In need of a nudge (or two)

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the reading glasses, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the glasses, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the glasses being placed on the desk, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the glasses, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the car keys, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the keys, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the keys being placed on the table, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the keys, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Are there really two ways of how this “unrolls” in DE? Or there are two ways of describing what is happening – the old way and a new way (DE)?

A couple of posts back you said ‘the actual experience of the body is thought’ which at the time was ‘sort of but not really’ grasped and it’s taken a little while to process it. Overnight, facilitated by the video you linked me to regarding the Lipert-like MRI scan and another short vid that youtube spontaneously suggested (details below), the penny has dropped so to speak and it’s now understood what you mean by that and your comment above about ‘two ways of describing what is happening’. The palm turning over exercise that was conducted and reported on did not apply DE but the ‘old way’ of seeing. Repeating that exercise again now by applying DE and not seeing the hand in the old way, noting that thought is an unnecessary overlay, noting that thought was only ‘reporting’ on the the hand turning over and that the decision was made well before the action and that there was no controller or decision-maker, now this has all become clear. This morning on waking up there was a wonderful feeling of lightness and joy which is not the usual way that waking up is experienced. It feels as if this was related to this new understanding. Either that or thought is making up another story ….

Can a thought do anything?
No. This is understood now. All it does is comment and describe based on past experience.
Can a thought communicate, plan, urge, decide, lift hands? OR it just appears with a description of what is already happening (or not) plus “I made a decision”?
No (written with confidence this time!). It just describes what has happened + “I made a decision”.
Can sensations (lifting hands) think? Can they understand thoughts (speak English)? Is there doing/action at all or just feeling and thinking?
No. Sensations can’t think (written with confidence this time), or (you put this beautifully Rali) understand thoughts or even speak a language, and there is no ‘doing’ - just feeling and thinking.

Phew. A relief to have clarity about this at last!

What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”.

Yes. This is understood clearly now - it’s just sensation (colour/shape labelled “hands moving”) + thought (labelled “hands moving”).

So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content?
Nothing causes anything to appear. Seeing just sees, nothing makes seeing happen. It is only because thought during or after an “event” is describing/commenting that cause and effect seems to exist. Understood now - everything is just happening and thought is the brain’s way of making sense of sensations that are sensed.

Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?
No description/explanation/label needed for things to happen - things just happen whether or not there is a description/label.

Comment:
Last night while pondering your message to me before this one that is being responded to today, a video showed up on youtube that showed up after watching the vimeo video about thought and control that consolidated your guidance regarding thought. It was made by Pernille and called ‘Everything is thought! (even the thinker)’. These three things together have helped me to gain clarity around the messages you have been offering.

Thank you for all your help,
Feeling grateful
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Wonderful looking! I really enjoyed reading your reply!

Understood now - everything is just happening and thought is the brain’s way of making sense of sensations that are sensed.

What is “brain” in DE? How is it experienced? Is brain responsible for thinking? How is this seen/experienced? Are sensation being sensed by this “brain”? How? Or is it an assumption? Are there sensations to be sensed or there is just feeling (flux)? Is there a distance/boundary between feeling the sensation and the sensation? Where does the feeling end and the sensation start? Are there discrete sensations or just feeling taking different values? In seeing, is there seeing and seen or just seeing? Is the seen outside of seeing? Or is it just seeing taking different value (colour)? In thinking, are there thoughts and thinking them or the thoughts are the thinking (not looking at content)? Do you see what I’m pointing to?? If there is no time (only NOW) where exactly is this past experience to be made sense of – cause and effect? Or the meaning (thinking) flows together with the experience? The video is a good challenge on beliefs - i.e. thoughts appearing after the experience - but when/where exactly is “after” in DE? In general, does experience waits to be experienced or there is only the experiencing happening right now?

