Can someone help me see the truth?

[Xain]

I cannot locate an "I" in experience.

Ok - That has been realised.
If it is said 'I see', then the 'I' in this statement is just a thought - There isn't a seperate 'I', a seperate self doing 'seeing'.

I didn't find a "felt sense of me" that was seeing the words. It just seemed to be something there that was seeing the words.

Cool, Greg.
My guiding is quite specific - I will examine what you say to try for you to realise what is going on.
Certainly, there is a sense of 'I am' or 'I exist' - But it isn't an object - Not a 'thing' that can be found, and not a 'thing' that can be located that is responsible for something - Does that seem fair?

I cannot find a separate "I" either when hearing.

Good.
You may also examine the other senses in a similar way - Go to the immediate experience and see if an 'I', a seperate self is 'doing' that sense.

Touch and feeling is quite a close to home one and can be a little more tricky to examine.

Reach out and touch the table (or whatever).
(Close your eyes if needed).
Go to the pure experience alone.
Is there an 'I' that is doing the feeling, or is there just 'feeling'.
In the experience, are there two seperate clear parts - What is being touched, and what is doing the touching?
Or is there just the experience alone?

The sounds, more pronounced and less pronounced, seem to be occurring at the physical location of my head.

Understood. There may be a sort-of 'centre' to perception, but don't be concerned about this at the moment.
Simply try to find a 'thing', an item, person or object that is responsible for the senses.

Xain ♥

[gregh]

Certainly, there is a sense of 'I am' or 'I exist' - But it isn't an object - Not a 'thing' that can be found, and not a 'thing' that can be located that is responsible for something - Does that seem fair?

Yes, this seems fair.

Is there an 'I' that is doing the feeling, or is there just 'feeling'.

There is just feeling. No separate object or thing referenced as "I" is found when feeling. This seems more easily understood when my eyes are closed.

In the experience, are there two seperate clear parts - What is being touched, and what is doing the touching?
Or is there just the experience alone?

In experience, there does not seem to be two separate parts. There just seems to be touching.

[Xain]

Good stuff, Greg.

Notice then that any reference to 'I' in seeing, hearing, touch etc - Any of the senses, there isn't a seperate self involved. The body isn't the one 'performing' the sense. There is just the sense alone.

So 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc is simply a thought about what is happening - Just an idea.
It doesn't match the experience.

If I stub my toe, then the pain is felt and I register the pain in my body as “my pain”

Can you see that the body doesn't register the pain. There is just the sensation 'pain'.
The body doesn't 'perform' the sensation of pain, nor is there a 'you' experiencing the sensation.
There is just the experience of 'pain' alone.
Does this make sense?

Cause and effect mean that when this body does something (i.e. YOU do something) is causes something else to happen? So this body 'me' one object, acts on other bodies and objects which are 'not you'?

Yes, it appears so for both questions.

Let's look at this one.

Do a simple experiment.
Choose one of your arms. It doesn't matter which.
Wait for a moment, and then when you feel you wish to, raise that arm in the air.

Do this as many times as you like, and do like we did before - Examine the experience directly without adding thought to what is happening.
Is there a 'you' moving the arm?
Does the 'body' move the arm?
Can you locate anything IN EXPERIENCE that is responsible for moving the arm?
Is 'I move the arm' something that matches the experience? Do you find an 'I' doing it?
Or is 'I move the arm' just a thought?

Xain ♥

[gregh]

Thank you for your patience and persistence Xain. Really appreciate it.

Can you see that the body doesn't register the pain. There is just the sensation 'pain'.
The body doesn't 'perform' the sensation of pain, nor is there a 'you' experiencing the sensation.
There is just the experience of 'pain' alone.
Does this make sense?

This seems to make sense, but what registers the pain if the body doesn't, as referenced in the first sentence in the paragraph above?

Do a simple experiment.
Choose one of your arms. It doesn't matter which.
Wait for a moment, and then when you feel you wish to, raise that arm in the air.

Do this as many times as you like, and do like we did before - Examine the experience directly without adding thought to what is happening.
Is there a 'you' moving the arm?

No, there does not appear to be a "me" moving the arm. The arm just moves.

Does the 'body' move the arm?

The body does not seem to move the arm either, although the arm is attached to the body.

