In search of a guide

[nacho44]

A friend who seems to be into eastern philosophies recommended I go to this site. I decided to follow his advice and here I am. I come from a nihilist/absurdist background, however.

[Steve]

Hi. My name is Steve, and I'll guide you if you wish. Is there another name I can call you?

I see that you seem to have dropped out of a previous dialogue here a few months ago. Can you say a bit about what will be different this time? In other words, what's changed for you since March?

I'd also be interested to know what you expect to get from this interaction. I know what you said in March. What would you say today?

By the way, nihilism and absurdism can be a great starting point!

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

Hello, Steve.

Is there another name I can call you?

You can call me Mike

Can you say a bit about what will be different this time?

I had a lot more going on at that time... I was dealing with drug use, depression and a plethora of other problems. I "dropped out" because I didn't feel like I was getting anywhere. I've decided to retry for multiple reasons, but mainly because I feel like I wasn't exactly being open minded the last time and because I feel like this liberation unleashed stuff holds some truth to it.

I'd also be interested to know what you expect to get from this interaction.

I hope to be able to "experience" this "no self" thing. I hope to perhaps gain knowledge and understanding.

Hope to hear from you again.

[Steve]

Hi, Mike. Nice to meet you! Thanks for using the quote function. It makes this much easier.

I know you've gone over the guidelines before, so we'll take them as given. I'll usually post once a day, maybe twice if the rhythm of our conversation dictates.

I hope to be able to "experience" this "no self" thing. I hope to perhaps gain knowledge and understanding.

Okay, good. This sounds reasonable at first glance, but let's take a closer look.

First, about knowledge and understanding. I'm not here to impart knowledge, not in the way that teachers and books do. I mean, I could say right now, "The 'you' you take yourself to be doesn't exist." Now you have some knowledge you may or may not have had already. Is it helpful in any way? Almost certainly not.

The kind of knowledge that we're after here is direct knowledge, not book knowledge. It's the kind of knowledge you have when I ask "Is there any milk in the fridge?" and you look to find out. Then you can say with 100% certainty either "Yes, there's a carton of milk" or "No, there's no milk in the fridge." You've looked, therefore you know. "I'm sure there must be" or "Jane said she bought some" or "Tom said he used it up" don't cut it. Those would be indirect knowledge. We're looking for the direct kind.

What we're going to do together is to explore your experience and see what can or can't be found directly. That's really all. As for experiencing no self, maybe the best way to think of it is that this must already be your experience, and it's up to you to discover how that's the case.

So, with all that out of the way, let's get started.

Find a quiet spot. Take the statement "There is no you" and pull it inside. Really try to feel its meaning deeply. Sit with it. Marinate in it.

What feelings do you notice?

What thoughts do you notice?

I look forward to continuing this!

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

What feelings do you notice?

I feel a bit of doubt... I feel a bit of relief as well, if I were to completely agree with that statement.

What thoughts do you notice?

my thoughts are as follows:
Then who is asking the question?
What is this "voice" that I seem to be in control of that just took the question from my screen and said it in my head?
How was I able to take these series of letters, view them, internalize them, reflect on them, process responses and put those responses into words if that statement is true?

-Mike

[Steve]

Hi, Mike.

I feel a bit of doubt... I feel a bit of relief as well, if I were to completely agree with that statement.

Excellent. There's a lot to work with right there. Let's try a couple different angles.

First Angle: What's a feeling?
You mentioned doubt and relief as the names of feelings that come up.

What's the experience behind those names? In other words, what causes you to mention doubt and relief as opposed to, say, joy and envy? Or sorrow and pity? When you look directly at the experiences you're calling "doubt" and "relief," do those word-labels come attached? What's behind the labels?

Try to observe as directly as you can, just like looking in the fridge for milk. Describe the experience you're calling doubt. Describe the experience you're calling relief. Are there specific sensations in the body? Are there thought-pictures or thought-stories? Be very specific.

Second Angle: What's agreement?
See if you can get at the root of what it means when you say you agree or disagree with something. I don't mean the consequences of agreeing with any particular statement. I mean the very idea of agreeing.

Is agreement like a feeling? Maybe something like confidence? If so, describe it in detail (like the other feelings, doubt and relief).

Is it more like a thought about a thought? Like "That statement seems true to me. I agree with that." If so, how do you know this actually signifies agreement? This is similar to the situation with feelings. Does the original statement-thought come labeled with an agreement-thought? What's the connection between them?

That's plenty for now. Please don't be hasty. Chew on these for a while and observe closely.

Above all, don't respond with speculation or what you think or what you've heard or what you've read. Observe. Look for yourself.

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

What's a feeling

An ambiguous state of emotional belief.

do those word-labels come attached?

Nope, we've all felt doubt and relief, so we've decided to label them "doubt" and "relief" for the purpose of communication.

What's behind the labels?

The emotions they try to describe?

What's agreement

Harmony

Is agreement like a feeling?

I think so. Maybe more like opinion than feeling, if there's a distinction.
It's a feeling that something is either right or wrong.

