectations are about this exploration. In your own words (not from actual experience, but just honest answers), could you please answer the 4 following questions:

How will life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?
What is missing?

Throughout this exploration I would like you to answer all questions that I have written in blue text. Please answer all questions even if I miss using the blue text.

Please answer questions individually, remembering to use the quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Below is a link to the video with instructions on using the Quote Function. Please watch it. Use the PREVIEW button to make sure your text looks right before you hit "SUBMIT."

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

What would you like for me to call you?

What time zone are you in, please?

[Anastacia42]

Do you still want to be guided here?

Thank you,

[Soma]

Stacy,

I apologize, I had not received an email notification for you original response to my thread and only just now saw that it is there. In response to your introductory questions:

How will life change?

As I've experienced it, there comes to be a more continuous sense of okay-ness, even during situations that could be defined as "not okay". I expect there to be a reduction in angst in relation to spirituality and enlightenment, and an expanded capacity for joy, and eliminated need for things to be any way other than as they appear to be.

How will you change?

I'll probably be a little more relaxed a little more often. I mean this in reference to both the sense of "I" and the body that is associated with the label.

What will be different?

I can say that in a way everything and nothing will be different, and there is also the imagined outcomes as stated above as a part of that.

What is missing?

Either an epiphany, or the understanding/recognition of a false belief. I hesitantly say some sort of validation, as I recognize that if I were to depend on validation it would only reinforce the idea that I don't/can't get it from what's already available here. But it's coming up, so I'll include it.

What would you like for me to call you?

Tennyson

What time zone are you in, please?

Mountain Standard Time

[Anastacia42]

Hi Tennyson,

I'm in Mountain Daylight Savings time. near Boulder, Colorado. You must be in Arizona, since they don't do DST.

OK, your expectations are mostly reasonable. Epiphanies sometimes happen and sometimes don't but you've covered that. Sometimes it can be gradual.

Next, what comes up when is read there's no separate self anywhere, never has been & nerve will be - that it's all made up, a story, a lie?

Then please watch this:

https://youtu.be/wyNwhK2Ur1c

Much love,

[Soma]

First order of business: again I apologize for the late reply, I thought I had the email notification situation figured out and there was no notification on my dashboard here either in the moments I checked it yesterday "just in case". Anyhow, I can't see it being a problem going forward.

I love Boulder! I'm in actually in Salt Lake City, for what it's worth.

Anyhow, to your question:

Next, what comes up when is read there's no separate self anywhere, never has been & nerve will be - that it's all made up, a story, a lie?

What comes up is "Yes, sounds great, heard it many times and there is no resistance to the suggestion except for then there's the question of 'well what does it even mean to be separate, to be a self?' and I kind of fall into a pit of unknowing. It's like I recognize the words are generating meaning within a system, but are pointing outside of the system, so how can they land on anything at all?"

So where I go from here is I feel no ability to disagree, but I also don't feel capable of staking claim on the idea. I can look, but is this direct experience proving there is no separate self? Or is it strongly inferring as much? This is where it seems the gap exists that is being medicated with intellectual arguments.

I also admit that most of what I just typed feels like an exorcized thought that is seeking annihilation. I don't necessarily believe it, it's just there as such.

[Anastacia42]

Okay. I hope you are now subscribed to your thread & getting email notifications. Please check in & reply every day. anyway,, as I requested in my 1st email.



This is how to LOOK for no self in the exercises - we call them "pointers' - that we will be doing here:

Colored Socks

There is a big difference between knowing that there is nothing to give up and seeing that there is nothing to give up.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

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

• You can think about it, you can think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on, and you can probably tell me what color you think they are.

• Alternatively, you can take a quick look at your socks and tell me what color they actually are!

Hopefully you would agree that you can only be 100% certain by looking.

For the purpose of seeing this "no self" idea, it is very important that you are clear about this difference.

Knowing is about knowledge which is all in the mind and we are not interested in that

We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on in your present moment-to-moment experience. We are only interested in your Direct Experience in the moment..

Direct or Actual Experience is

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content)

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


Loving,

[Soma]

I am clear on what it is to see rather than know. To know is simply to see a thought and then describe it.

[Anastacia42]

Okay, good.


Direct Experience - Labeling Daily Activities

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply color/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists exactly like the one above.

Post several of your own observations in a list *exactly* like the one above, please. Same word forms. Same order. EXACTLY.