Can you locate anything IN EXPERIENCE that is responsible for moving the arm?

No.

Is 'I move the arm' something that matches the experience?

No.

Do you find an 'I' doing it?

No. It seems to move by itself.

Or is 'I move the arm' just a thought?

"I move the arm" seems like a thought only and is added after the moment of the arm.

[Xain]

This seems to make sense, but what registers the pain if the body doesn't, as referenced in the first sentence in the paragraph above?

As a guide, I can only ask you to look and realise this for 'yourself'.
If there is 'feeling' or 'pain', can a seperate self, an 'I' be identified that is experiencing it?
We look for a seperate object, a 'thing' that is responsible. Is there one?

The mind asks the question, 'what is registering the pain' and the mind requests an answer in the form of something it can reference. The mind can only reference objects, concepts, labels etc
Could it be that what is registering the pain is not something that is a seperate individual object or 'thing' that can be conceptualised in such a way?

If you look and can't find anything other than the experience itself, then is there a seperate 'thing' here experiencing it?

"I move the arm" seems like a thought only and is added after the moment of the arm.

A great discovery!
Notice that thoughts always precede or appear after the action.
A thought beforehand says 'I will move the arm'.
A thought afterwards says 'I have moved the arm'.
Yet when the actual thing is examined directly, the arm simply 'moves'. A controlling seperate 'I' isn't found.
The 'I' is a thought.

So is there an 'I', a seperate self that is in control of the body?
Has there ever been an 'I' controlling the body?

What about choice?
Do the previous experiment again if needed.
What 'I' is choosing the arm to raise?
Is there a chooser here?

Is there an 'I', a seperate self here right now that can choose or decide? Or just the thought of one.
Is there a 'you' that has chosen or decided anything? Ever? Or just the thought of one?

Did 'you' choose to begin this conversation with me?

Xain ♥

[gregh]

If there is 'feeling' or 'pain', can a seperate self, an 'I' be identified that is experiencing it?

No, it cannot as it would be apart from it if it were separate.

We look for a seperate object, a 'thing' that is responsible. Is there one?

There doesn't appear to be a separate object or thing that is responsible.

Could it be that what is registering the pain is not something that is a seperate individual object or 'thing' that can be conceptualised in such a way?

Yes, it could be so.

If you look and can't find anything other than the experience itself, then is there a seperate 'thing' here experiencing it?

No, there does not appear to be a separate thing here to experience it.

So is there an 'I', a seperate self that is in control of the body?

In experience, I cannot find one.

Has there ever been an 'I' controlling the body?

It doesn’t appear so.

What about choice?
Do the previous experiment again if needed.
What 'I' is choosing the arm to raise?

There doesn’t appear to be an “I” that is making a choice to raise the arm.

Is there a chooser here?

I cannot find one in experience.

Is there an 'I', a seperate self here right now that can choose or decide? Or just the thought of one.

No separate “I” to be found to choose and decide. If there is no real object or thing called “I”, then it must be a thought – a thought about something.

Is there a 'you' that has chosen or decided anything? Ever? Or just the thought of one?

No, there doesn’t appear to have ever been a separate ”me” that has ever chosen or decided anything. There seems to only have been the thought of a separate “me” that chose or decided.

Did 'you' choose to begin this conversation with me?

I thought I chose to begin the conversation with you at first, but now, I don’t think so. After going through your exercises, I believe that there could not have been a separate “me” that chose to begin the conversation with you.

[Xain]

Let's look at thoughts.

So thoughts appearing are 'yours'. They are created by 'you'?

Thoughts seem to be mine when an apparent interpretation of an event, situation, etc. is involved and “I” am affected by the event, situation, etc. I can’t say for sure if these thoughts are created by me. I believe the “correct” response would be that the thoughts are not created by me, but I do not know this for certain either way.

For thoughts to be 'yours', there would have to be a seperate owner that could be found.
Is there an 'owner' of thoughts?

Examine any thought that appears. Are there two seperate things - The thought, and the owner of that thought?
Or is there 'just a thought' in the experience?

What about a creator of thoughts. Can a creator be found in experience?

How about a 'controller' of thoughts?
Surely if thoughts were under some sort of control, a choice could be made to only have pleasant thoughts?
Is there an 'I' controlling thoughts? Can one be found?