Also, can you separate thinking, form seeing, and/or from hearing, and/or…? Is thinking happening in a different “place” than the rest of the experience (i.e. the senses)
Can you even differentiate between the senses and thinking without the labels that describe them as different experience? Are there senses and thinking or just THIS?
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the shower, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the water, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the water hitting the tiles, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the water, simply = smell (smelling)
Tasting the water, simply = taste (tasting)
Thought about the water, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the phone, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the phone, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the phone being placed on the table, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the phone, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

What is “brain” in DE?
Thought (labelled ‘brain’).
How is it experienced?
It’s experienced as thinking.
Is brain responsible for thinking?
No. The brain is thought labelled ‘brain’ so isn’t responsible for thinking.
How is this seen/experienced?
The brain cannot be found in actual experience, there is only thought labelled ‘brain’.
Are sensation being sensed by this “brain”? How? Or is it an assumption?
It’s an an assumption that sensations are sensed by the brain (the brain is simply thought labelled ‘brain’).
Are there sensations to be sensed or there is just feeling (flux)?
The are no sensations, just feeling labelled ‘sensations’.
Is there a distance/boundary between feeling the sensation and the sensation?
No distance/boundary. The sensation is the feeling of the sensation.
Where does the feeling end and the sensation start?
There is no separation - the feeling is the sensation.
Are there discrete sensations or just feeling taking different values?
‘Feeling taking different values’ (this is a great way to express it - love it!)
In seeing, is there seeing and seen or just seeing?
Just seeing.
Is the seen outside of seeing? Or is it just seeing taking different value (colour)?
Just seeing taking different value (colour).
In thinking, are there thoughts and thinking them or the thoughts are the thinking (not looking at content)?
The thoughts are the thinking.
Do you see what I’m pointing to??
Yes, this is clear. There are not two separate ‘things’, it’s just an ‘action’ (not sure how to express this correctly) - it is just thinking and just seeing, there is no ‘thought’ or ‘thing seen’.
If there is no time (only NOW) where exactly is this past experience to be made sense of – cause and effect? Or the meaning (thinking) flows together with the experience?
Clearly the meaning flows together with the experience.
The video is a good challenge on beliefs - i.e. thoughts appearing after the experience - but when/where exactly is “after” in DE? In general, does experience waits to be experienced or there is only the experiencing happening right now?
Experience of course can’t wait to be experienced, it is clear there is only the experiencing happening right NOW.
Also, can you separate thinking, from seeing, and/or from hearing, and/or…?
No. These can all be considered to be instances (different values) of experiencing. It is all just experience.
Is thinking happening in a different “place” than the rest of the experience (i.e. the senses)?
No. Same place.
Can you even differentiate between the senses and thinking without the labels that describe them as different experience?
No. The ‘senses’ and ‘thinking’ are just labels that represent different values of experiencing.
Are there senses and thinking or just THIS?
Actually … it’s just THIS.

Oh.

Thanks Rali
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian
Wonderful!

At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?

Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the breakfast bowl, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the bowl, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the spoon touch the bowl, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the bowl, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the chocolate, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the chocolate, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the chocolate snapping, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the chocolate, simply = smell (smelling)
Tasting the chocolate, simply = taste (tasting)
Thought about the chocolate, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Visited a bushland area in the national park not far from my place this morning …

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Experienced now through eyes and ears etc attuned to directly experiencing, the sense of separation that was experienced in the past was replaced with a sense of everything experienced being interwoven - nothing is separate from anything else.

Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
There is no border - not only between the ‘body’ and the ‘environment’ but also ‘inside the body’ and ‘outside the body’. It was compelling to experience the ‘heart beating’ as the ‘leaves rustled’ and the ‘wind blew’ all as one homogenous interdependent experience. The separation previously experienced is quite clearly seen as being just a thought.

Is there an owner of being?
Being is just ‘isness’ - there is no subject and object and therefore no possibility of an owner.

Are there others?
There can be no ‘others’ in direct experience.

Is there an “I” in others?
There were ‘two people’ looking out from the lookout over the valley. What was experienced were moving colours and shapes labelled ‘bodies’. The thought of an ‘I’ in others did not arise.

Is there a “you”?
The thought of an ‘I’ did not arise and was not experienced.

Returning to a familiar place and having a very different experience there today consolidated some recent learnings.

Thanks Rali for suggesting this exercise,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

How delightful! It seems like you enjoyed your walk ;)

There were ‘two people’ looking out from the lookout over the valley. What was experienced were moving colours and shapes labelled ‘bodies’. The thought of an ‘I’ in others did not arise.

There can be no ‘others’ in direct experience.

‘Others’ are mostly thought patterns combined with colours, tastes :), smells :), sensations, and sounds. You can play with this further by checking sensations when touching someone – are there two sensations (you and the other) or just one (labelled other)?
You can use the same approach as in the "apple" exercise:
Taste labelled ‘person’ is known
Color (visual information) labelled ‘person’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘person’ is known (when a person is touched)
Smell labelled ‘person’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘person’ is known
However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.
What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the bed, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the sheets, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the sheets as the bed is made, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the sheets, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the bowl, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the bowl, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the bowl, simply = smell (smelling)
Hearing the bowl as it is being dried with a towel, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the bowl, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

‘Others’ are mostly thought patterns combined with colours, tastes :), smells :), sensations, and sounds. You can play with this further by checking sensations when touching someone – are there two sensations (you and the other) or just one (labelled other)?