Is it more like a thought about a thought?

Like a judgement, if anything.

If so, how do you know this actually signifies agreement?

What else would a judgement do besides signify agreement or disagreement?

Does the original statement-thought come labeled with an agreement-thought? What's the connection between them?

Well, kind of, I think. If you think something is true, obviously you agree with it. Whether or not you outright think "That statement seems true to me. I agree with that." is up to the individual.

[Steve]

Hi, Mike. Thanks for your responses.

HOWEVER, I asked for direct observation rather than speculation or thoughts. And every single one of your responses is thought up, remembered, or speculative. There isn't one direct observation in the entire lot.

Using my "looking for milk in the fridge" metaphor, you've done everything except actually open the refrigerator door and look. You're just writing stories about what you suppose the inside of the fridge is like.

Please do it again. This time pay more attention to exactly what I'm asking, and take care to respond with direct observation.

Here's a partial example of what the beginning might look like:

When I say I feel doubt, what's going on in my body is an itching sensation in my eyelid and a cramp in my big toe. Along with that, there's often a thought-picture of a clown ringing a buzzer. When I say "doubt," what I'm actually referring to is this combination of sensations and thoughts.

This is a fanciful example, obviously. But you see why "we've all felt doubt and relief" won't cut it. That's sidestepping the question. We're looking to observe the experience before it gets labeled, and find out whether or not it has specific, inherent meaning.

Your absurdist background should help a lot!

So. Once more, this time with close observation, no assumptions, no speculation.

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

But you see why "we've all felt doubt and relief" won't cut it. That's sidestepping the question. We're looking to observe the experience before it gets labeled, and find out whether or not it has specific, inherent meaning.

No, I don't see why that won't cut it. Have you not felt doubt or relief? Emotions are ambiguous, they're hard to put into words. The only way I can describe the feeling to another human is by language, and since you're a human who has more than likely felt both doubt and relief, you know exactly what I mean.

Using my "looking for milk in the fridge" metaphor, you've done everything except actually open the refrigerator door and look. You're just writing stories about what you suppose the inside of the fridge is like.

This is exactly what I mean. Yes, one can literally look in the fridge. However, this question of looking can only be posed sensibly insofar as one can literally find what they are searching for. One can not literally find emotions. I do not see how the question, "look for a feeling" or, "what is a feeling" can be answered without using thoughts, speculations etc.. The question then becomes incoherent and I honestly don't see how it can be answered.

[Steve]

Hi, Mike.

I'm asking you to look directly at the core of your experience, at what's behind the conventional, everyday descriptions provided by language. You're saying there's nothing more to know about the experience of doubt than the word "doubt," nothing more to know about the experience of relief than the word "relief." In other words, you're saying that everyday language already tells you all there is to know about your experience.

If that were so, there would be no hope our discussion would reach its goal.

If that were so, the only kind of knowledge you could hope to gain here would be book knowledge.

This works only if you're willing to question your beliefs. It works only if you're willing to discover that your thoughts and beliefs may have been lying to you.

Are you willing?

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

I am completely willing, but I honestly do not know how I can answer those questions. I do not understand what they mean. I'm not trying to present an obstruction, I literally do not know what it means to describe a feeling using only direct experience.

[Steve]

Hi, Mike. Okay, good.

Let's try a different exercise. This one is about hearing. We can always return to feelings after you get the hang of it.

Sit comfortably and close your eyes. You can either focus on a specific sound that's already present (hum of air conditioner, twittering of birds) or you can create a sound by ringing a small bell, tapping with a pencil on a wine glass, tapping with a wooden spoon on a metal bowl, or whatever is at hand.

Focus on the experience of hearing. (Repeat the sound as often as you need to.) Really notice what is your actual experience of hearing, before and apart from any beliefs or thoughts about what it is or how it must be happening. For instance, notice that when you hear, you do NOT experience ears or a brain. The notion that ears and a brain are involved in hearing is just something you believe because someone told you.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do you experience a sound separate from the hearing of the sound? In other words, is there an unheard sound lurking somewhere, waiting to be heard, and then you hear it? In your actual experience, does it ever make sense to say there's an unheard sound? Or is the notion of an unheard sound incoherent?

Do you experience a 'hearer' separate from the hearing? Do you hear a hearer? Do you see a hearer? Do you touch a hearer? Do you taste, smell or feel a hearer? Really look closely! Is there a hearer anywhere to be found? Do you experience a hearer in any way, shape or form?

Now, having looked deeply into the experience of hearing, what do you see about these more general questions:

Does the experience of hearing require the presence of a hearer? Who or what is hearing?

Looking forward to your report!

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

Do you experience a sound separate from the hearing of the sound?

No? I don't think so, if I'm understanding the question properly.

In other words, is there an unheard sound lurking somewhere, waiting to be heard, and then you hear it?