Xain ♥

[gregh]

For thoughts to be 'yours', there would have to be a seperate owner that could be found.
Is there an 'owner' of thoughts?

In experience, I cannot find a separate owner of the thoughts. I cannot find a separate object or thing or anything that owns the thoughts. I cannot say that there is a separate “I” that owns the thoughts.

Examine any thought that appears. Are there two seperate things - The thought, and the owner of that thought?
Or is there 'just a thought' in the experience?

There just seems to be thoughts appearing in experience. Any false belief in ownership occurs after the thought appears.

What about a creator of thoughts. Can a creator be found in experience?

I don’t know who the creator / originator or thinker of thoughts is. In experience, I cannot say for sure where the thoughts come from. They just seem to appear.

How about a 'controller' of thoughts?

I cannot find a controller of thoughts. Sometimes though, it feels like I am the controller of thoughts and can steer the thoughts in a particular direction when multiple thoughts about a particular situation occur, but upon closer inspection , I really don’t have control over the thoughts because I cannot start / stop the thoughts when I want to do so.

Surely if thoughts were under some sort of control, a choice could be made to only have pleasant thoughts?

Yes, if thoughts were under “my” control, then an apparent choice to think only good thoughts could be made. But, I cannot find this control in experience.

Is there an 'I' controlling thoughts? Can one be found?

I cannot find a separate “I” that controls thoughts.

[Xain]

Ok, Greg.

At this stage, do you have any questions?

I believe waking up to be a change in perspective or identity from the point that the awakened person no longer believes in a personal self as the center of their being, but sees themselves as nothing/everything.

Everything we have looked at so far, has there been a seperate self, an 'I' to be found?
Will one ever be found? Or is 'I' only ever just a thought?

I have been told that the term, “awakened person” is not accurate because a person cannot awaken. I used the term to reference those who have stated that they have seen through an apparent illusion of a separate, personal self.

Yes.
You can look into this yourself. Examine experience.
Can an 'I', a 'person' be found that could attain a state called 'being awakened'.
Or is this . . . yet again . . . simply a thought?

Has the illusion been through?

Xain ♥

[gregh]

At this stage, do you have any questions?

No questions about the experiential suggestions.

Everything we have looked at so far, has there been a seperate self, an 'I' to be found?
Will one ever be found? Or is 'I' only ever just a thought?

I have not been able to find an object or thing called "I" in anything that we have looked at so far. I do not believe one could be found because I believe the "I" to be a thought. I cannot find any evidence to prove otherwise.

Can an 'I', a 'person' be found that could attain a state called 'being awakened'.
Or is this . . . yet again . . . simply a thought?

Since I cannot find a separate "I" that could do anything, then I do not believe that an "I" could attain a state called "being awakened" and the "I" must be a thought. I do not know where this leads though. If there is no separate "I" to be found, then is there still a "state" called "being awake"?

Has the illusion been through?

I cannot find a separate "I" in any of the experiential exercises you suggested and I have tried to answer as honestly as I could, but I still do not have a sense that the illusion has been seen through. No substantial gut feeling here. There has not been any "aha" moment, nor any shift in perspective. Have my responses come from an intellectual understanding? Perhaps, somewhat. But, I truly believe that my responses also came from a calm place too that was based on the experience in the moment. What to do?

[Xain]

Did you just answer the questions I posed?

I cannot find a separate "I" in any of the experiential exercises you suggested.
I have tried to answer as honestly as I could.

Did you ever look? I mean REALLY. What is this 'you' that has looked?

There has not been any "aha" moment, nor any shift in perspective.

If there never was an 'I', if it was ALWAYS thought - Isn't this just the way it is?
Right here and now - No 'I' - Never was - Nothing to have an aha moment.
Nothing with a perspective to shift.

Xain ♥

[gregh]

Thank you Xain. I really appreciate your help and patience. I hope I haven't wasted your time. Please see the responses below and if you still want to help, I would be grateful, if not, then I will understand.

Did you just answer the questions I posed?

I read the questions. I "looked" and wrote down what came to me. I tried to be as honest as I could in the moment.

Did you ever look? I mean REALLY. What is this 'you' that has looked?