Clearly there is just one sensation (labelled ‘other’). (Had to struggle to imagine what two sensations would be like!)

However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

A ‘person’ is not actually known - ‘person’ is a label for that which is known ie. the colour (visual information), the smell, the sensation labelled ‘person’ (when ‘person’ is touched). A ‘person’ cannot be found in actual experience.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?

What changes: A greater intensity in colours, sounds, tastes, smells and sensations is being experienced. Interestingly (because it seems to contradict the increased intensity of what is being experienced) there seems to be a ’softening’ within. Can’t really describe this to you except to say that the feeling is of being more at ease. Sometimes, especially after waking in the morning, this ‘person’ feels like (and probably looks like to ‘others’) Super Mario bumping in to things, not knowing sequences of routine activities and then thought kicks in for tasks which require a sequence to be effectively completed. There is the sensation of perhaps being a bit dreamy. Occasionally there has been a change in reaction to words spoken by ‘others’ - reactions are now more reserved and the feeling of being triggered by ‘other's’ words and actions is less. Nice.

What stays the same: Not sure how to answer this at the moment so will pass.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

Having some tools eg “the thought labelled ‘X’” and “hearing the ‘X’ simply = sound (the experience of hearing)” to help in processing experiences. Before this conversation it was difficult to know what to do.

Is seeking still going on?

Not sure what you mean by seeking. This 'person' sub-labelled 'seeker’ doesn’t really identify with that term but what has existed since childhood has always been the desire to understand ‘what the hell is going on’ and this is still alive and kicking.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Early on you wrote “Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?” and my response was partly that my grasp was a bit wobbly on this point and needed time to sit with it. Now it is clear that there is only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’. The apple, it seems, is an appearance. But why? What is going on? Can you explain what these sensations, colours, tastes etc that are experienced actually are? What is an ‘apple’ if it is not an apple?

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Conceptually it is very clear that the separate self is a thought and hence an illusion, not real. Our conversation has provided tools to embed that conceptual understanding. Experientally it hasn’t permeated through just yet to be a 24/7 experience. Not sure what to expect at this point or what needs to be done.

Thank you for everything, and looking forward to your next message
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

What changes: A greater intensity in colours, sounds, tastes, smells and sensations is being experienced. Interestingly (because it seems to contradict the increased intensity of what is being experienced) there seems to be a ’softening’ within. Can’t really describe this to you except to say that the feeling is of being more at ease. Sometimes, especially after waking in the morning, this ‘person’ feels like (and probably looks like to ‘others’) Super Mario bumping in to things, not knowing sequences of routine activities and then thought kicks in for tasks which require a sequence to be effectively completed. There is the sensation of perhaps being a bit dreamy. Occasionally there has been a change in reaction to words spoken by ‘others’ - reactions are now more reserved and the feeling of being triggered by ‘other's’ words and actions is less. Nice.

Awesome!!

Not sure what you mean by seeking. This 'person' sub-labelled 'seeker’ doesn’t really identify with that term but what has existed since childhood has always been the desire to understand ‘what the hell is going on’ and this is still alive and kicking.

But why? What is going on? Can you explain what these sensations, colours, tastes etc that are experienced actually are? What is an ‘apple’ if it is not an apple?

“Why” and “how” exist only in the domain of thought. To answer “why” would be to find cause and effect which would be just more story/assumptions about reality. Remember, even sensations, colours, …, and thoughts are label pointing to just THIS. So separating THIS into sensations and colours is just on the level of language/story. Why THIS is THIS? It just thought.
Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are. Reality is very simple. Once you can see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are.

Just look, what is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are? Thought? Does thought need a reasoning to appear or it just does? Do sensations need a reason to appear?
Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality?

Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts.
It is inconceivable, ungraspable. And yet, it can be directly seen.

The taste of chocolate is immediately and silently (wordlessly) known, since it is not conceptual. As soon as the label ‘taste of chocolate’ is added, the immediacy of experience is veiled by conceptualization. Any form of description is an abstraction, which is added after the immediate experience, including the story of why things are happening the way they are.

