Liberation Unleashed

by Ilona Ciunaite

  Rowland: Hi Ilona, First of all, thank you so much for the awesome Liberation Unleashed website! I have been earnestly investigating the presence of the “I,” seeing if it can be located. There seem to be one or two “sticky” areas.

  How shall we start?

  Ilona: Okay, so tell me what you are looking for?

  How ready are you to see it?

  What do you expect to see, experience, feel?

  Rowland: Thanks, Ilona. I guess (if I am really honest) I am looking for some kind of “bliss” or “enlightened state” despite reading that there is no such thing! Certainly, the end to psychological, self-centered suffering which has dodged this body-mind for years (but is now starting to feel a bit lighter).

  There is a bit of confusion as to inquiry. Should I be looking for the false, separate “I,” or should I also be inquiring into presence/awareness itself (the big “I”)? Maybe alternating between the two? I guess ultimately both are necessary. Seeing through the ego and noticing awareness as one’s true, unchanging state—and getting really clear on this.

  There is also a bit of conceptual confusion about presence/awareness which comes from reading too many books and writings by teachers. We are told that we are “not” the body or thoughts, we are the unchanging backdrop within which all arises. But also that body/world/thoughts are inseparable from this awareness! So, we are both unaffected by what arises and also intimately one with it? My mind spins in circles on this, not knowing where to focus! But I guess that is just what the mind does. There is a definite readiness to see it. I think I am expecting to see more clearly, and to feel “lighter” in terms of mental baggage. To see the “I” for what it is. Thank you, Ilona!

  Ilona:

  I guess (if I am really honest) I am looking for some kind of “bliss” or “enlightened state.”

  Nice. But this ain’t about bliss or states. All states come and go and are not permanent. Some people have an awakening event and others just shrug—Is that it? It can be very subtle. There is no set way. The only way it happens is the right one for you, so bliss is not necessarily going to happen. You may rest this to the side for now. Seeing is pattern recognition, not a change of a state. It’s a change of view.

  Despite reading that there is no such thing! Certainly, the end to psychological, self-centered suffering which has dodged this body-mind for years (but is now starting to feel a bit lighter).

  It is not the end of suffering. End of suffering happens when there are no more triggers left. And that is all conditioning. The whole structure that was built in years does not disappear instantly.

  There is a bit of confusion as to inquiry. Should I be looking for the false, separate “I,” or should I also be inquiring into presence/awareness itself (the big “I”)? Maybe alternating between the two? I guess ultimately both are necessary. Seeing through the ego and noticing awareness as one’s true, unchanging state—and getting really clear on this.

  Okay, there is no big “I.” Awareness is not “I.” There is no ego as an entity in charge, there is nothing to get rid of, kill, or drop. Seeing through ego is realizing that there is no ego, it’s just a label, a word used for communication about the behavioral patterns. Replace the word “ego” with the word “character” and it’s not so negative anymore.

  “Being” is not a noun, it’s a verb, and there is nothing simpler or more natural than being.

  Find the sense of being. Are you doing it?

  Can you stop being for a second?

  See what happens if you try.

  There is a definite readiness to see it.

  Oh great. That helps a lot.

  I think I am expecting to see more clearly, and to feel “lighter” in terms of mental baggage. To see the “I” for what it is.

  Yes, good one.

  Okay, write to me if you are ready to leave all the above expectations behind and take a fresh look. Also, was anything in my answer triggering reactions? If so, what was it? Sending love.

  Rowland: Thank you so much, Ilona. That was incredibly helpful! It made me realize how many mind-created expectations have still been in play.

  Yes, I am certainly ready to leave these behind. This jumped out at me:

  “Being” is not a noun, it’s a verb, and there is nothing simpler or more natural than being.

  Find the sense of being. Are you doing it?

  Can you stop being for a second?

  See what happens if you try.

  There was a big Yes! to the simplicity of this! It is just “this” sense of being, right now. This aware-ing of sensations, sounds, thoughts, feelings, colors, and so forth. And, this awareness doesn’t change, whilst everything that arises in it does. But they’re not separate from it either. And this is something that thought is not going to grasp, is it? One of the things that I have struggled with in the past is the idea that the world arises in what I am, in awareness. So somehow awareness contains everything that is seen/heard/felt, and yet it nonetheless feels limited to the contours of this body; it feels like it is located inside “my” body. If that makes sense? Not sure how well I’m expressing myself here. But again, this is only an issue for thought. Pause the thought and where is the problem? Love and light!

  Ilona: Nice, thank you for the answer. You say that it feels that awareness is contained in the body. Well, take a look to see if it’s true.

  When you hear a sound, is it heard in the body? Listen now.

  When you smell something, is it felt in the body?

  When you look at the distance, is the horizon in the body? Look, where is the line between here and there?

  When you look down and see the legs, is awareness in the legs? Or in seeing? Take a look, can seeing be contained in the body?

  What have you noticed?

  Sending love.

  Rowland: Thank you so much for your reply, Ilona. It had a powerful effect here. Sound feels neither inside nor outside. Perhaps both. There doesn’t seem to be an inside and an outside, on direct evidence. These are thoughts.