Well I would say yes (e.g. a tree that falls in the woods when no one is around does make a sound, why wouldn't it? What about no one being around changes the subsequent vibrations given off by the tree falling?), but as to whether it can be directly experienced, who knows? Going along with the tree falling in the woods example, if no one were able to hear it, then it's making a sound would be indistinguishable from it not making a sound.

In your actual experience, does it ever make sense to say there's an unheard sound?

Not in my actual experience, no.

Or is the notion of an unheard sound incoherent?

In my actual experience, yes.

Do you experience a 'hearer' separate from the hearing? Do you hear a hearer? Do you see a hearer? Do you touch a hearer? Do you taste, smell or feel a hearer? Really look closely! Is there a hearer anywhere to be found? Do you experience a hearer in any way, shape or form?

Yes, but not if we limit "experience" to the senses.

Does the experience of hearing require the presence of a hearer? Who or what is hearing?

Is this another question I'm supposed to answer using only direct experience?
If yes: I don't know if senses require a self to do the sensing because a self existing to do the sensing would be indistinguishable from the self not existing.

Who or what is hearing?

I honestly don't know how to answer that question other than "vibrations off the eardrum."
If you're looking for an answer from direct experience, my answer would be "I do not know."

[Steve]

Hi, Mike. There's some good observation there. I'll cover some of your responses in a moment.

First, I can see you have a very logical mind and you prefer to know the logic behind what you do. We don't ordinarily explain the premises and reasoning behind the approach we take here, but there's no reason not to, and in your case I feel it will help. So here goes. (Also refer to my second post, where I distinguished between direct knowledge and book knowledge.)

1) From earliest childhood we acquire beliefs because we hear stuff and we read stuff and we often don't stop to question it.

2) Many of our acquired beliefs are about the nature of ourselves and our place in the world. These tend to cause us to suffer because we believe ourselves to be separate individuals with many limitations.

3) If we're to free ourselves from erroneous beliefs, there's only one authority we can appeal to: our own experience. Anything else is hearsay and would simply result in endless discussion of clashing belief systems, getting nowhere. Through philosophizing we might replace our beliefs but we could never transcend them.

That's why we emphasize direct experience here. It's the only authority that trumps acquired beliefs.

So what we're offering are techniques to unmask and discard our unhelpful thought stories (beliefs) and to discover our own direct knowledge, based on experience. That's it. Nothing magical and nothing philosophical.

I hope this little introduction is helpful. Does it make you feel more comfortable with the program?

In other words, is there an unheard sound lurking somewhere, waiting to be heard, and then you hear it?

Well I would say yes (e.g. a tree that falls in the woods when no one is around does make a sound, why wouldn't it? What about no one being around changes the subsequent vibrations given off by the tree falling?)

All of that is speculation, philosophizing, hearsay, indirect knowledge.

...but as to whether it can be directly experienced, who knows? Going along with the tree falling in the woods example, if no one were able to hear it, then it's making a sound would be indistinguishable from it not making a sound.

Yes, exactly. The distinction makes no sense. At best it's no more than a discussion about the meaning of the word "sound."

In your actual experience, does it ever make sense to say there's an unheard sound?

Not in my actual experience, no.

Or is the notion of an unheard sound incoherent?

In my actual experience, yes.

Good! Except you seem to be carefully reserving the right to refer to some other context than "in my actual experience." What context would that be? And what relevance would that have to this investigation?

Do you experience a 'hearer' separate from the hearing? Do you hear a hearer? Do you see a hearer? Do you touch a hearer? Do you taste, smell or feel a hearer? Really look closely! Is there a hearer anywhere to be found? Do you experience a hearer in any way, shape or form?

Yes, but not if we limit "experience" to the senses.

All right, then how do you experience a hearer if not through the senses? Look carefully, and say how this hearer is known and how you know that it is in fact the hearer.

Is this another question I'm supposed to answer using only direct experience?

They all are! (Except when I ask explicitly about what you feel, as I did several paragraphs ^^^up there^^^.)

With love,
Steve

[nacho44]

Does it make you feel more comfortable with the program?

A bit, a lot I inferred.

Except you seem to be carefully reserving the right to refer to some other context than "in my actual experience." What context would that be?

I mean anything other than direct experience (ie indirect experience, I guess). But like I said (or at least I think I said) I'm willing to just ignore this for now for the purposes of this investigation.

All right, then how do you experience a hearer if not through the senses? Look carefully, and say how this hearer is known and how you know that it is in fact the hearer.

The only reason I can sense is because of the link between my senses and my brain. If that link were to be cut, I would no longer "experience" sound (if I cut my optic nerves), or sight (if I cut my cochlear nerves), or taste or whatever. I can in fact do this and "experience" it (although I obviously won't). Because my ability to sense is contingent upon this link, I must conclude that this brain is the "hearer" and "see-er" and "taster" and what have you.
I experience information processing. I don't see it, I don't hear it, and in fact I can think of no better word than "experience" to describe it. This can be verified, although with "second hand" knowledge (eg CT/MRI scans).
...but like I said, I can ignore this for the purposes of this investigation.