Conceptually it is very clear that the separate self is a thought and hence an illusion, not real. Our conversation has provided tools to embed that conceptual understanding. Experientally it hasn’t permeated through just yet to be a 24/7 experience. Not sure what to expect at this point or what needs to be done.

Now you have to explain to me what is the difference between “conceptually” and “experientially”, when it comes to seeing the illusion of self. Do you mean that sometimes you see the self and sometimes you don’t? As you said it boils down to expectations/thoughts and doubts/still thoughts that what needed to be seen is seen when it comes to self

"Crossing the gate" is only a beginning, not an end. You have not crossed the Gate of happy ever after; no, the Gate is a tiny first step, a very important one, but not a final one by any means. Crossing the Gate is only a step over a line—an imagined one at that. Nothing changed, but everything looks different. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all the "mess", to settle in and adjust.
When someone we know dies, it takes time for that to "sink in". It's not that we don't believe that the person has died. It is just they are still part of our lives - we open the wardrobe and their clothes are still there, we walk in the park and we remember when we used to do it together. It takes time to readjust our lives to living without them. That process of “sinking in” can be observed in many other situations – like being diagnosed with a life changing disease, losing a job that we had for a long time etc. Even though the change is sudden and quick, it can be perceived as a long process – it can feel as though something is still sinking in, or hasn’t yet sunk in.

The point applies equally to habitual patterns of thought, which similarly reflect how our lives are organised. When the established patterns of a life are disturbed, thought cannot adapt to all of this in an instant, simply by revising all of our old beliefs. Much of the old organisation lingers on, in the guise of a world that we continue to experience and in habitual patterns of thought and activity that our surroundings continue to elicit. That very much applies to seeing the illusion of an “I” - it’s quite a sudden change with a relatively long process of adapting to this change. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning.

To “deal” with this, question everything, and little by little you will notice changes in everyday life: less judgment, more openness; less thinking, more appreciation; less story, more being; less structure, more flow. You will notice that some habitual thoughts no longer arise. The story changes in a way that allows more space for simply being.
There might still be expectations, confusion, and doubt. That’s quite normal at this stage. You may be swaying between “I get it” and “I don’t get it.” You may be thinking that this is not enough, that some experiences need to happen, that you should be happy and blissful all the time. When these thoughts arise, bring the focus to what is present here now. Just THIS. And look again: what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?
Seeing probably won't be 24/7. There's likely to be a "honeymoon period," and then what we call, "got it, lost it," as untrue beliefs come up to be questioned. This can go on for months & years.
However, this initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
We can still use first-person pronouns to describe “ourselves” with the same ease we always had, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa Claus once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either.
Here is a video from Ilona that might help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQcD588g2w

Is there anything else that you want to explore together?
If not, we have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those when you are ready?
There is no rush, so let me know if anything still bothers you

Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

“Why” and “how” exist only in the domain of thought.

In the words of the famous Homer Simpson … “D’oh”. Of course. Why didn’t ‘I’ think of that? (pun intended).

So separating THIS into sensations and colours is just on the level of language/story. Why THIS is THIS? It just thought.

I get it. Thank you.

Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality?

Ha. Simple. Got it. Love this. Thank you.

Is there anything else that you want to explore together?

Nothing springs to mind just at the moment of writing but something may possibly pop up over the next few days or weeks. Can I contact you again if any questions arise? Or is there a forum where questions can be raised?

Separately, I have a good friend who about two-three years ago took Buddhist vows soon after losing his job. He then headed off to Europe and India to study Buddhism and has just told me he is returning home in a couple of months. He has an inkling that this experience has kept him trapped in thought and we have discussed his obsession with thought and seeking many times. He is indeed the quintessential thinker. When I see him next I was thinking I will tell him about LU. If he is interested, can I suggest to him that he could ask for you to be his guide? Or would it be better to leave the application process to take care of itself?

we have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those when you are ready?

Yes, please send them to me.

Your words in your last message have been music to my ears. Thank you so much.
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Nothing springs to mind just at the moment of writing but something may possibly pop up over the next few days or weeks. Can I contact you again if any questions arise? Or is there a forum where questions can be raised?

Of course! You can continue to write on this thread or you can contact me privately – I will give you my contacts. There are also Facebook groups and zoom meetings. There is also a forum for after the gate. Plenty of help if you ever need it. I will give you all the information. I would also suggest guiding as it’s not only paying it forward but also a huge help in spotting unseen beliefs for yourself. It helps to deepen the understanding and integration.