  When you smell something, is it felt in the body?

  This is more subtle, but again, perhaps both inside and outside.

  No, the horizon is not in the body and there is no way of demarcating “here” from “there.” Or where seeing ends, and a “seen” object begins. There is just “seeing.” If I look back to see “where the one who sees is,” there is nobody immediately findable.

  When I look at my legs, I just see varieties of color. There is also a tactile sensation that, in direct evidence, is not necessarily “the same as” the visual color—until thought comes in and says these are all components of “leg,” and all occur in the same place at the same time. So awareness is not in the leg because the perception/sensation of leg is a finite object. Does this make sense? “Leg” is something I am aware “of.” But it is not itself aware. It feels, as I look, as if awareness is in the seeing. And then it feels that this seeing is in the head. It does still feel quite strongly like “I” am seeing from “my” head. But if I ask myself “Where is awareness?,” it is impossible to pin down. The sensations of “head,” the thought “I,” all occur within it. Then the thought arises: This has to be “my” body, as only “I” can feel it.

  Thank you again for this dialogue. It is so helpful! It is really cutting away at ingrained assumptions. Love, R.

  Ilona: Nice! Okay, so now investigate closely and see if there is a boundary between inside and outside.

  Try with eyes open and eyes closed. Is there inside and outside?

  Is awareness contained?

  In what? In the head?

  Can you see your own head without a mirror?

  Yes, you can only feel this body, not multiple bodies and not some other body. Does that mean you own this one?

  Is there an owner at all?

  Is it the body that experiences or is the body experienced?

  Investigate and answer when ready. Sending love.

  Rowland: Thank you, Ilona
!

  If I am really honest in terms of experience, and if I don’t focus on thoughts, there is no evidence at all of a boundary. There is just sensation (the body) and perception (sounds, colors, smells) mediated by the body. Thought supplies the “me in here” and “you/it out there.” Even the apparent boundary of the body is not that stable. If looked at closely, sensations are in constant flux; and with eyes closed, where does the sensation of “leg” end and “chair” begin? There is just undivided sensation. The sound of someone’s voice that is arising at the moment (from the next room) is, oddly, arising “in me.” Similarly, there is no evidence or possibility of awareness being contained, even in a head. Indeed, the sensations of “head,” and even the notion of a “head,” must arise within awareness. Awareness must be prior.

  Yes, you can only feel this body, not multiple bodies and not some other body. Does that mean you own this one?

  Is there an owner at all?

  Thought powerfully insists that this is “my” body, but without thought, it is just sensation/perception. No owner; nothing personal. How is the sensation of “leg” more “mine” than the sensation of “chair” (when eyes are closed, going on direct evidence)? It is thought that supplies the narrative of “me” and “mine.”

  Is it the body that experiences or is the body experienced?

  The body must be experienced. Awareness experiencing sensation/perception (and therefore simply experiencing itself)? A leg is not conscious, it is an object in consciousness like a tree or a toothbrush. Or even a thought! What has become clear, as I have looked, is just how compelling thought is in constructing the “I.” It takes the raw data of sensation and converts it into a heavy, ongoing narrative. How does one stop the I-thought from being so sticky and compelling? Thank you again, Ilona! Love, R.

  Ilona: Good observations. Now look.

  Are you awareness?

  Is it personal?

  Is awareness prior to, or is it arising together with, the objects that it is being aware of?

  Can it be separated?

  In experience now, listen to sound; is there anything there besides what is heard?

  It is thought that supplies the narrative of “me” and “mine.” Yes, “owner” is an assumption.

  How does one stop the I-thought from being so sticky and compelling?

  See it as empty and nothing sticks to it anymore.

  What does the word “I” point to?

  Here are some questions for you to sit with. Much love back.

  Rowland: Thank you so much, Ilona! I have been sitting with your questions, reflecting on them.

  Without the narrative of thought, there is no sense in which awareness could be called “personal.” It is not “mine.” Ideas like “mine” arise and fall within it. It just is.

  Also: if it were “personal,” this would require the dualism of “other persons”; and again, on present evidence, there are no “other persons.” (This was quite a shock when it first hit me! It left me feeling strangely lonely but again, this is only because a thought had slipped in and was being believed. I am alone—but is there actually an “I” to be lonely?)

  “Other people” are only present awareness: they cannot be separated from what is aware right now. Awareness therefore cannot be separated, although I also intuit that it cannot be affected: it is both changeless and the substance of change at the same time (if this makes sense?). It is aware of (say) a sound, noticing it come and go; and it also is that sound in its entirety. Again, I hope I am expressing this clearly! So, I think it is both prior to experience, and also one with experience. It has to be prior/changeless in order to register change; but it is not in any way apart from change, either. When a sound is heard, there is just the hearing, no “hearer,” no “sound,” in fact. Just the hearing.

  See it as empty and nothing sticks to it anymore.

  What does the word “I” point to?

  When this question is asked, there is just silence. Thought might then come in and make suggestions, but it can only refer to other thoughts. Even “this body” or “this mind” or “these memories” are other thoughts. Memory, however, does seem to be sticky and compelling here: it weaves a seemingly strong narrative of “me” going back in time. But perhaps the question is: To whom do memories refer? To which individual? Thank you again, your e-mails are so helpful! Love, R.