I believe I did look. I am open to suggestions. I mean, "look" to me, means to "look" and I think that is what I did. I never did find a separate "me" that was doing the looking. There seemed to be a "felt sense" of presence when looking, but I believe you said that that feeling was "I am" or "I exist". Other than the accompanying sense of "felt presence", there seem to only be what was happening, i.e. seeing, hearing, touching, etc.

If there never was an 'I', if it was ALWAYS thought - Isn't this just the way it is?

Yes, it would have to be that way.

Right here and now - No 'I' - Never was - Nothing to have an aha moment.
Nothing with a perspective to shift.

I was never looking for the heavens to part and angels to sing upon an awakening, but I guess I did expect some sort of conviction, gut feeling, knowing, or a big yes, when going through the exercises, but it didn't happen. My two friends who woke up, along with others I know who are awake, would definitely agree with your statement above, yet there would always be a paradoxical answer that yes, there seemed to be an "aha" moment, a defining moment that could be referenced as now awake, but that statement was always followed with another statement in that it had always been this way and that they had never not been awake and that there was no difference in awake / not awake. There was however, a noticeable difference in them after their awakening that is still evident today (years later). Each had stated that there had been a shift in perspective (or a case of mistaken identity of sorts) as they no longer saw themselves as a finite, little "I", but rather never had even been an "I", but now realized themselves to be nothing/all that is.


Thank you again Xain.

[Xain]

Did you just answer the questions I posed?

I read the questions. I "looked" and wrote down what came to me. I tried to be as honest as I could in the moment.

What 'I' did that?
Describe it to me?

What 'I' is considering this question right now? Can one be found?

There seemed to be a "felt sense" of presence when looking

Ok, a 'felt sense' of presence did the looking.
How was this found? For example, which sense did you use to locate this?

You are saying that there are clearly two things to the 'looking' - The looking itself, and the 'felt sense of presence' that was doing it. Yes?

It wouldn't be that 'self sense of presence' is just a thought?
I mean, you clearly locate this 'thing' - You have found it as an existing item capable of doing stuff . . .

I guess I did expect some sort of conviction, gut feeling, knowing, or a big yes, when going through the exercises

In order for this to happen, there would have to be an 'I', a seperate self to have it.
Keep looking. Assuming there is a 'you' capable of looking here right now . . . is there?

but rather never had even been an "I", but now realized themselves to be nothing/all that is.

Stop going to thoughts.
Are you saying that either there was 'nothing' doing the looking, or 'all that is' doing the looking?
When you did the looking, was 'nothing' found that was doing the looking?
When you did the looking, was 'all that is' found that was doing the looking?
Or was there just looking? And anything added to that is just a thought?

Right now, what are 'you'? What does 'I' point to.
Explain how this is known.
Ensure what you are decribing is not the content of thoughts, and that it is clearly an existing item capable of 'looking' as I will quiz you about it.

Xain ♥

[gregh]

What 'I' did that?

I don't know for sure.

Describe it to me?

I don’t think I can as it is nothing separate from the body or mind. It just seems to be something inside of me, invisible, like a ghost or something. Seems to be located behind the eyes or somewhere in that area.

What 'I' is considering this question right now? Can one be found?

I don’t know what “I” was considering the questions. Seems to be the same “felt presence” or invisible ghost, or whatever that had been considering the previous questions. I don’t know what was considering the questions, but something seemed to be considering them. I cannot find a separate “I”, but there seems to be something considering them.

Ok, a 'felt sense' of presence did the looking.
How was this found? For example, which sense did you use to locate this?

None of the 5 physical senses was used to locate this “felt sense of presence”. There was just an awareness that something immediate, something here right now was looking.

You are saying that there are clearly two things to the 'looking' - The looking itself, and the 'felt sense of presence' that was doing it. Yes?

I cannot say for sure. It seemed like that “felt sense of presence” was doing the looking.

It wouldn't be that 'self sense of presence' is just a thought?

Perhaps. I don’t know for sure.

I mean, you clearly locate this 'thing' - You have found it as an existing item capable of doing stuff . . .

