REQUEST FOR A GUIDE

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

Question: Can this ‘mind’ be found in experience? No

Not even ‘mind’. :-)
Being interested in Buddhism, what is this ‘lack’ in experience a reminder of?

Question here: why the conditional tense in ‘I would say the link is inferred...’?

This question was asked because usually the conditional tense indicates doubt.
Question: Are there doubts P?

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

Being interested in Buddhism, what is this ‘lack’ in experience a reminder of? No self.

No doubts on the second question.

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

Being interested in Buddhism, what is this ‘lack’ in experience a reminder of? No self.

Quite.
And when abiding in experience:
Q. Can an object of experience be observed, or an experiencer, or even an experience?

No doubts on the second question.

Very happy to read this. :-)

Earlier on the question of ownership was raised:

- can an ‘owner’ be located for any experience that is observed in the other 5 physical senses.
- who/what ‘sees’, ‘hears’, ‘touches’, ‘tastes’ or ‘smells’?

The experiences are recorded in a mind but can you say this is the owner of the experience? I would say not.

And we both agree that no ‘ownership’ of experience, in any of the 6 senses, can be found.
It was also observed that causality between thoughts and actions is a matter of inferrence rather than actual observation.

Another point to look at is agency.
And here is a little exercise:
- Stand in the middle of a room, arms at rest along the body.
- Allow space around the body, for unimpeded movement.
Now:
1. Think (mental command): “I am raising the right arm”.
2. Has the right arm been raised?
3. Repeat the mental command, alternating the arm.
Q. What is observed? Specifically the relationship between the mental command and the body movement.

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

It's just a thought and body movement with no relationship in experience just cause and effect.

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

It's just a thought and body movement with no relationship in experience...

Quite.
And I assume the arm does not necessarily obey the thought command, does it.
Q. Is the assumtion correct?

... just cause and effect.

”cause and effect”? Can you please elaborate?
Q’s.
- What is/are the cause(s)?
- What is/are the effect(s)?

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

And I assume the arm does not necessarily obey the thought command, does it.
Q. Is the assumption correct? Yes

- What is/are the cause(s)?Thought
- What is/are the effect(s)? Arm movement

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

And I assume the arm does not necessarily obey the thought command, does it.
Q. Is the assumption correct? Yes

This arm moving exercise can be adjusted to other parts of the body. And the same question will emerge:
- If this body isn’t obeying ‘my’ orders, who/what is in charge of this body then?

- What is/are the cause(s)?Thought
- What is/are the effect(s)? Arm movement

Ok, an understandable conclusion to come to.
And yet, observing the experience of the mental event -the thought, and observing the experience of the arm movement (if movement there is), can any indication be found in these experiences that there is a causality relationship?
In other words:
Q.: is that causality: ‘thought’ -> ‘arm movement’ actually observed, or is it inferred (issued from subsequent thinking)?

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

- If this body isn’t obeying ‘my’ orders, who/what is in charge of this body then? Good question!

Q.: is that causality: ‘thought’ -> ‘arm movement’ actually observed, or is it inferred (issued from subsequent thinking)? Inferred. Body movements don't involve an observable thought process.

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

Q.: is that causality: ‘thought’ -> ‘arm movement’ actually observed, or is it inferred (issued from subsequent thinking)? Inferred. Body movements don't involve an observable thought process.

Thank you.
And since no causality ‘thought’ -> ‘arm movement’ is observed please see below.

- If this body isn’t obeying ‘my’ orders, who/what is in charge of this body then? Good question!

Thank you. :-)
However ‘good question’ doesn’t really cut it as an answer does it.
Observe what the body does, stay with the experiences, all the while looking for the agent behind the body’s activities -including the thoughts.
Q’s:
- Can ‘P’ be found anywhere in the activities?
- Are ‘you’, ‘P’ in charge?
And lastly:
- Can this 'self', referred to as ‘P’, be found anywhere in experience, in all 6 senses?

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

If this body isn’t obeying ‘my’ orders, who/what is in charge of this body then? No one.