  Ilona: Great stuff, you are on the right track.

  Watch the YouTube video of Alan Watts talking about the “boat analogy” [see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= G4j6cUwCRmI]; it’s about time. This is actually a great picture of how past appears to be. Then, contemplate what you notice now when looking at a memory of a past event.

  Find the feeling of being, aliveness, am-ness. Just sit and feel for a bit.

  Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

  Is life happening to a being or as being?

  What do you notice?

  When you look at nature and how all moves interdependently, is that movement outside of you? Is there a “you”?

  Sending love.

  Rowland: Thank you, Ilona! The video was very clear.

  Contemplate what you notice now when looking at a memory of a past event.

  Memories of past events only ever arise now, in this moment. A memory only seems to refer to another thought or memory. Where is the “me” whom memories describe? Where is the “me” who “has” a past? If I look for one, I can’t find one. Memories arise like anything else: sounds, sights, sensations, perceptions. Only another thought makes them personal, and then they become the memories of a “me.” This brings a lightness. Although the I-thought still feels quite strong, it has definitely loosened a bit. There is just what is happening now, naturally, spontaneously. Awareness does not have the anxious preoccupation with time that the mind has, moving compulsively into past and future; in fact, it cannot move into past or future! It is just here, now, naturally and effortlessly aware. There is such a simplicity to this. I think I need to sit with it a bit more, too.

  Find the feeling of being, aliveness, am-ness. Just sit and feel for a bit.

  Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

  Without the thought This is happening to me, this is my body, there is just being. There is physical sensation (hands on a keyboard); visual sensation (colors on and around a screen); the sound of a dog barking, of my hands typing; the sensation of thoughts arising and falling. All of this is changing, moment by moment. And there is something here that is noticing this change, and is not the change. But equally, it is not in any way apart from the change (Does that make sense?). Perhaps it is clearer to say that arisings depend on awareness and cannot be separated from awareness; but that awareness does not depend on arisings (as in deep sleep). It is ultimately unaffected by them. For a moment there was frustration here, too: an irritation with the body and thought, and a desire to get away from them, as if they are obstacles to seeing clearly. But who is irritated or frustrated? In fact, who needs to see clearly? Is seeing clearly not already naturally, spontaneously happening, and just being missed?

  Is life happening to a being or as being?

  What do you notice?

  Life is happening as being, again, unless there is an investment in self-referential thought. It is happening “to a being” if there is a separate “being”—a person doing the being, acting apart from the rest of life. But where is this separate being “doing” the being?

  When you look at nature and how all moves interdependently, is that movement outside of you? Is there a “you”?

  Nothing is outside being-awareness, the colors/sounds/smells/tactile information/movement of nature cannot be separated from what is presently aware here, even though (paradoxically) what is presently aware itself does not move. The green color of a leaf, for example: How could this be separated from the seeing of it? Could it exist outside the seeing of it? The sound of a bee, or rain drumming on the roof, can these experiences be se
parated from the hearing of them? It can be quite shocking (in a good way) to see how assumptions operate. For example, the idea that when I leave my house to go to work, the house continues to exist independently. Where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence that the house exists away from or apart from this present awareness? There is almost a feeling that awareness “composes” an apparent world, moment by moment, that the “world” is only the present (immediate) contents of consciousness. So, for example: I can presently see the computer, books, a cup, the wall in front of me; there is the sensation of a chair; there is the sound of my cat’s claws. Where is the evidence that there is anything else? For example; a town, another country, a world in which other things are happening, even a universe? This makes me feel strangely lonely—there is just this awareness, nothing and nobody else—but, who is lonely? Awareness may be utterly alone (all-one), but is it lonely? Thank you again, Ilona. Love, R.

  Ilona: What is awareness?

  Some kind of lone witness?

  Or is witnessing too just happening, done by no one?

  Is awareness a container in which all arises?

  Keep digging.

  Rowland: Thank you, Ilona! I have been sitting with and investigating the questions above; here are my reflections.

  If a thought arises, say, the thought I am hungry, it is seen or witnessed. But, if the seer or witness is looked for, there is nobody there. If the thought It’s me that sees the thought arises, then who witnesses this thought? Again: there is just emptiness. A “me” cannot be located that is not a transient thought, that is not an object that comes and goes. Awareness cannot be a container, as this would suggest boundaries or limits and these are not present, looking now in direct evidence. A container would also suggest a divide between awareness and its contents (like thoughts and perceptions) but again, this does not seem true to experience. Can a thought be separated from the awareness that notices it? What could a thought be outside of awareness? Where would “thought” end and “awareness of thought” begin? It would be impossible to mark any kind of division. Having said this, there does also seem to be a subtle difference: awareness itself is changeless, and therefore perceives change, so perhaps it is also prior to experience? If awareness itself was subject to change, the arising and falling of a thought would not be seen. And although a thought cannot be separated from aware presence, it is not itself aware. Nor is a sensation in a leg or arm.