I cannot say that I have located a “thing”. Something is aware of what is happening. This something that is aware, what I have called a “felt sense of presence”, seems to be present when the seeing, hearing, touching, etc., is happening. I cannot say for sure if it is doing stuff or just aware of stuff being done. Either way, this would imply two separate things and that doesn’t seem right, but I cannot seem to disprove it either.

In order for this to happen, there would have to be an 'I', a seperate self to have it.
Keep looking. Assuming there is a 'you' capable of looking here right now . . . is there?

Yes, this seems logical, even though I cannot find a separate “I”. I cannot find a separate object or thing called “I” that could expect conviction, gut feeling, or anything.

Stop going to thoughts.
Are you saying that either there was 'nothing' doing the looking, or 'all that is' doing the looking?

They seemed to equate “nothingness” with “all that is”.

When you did the looking, was 'nothing' found that was doing the looking?

It seemed like “something” was looking.

When you did the looking, was 'all that is' found that was doing the looking?

It didn’t seem like “all that is” was doing the looking.

Or was there just looking? And anything added to that is just a thought?

There was looking. Seemed like something was looking. Interpretation / commentary on what was seen or heard or touched was believed to be thought.

Right now, what are 'you'? What does 'I' point to.

“I” points to a collection of thoughts, ideas about what I may be. I do see that “I” can only be thoughts “about” something, and cannot be the actual thing itself. Still, there is a belief somewhere that I am a mind, soul, presence, or whatever that “has” a body and “does/ controls” things.

Explain how this is known.

It is believed. I cannot say for sure that this is known, but it is believed. Apparent cause/effect situations seem to reinforce the notions of a mind/soul/presence that “has” a body. Same cause/effects help to reinforce any false notion of an “I”.

Ensure what you are decribing is not the content of thoughts, and that it is clearly an existing item capable of looking' as I will quiz you about it.

These are the best descriptions that I can give. I am not sure that what has been described is not in part, my thoughts. I am not sure what to think about an existing item that is capable of looking. I just seems to be that I am looking and I'm not sure how to "look" any differently than I have been doing. Hopeless?

[Xain]

Remember we are looking for a real, locatable seperate self, an 'I' - Not the thought of one.

What 'I' did that?

I don't know for sure.

When you say 'I don't know for sure' - What is this 'I' that doesn't know for sure.
Or is this a thought?

It just seems to be something inside of me

That doesn't really help.
What is this 'me' that it is inside of? - Did you mean the body?
Are you 'the body'?

Seems to be located behind the eyes or somewhere in that area.

How are you finding this 'thing'?
How is it possible to detect anything behind the eyes?
Do you mean inside the head?

Remember, we are trying to find what was 'looking'.
When I asked 'What is looking', you are saying that there was something located inside the head behind the eyes that was looking?
It's clear to you that there was a 'thing' located at this point doing the action?

Seems to be the same “felt presence” or invisible ghost, or whatever that had been considering the previous questions.

I hope I don't sound flippant here, but seriously . . . we are looking for something that is actually findable.
A 'you'.
How is it possible to find an invisible ghost?

Let's for the moment go back one stage and attempt to rationalise things.
You appear to be going off into wild thoughts and beliefs rather than actually examining your experience.

Please - Try to examine and differentiate what is 'a thought' and what is 'something that can be found in experience here and now'. This really is the main thing to do here from now on.

The way I approach this investigation is that in order to find something, we can use the five senses. Seing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch.
We can also have an idea or thought about something, so we can locate something as a thought.
Can we agree on this basis, or do you believe that things can be sensed or found outside of what I have suggested?

I cannot say for sure. It seemed like that “felt sense of presence” was doing the looking.

I am going to put it to you that this 'felt sense of presence' is just an idea that you have. It isn't something that is here as a real 'thing' and therefore can't be 'you'.
Or you might be mistaking the operation of the five senses as 'presence'.
If you disagree strongly, which of course you may, please try to explain what it is and how you are claiming that it is 'you' or 'is something that is capable of doing things'.
Is the 'felt sense of presence' responsible for other things too - Like 'choosing' or 'moving the arm'?
Is this 'felt sense of presense' you?
If it is, then what was it that discovered it to be you?

They seemed to equate “nothingness” with “all that is”.

'They'?
Please try to keep our invesigation on things you can actually find, rather than thoughts and ideas that have been instilled by others.

Xain ♥