- Can ‘P’ be found anywhere in the activities? No
- Are ‘you’, ‘P’ in charge? No
And lastly:
- Can this 'self', referred to as ‘P’, be found anywhere in experience, in all 6 senses? No

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

If this body isn’t obeying ‘my’ orders, who/what is in charge of this body then? No one.
- Can ‘P’ be found anywhere in the activities? No
- Are ‘you’, ‘P’ in charge? No
And lastly:
- Can this 'self', referred to as ‘P’, be found anywhere in experience, in all 6 senses? No

Thanks for that P.

It’s been a few posts now that I’ve been asking very direct questions on what is observed in experience, or what is not, to be more precise.

We have reached a point where I would like you to explain in your own words what this dialogue has revealed, how you feel about it all, and if there’s anything you’d like us to touch on.

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

The main thing is the issue of separating direct experience from that implied/inferred from thinking. We think we know how our body works and rely on that rather than the raw experience.

I've found the experience very interesting and challenging.

In terms of things to pursue there is the issue of the sixth sense.

Whilst the dialogue is persuasive in terms of coming to an understanding of the illusion of anything in direct experience that is self I'm not sure that I yet believe it at a deep level.

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

Thank you for the feedback. A few things here.

I've found the experience very interesting and challenging.

:-)

Whilst the dialogue is persuasive in terms of coming to an understanding of the illusion of anything in direct experience that is self I'm not sure that I yet believe it at a deep level.

Best avoid the word ‘believe’ here.
At no time during this dialogue was there an injunction to ‘believe’, rather a constant request to look, to observe, experiences.
Q. Can a ‘self’ be located, something that bears inherent and unique ‘P’ characteristics, in any experience, in any of the 6 senses?
Q. Where is this doubt originating from?

In terms of things to pursue there is the issue of the sixth sense.

Could you please elaborate here?

The main thing is the issue of separating direct experience from that implied/inferred from thinking. We think we know how our body works and rely on that rather than the raw experience.

This separating experience from thinking is useful to demonstrate that thoughts are just that: thoughts. But do thoughts accurately represent experience?

All the best
Dridhamati

[parasa]

Hi Dridhamati,

Q. Can a ‘self’ be located, something that bears inherent and unique ‘P’ characteristics, in any experience, in any of the 6 senses?
Q. Where is this doubt originating from?

The answer to the first question is no. The only doubt could relate to the sixth sense so I would like to be clearer in this respect. How would you define sixth sense?

But do thoughts accurately represent experience? Undoubtedly not.

P

[dridhamati]

Hi P,

Q. Can a ‘self’ be located, something that bears inherent and unique ‘P’ characteristics, in any experience, in any of the 6 senses?
The answer to the first question is no.

Essentially this is what this dialogue leads to: this unwavering 'no' to the question “Can a ‘self’ be located?”

But how about this line of questioning.
So a 'self' can't be found in experience. Yet all these years (and probably still now, at least sometimes) there was and is a strong sense of this 'self', of an 'I' doing 'things', 'in charge'. When this sense of 'self' is felt, look into experience, and:
Q. what does experience reveal about the nature of this non-locatable 'self', this 'I'?

Q. Where is this doubt originating from?
The only doubt could relate to the sixth sense so I would like to be clearer in this respect. How would you define sixth sense?

OK, we've got the well known 5 physical senses: vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The 6th sense is (loosely) defined as mind.
Some labels for the observable experiences in the 5 senses are, respectively: sight, sound, odour, taste and touch.
A label for the observable experiences in the 6th sense, in mind, is: thought.
There is an important distinction to be made here, that is between thought and 'thought content'. Thought is merely a natural arising in mind, an experience, as common as the taste of saliva on the tongue.
Thought content however affects all experience in all senses. This is where experience is interpreted, this is where labelling, classification, inferences, etc take place.

Direct pointing to experience exposes the above: there is experiencing happening, and then there is processing of this experiencing. Direct pointing shows how to differentiate between direct experience, and subsequent processing.
As you are now aware of.

Does this help?

But do thoughts accurately represent experience? Undoubtedly not.

The metaphor of the signpost is often used: thoughts point to reality, they aren't reality.
In Buddhism that metaphor can be found in the form of the finger pointing to the moon.
Signposts are valuable tools for managing the life of the body-minds (P, Dridhamati, etc) but what happens when the sign posts are believed to 'hold the truth'?

All the best
Dridhamati