Refer to the green list of Actual/Direct Experience in the prior post if that helps. Those are the only items any experience can be.

Loving,

[Soma]

Move arm against pillow, simply = sound, sensation
thought about it, simply = thought
looking at computer screen, simply = sight
dog walks by, simply = sound, sight
body sensations, simply = sensation
fingers typing, simply = sound, feeling
memory of pleasant sound, simply = thought
attention on tongue, simply = taste, thought, sensation
annoyance at the exercise, simply = thought, sensation
pushing head back against cushion, simply = sensation, sound
refrigerator running, simply = sound
memory of the "is your refrigerator running joke, simply = thought
pressure in head, simply = sensation
thought about the discomfort of it, simply = thought
turned up computer screen brightness, simply = sight, sensation
took breath of air, simply = sound, sensation
thought about where I was breathing into, simply = thought

packing tobacco into the pipe, simply = sensation, sight, sound
distant cars driving, simply = sound
crickets chirping, simply = sound
flick of lighter and inhale, simply = sound, sensation, sight
puffing, exhaling, simply = sensation, sound, taste
scanning the scenery of the night, simply = sight
thinking about the sense gates, simply = thought
there are no things, only the sense of things, simply = thought
puffing, feeling the warm pipe, simply = sensation
leaning against the car with feet in the cold grass, simply = sensation
buzzing from the nicotine, simply = sensation
the wind blows against my body, simply = sensation, sound
I imagine typing all this out later, simply = thought

[Anastacia42]

*whew* Perfect!

Now please try this:

Mind Labeling Experience

Here is an exercise which examines the way in which the mind labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper.

This exercise is broken into 10 minute lots. For each 10 minute period pay attention to any bodily sensation i.e. is there any tightening, or any relaxing?

For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.

For example:

I am sitting on a chair,
I am hearing a clock ticking,
I am looking at a computer screen,
I am feeling hungry.

Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.

Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs.

For example:

Sitting on a chair,
typing,
breathing,
blinking,
hearing the clock.

(Again, watch what is happening in the body.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

2. What is here without labels?

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

Loving,

[Soma]

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

I see them as equally true, unequally referential - the body is the conduit for the chair to be sat in and noticed, and "I" refers to the body's experience of activity in relationship to objects. To say the same thing is simply referencing the activity alone.

2. What is here without labels?

Perhaps I don't understand this question, because my answer is:______. Or another way I could answer is everything, minus the labels themselves.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

They affect it, because they are part of it. They do not affect the parts of experience I take them to be referencing, however.
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?
There was a sense of contraction around my head and neck when I used "I" and a more even distributed sense of beingness when I didn't.

[Anastacia42]

1. No. They're not equally true. Without "I" is truer.

2. Without labels there is only what is. The experience of the moment.

3. Labels have no effect. I'll give you another pointer for that. See below.

Below is your only correct answer. it's the most important one.

There was a sense of contraction around my head and neck when I used "I" and a more even distributed sense of beingness when I didn't.

Label-Reality Correlation

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

We experience contraction when there is a lie. Expansion when there's truth.

Do the label - really pointer and then there's another about the truth/lie Sensation.

Much love,

[Soma]

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

When I look at the label "Green", there is an experience of sight of a label, and there sometimes is, sometimes isn't the experience of a memory/thought of sight of the color green, and of course there is always experience of the sight of the color red.

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Without thought, just red. With thought, in a way both - but not both visually. I'm not sure how to categorize the content of a thought in this case. Is my thought impression of memory of green less valid as an experience of the color?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

I see that the label suggests something else, which is present in my memory and sometimes arises from it in reaction to the label. Is the fact that it's sequential rather than immediate significant? As in, since what it suggests is only present by superimposing meaning after the fact, it...?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

The redness is not affected, the shape of the symbol and my mental activity both are.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The redness is simply as it is as it always is without exception. The sense of meaning that the label is felt to have seems to come across a little different in the mentally constructed relationship with it.

So what I feel like I see is that contraction happens with thoughts, which are lies in that they reference reality through story telling that does not impact the reality they are referring to. They do seem to effect the piece of reality I call thought though.

I'm not sure that all this extra commentary about mental activity is helpful in relation to what you're getting at, but I see it as the reason why I answered the first three questions the way I did so it seems relevant to include.

Thanks for bearing with me through this.

[Soma]

To clarify - when I say "it's why I answered the first three questions the way I did" I mean the ones in the post where you said the first three were wrong.