If he is interested, can I suggest to him that he could ask for you to be his guide? Or would it be better to leave the application process to take care of itself?

Of course! You see I usually pick people with more Buddhist, Zen background – we speak similar language :). But it’s up to him. All guides go through training in the LU method, and even though we all have different styles, at the end we point to the same thing :)

Yes, please send them to me.

Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it 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) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?


Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No separate identity can be found. It never existed.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.
The idea of a separate self is just a thought which starts in early childhood. The separate self is created by the process of thinking and it does not have any independent existence (ie it is not a ‘thing’) separate from thought - without thought the ‘self’ does not exist.

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.
It’s liberating.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
It was early on when observing the Jackson Pollock painting and then expanding the view to encompass everything in the visual field that the nature of seeing was seen and, dare it be said, understood. There was no “I” involved or required in this. Then the other senses followed easily. Thought was a bit trickier.

5) Describe X & give examples from experience.
I have no idea how to respond to those statements and questions. Just sitting here and drawing blanks. Don’t know why but nothing is coming through. I may be just a bit tired, not sure.

6) Anything to add?
Could you let me know the best way to contact you if I have a question later on. Also the FB group details and the forum details you mentioned.

And thank you. Your guidance has been really appreciated.
My very best,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Please give some examples for 5) and don't bulk up the answer - what are decision, intention, free will, choice, and control in DE, how are they experienced. What makes things happen? How does it work?
What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

You don't have to rush with the final answers if your tired

Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

Just had a look again at #5 and just drawing a blank. Simply have no idea how to address those except to say that decision, intention, free will, choice and control all imply there is a decider, an intender, an "I" that has free will and can choose and has control. But there is no "I" so it is nonsensical to consider this. Maybe that's why I'm just getting a blank. And what makes things happen? How does it work? What am I responsible for? I have no idea. Any answer would be pure speculation. Does it matter?

Humbly yours,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Welcome home!

Thank you for your beautiful answers! It has been such a pleasure to walk beside you through the gateless gate! Your openness and willingness to look were simply awesome and made guiding you a joy.

You will receive an email notifying you of a PM from the forum, inviting you to join LU's Facebook groups. It also has other information that might be of interest to you. I will inbox you my contact details if you want to stay in touch. If you have any questions, just ask, or you can drop a line on your thread here and I will respond.

Your username will change from green to blue which indicates that you have had the realisation of no separate self. This thread will be moved to the ‘Archive’ section of the forum, but you will be able to access it.

Please don’t forget that this is just the beginning of exploring. It’s the beginning of cleaning up of all sorts of old beliefs. Emotions and feelings can show up to be seen and felt, so don’t stop looking! Please feel free to contact me, so we can have a look together, if you like.

I also think that you would make a wonderful guide, if you’re willing to explore it, when you feel ready. It can be very rewarding and it help you deepen your understanding.

We have a couple of support groups that are meeting via teleconference.
________________________________________________
Meet up with Vince Shubert (For LU seekers & guides)
Write to vinceschubert@gmail.com for the link & schedule.
As far as I know, there is one each Monday 6 am Sydney DAYLIGHT SAVING time – AEDT
There is also one each Saturday at 9pm (AEDT)
There is a Guide training one each Monday 5am Sydney DAYLIGHT SAVING time - AEDT
Please note that it's always the same time on the same link. Arriving late and leaving early is fine.
You can convert time zones here; https://www.worldtimebuddy.com
Click here to Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86991485768...
Meeting ID: 869 9148 5768
Passcode: 083035
__

Luchana & Lubo run one on Thursdays 6 pm CET. Write to Luchana at luchanauzunova@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/@LuchanaLubo/streams
________________________________________________
Ilona's Meetings
Ilona holds a monthly meeting. Write admin@ilonaciunaite.com for that link & schedule
__________________________________________________
(videos)
Hi everyone.
Starting on 15th of October for 5 weeks I will post a new video of guiding sessions we had with Jim.
Here is a link to the first one.
https://youtu.be/gb6FwZ6PlI4
Liberation Unleashed Direct Pointing - The Gateless Gate
Ilona
For Fetters:
Todd has teleconference group that meets - I think every 2 weeks.
There is also www.findingawakening.com but Christine has a waiting list.
And Kevin Shinilac has instructions on his site https://www.simplytheseen.com/

viewforum.php?f=49
Love
Rali