Moving from conceptual knowledge to direct seeing

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

The straight answer is that all these actions are automatic, they are done by the body, there is no "i" involved at all.

Ok, well that's succinct and straightforward. Apologies if the following seems pedantic, but I always need to really be sure that what you're telling me (and not just you, anyone that I'm guiding) is based solely on direct experience:

Please just confirm, if it's the case, that when doing any action that's undertaken, you can find no 'I', no separate self, present or doing anything; and that (for want of a better word) all actions just seem to be 'automatic', i.e. they appear to 'just happen' without the agency of any sort of controlling entity

1. I got this from a book by J Searle, a philosopher, some years ago.
Test: (i asked my friends to do this, but generally got funny looks and exclamation like, "what planet are you on?").
Put your hand up with fingers curled. Then in the next moments you can decide (when) to straighten out your index finger, and then straighten it out.
Outcome:
i) I have no idea how I made the decision to move the finger - and why at that precise moment
ii) I have no idea who or what made the decision
iii) I have no idea how "i" moved the finger
My conclusion: there is no "i" involved in the decision-making, nor in the moving.

Once satisfied that it can be seen that there's no doer to be found, I usually move on to looking at choosing/deciding, whilst noting that clearly there's quite an overlap with actions and control. Your above observations (together with the other two examples, although the one above is much better as it's current) relate much more directly to decision-making, than simple doing, and clearly indicate that you can't find a separate self as decider/chooser either, which is excellent. Anyway, the exercise is as follows:

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Can I also ask you to have a look at the following video clip from Sam Harris:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zZLyYq_QQ ... e=youtu.be
It's really the first 35 minutes that are particularly relevant. (The q&a session that follows is interesting too, but not so much). Sam Harris talks about free will and explains clearly, logically and scientifically, why there is never an 'I' making choices and decisions There is no substitute for looking in direct experience, but this is excellent 'conventional' corroboration for what is to be found, or rather not found, in direct experience.

Finally, in my previous post I said:

You're doing great and I'm really enjoying our investigation so far Stephen. How's it going for you?

Let me know Stephen.

Pete x

[stephen.s]

Apologies if the following seems pedantic, but I always need to really be sure that what you're telling me (and not just you, anyone that I'm guiding) is based solely on direct experience

Yes, please do come back to this again and again.
I am aware that I can easily skim over things...
However, I must say that at the moment it is indeed direct experience - and if I ruthlessly stay with it, cutting out thought - that confirms the absence of "I" in body movement and decision. This through the simple observation, again and again, that I don't know what the hell happens when decisions are being made, or when the body moves.
It is when I start thinking about it that I start having doubts.

Please just confirm, if it's the case, that when doing any action that's undertaken, you can find no 'I', no separate self, present or doing anything; and that (for want of a better word) all actions just seem to be 'automatic', i.e. they appear to 'just happen' without the agency of any sort of controlling entity

Yes this is the case.

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

As above: I don't know or see how this happens. Things just happen on their own.

The link to Sam Harris didn't work, but I went to youtube and searched Sam Harris and free will. There were a number of videos on this. I don't know anything about his background, but he seems to have the same idea about what thoughts are as what we are saying here. Likewise w/ free will. However, I did not think he was particularly clear on his further argument that this does not mean we have no responsibility and should not do the "right thing".

You're doing great and I'm really enjoying our investigation so far Stephen. How's it going for you?

Well, in my previous post I said I was enjoying our investigation. However, I have a slight niggle of doubt, in that I feel things are running too smoothly at the moment and so I wonder if I am missing something, or I am bamboozling myself in some way. Having looked at things so far, there has been no noticeable change in my day to day life, apart from a marked increase in my just observing what's going on. For instance, when walking somewhere, I look for the "I", or just observe the surroundings more carefully with a focus on the experience of observing, and when I interact w others and so on. I noticed that life is made up of masses of small, apparently inconsequential decisions - and I have still not worked out how they are made!
I read some of the other strings by other seekers. I notice a fair amount of people report feelings of anxiety or sadness. Again, I am worried, am I missing something, because I have none of this. Maybe it is yet to come!
In those moments when it is clearly seen that there is no "I", there is a sense of nakedness, of openness, and of being at the mercy of, of what?, of reality or life? Yet this is not anxiety, it is more a thrill like feeling, like when you are about to jump into the cold water, there is a slight hesitation. Or, and this may sound perverse ;-) when we were kids we used to tickle each other "to death", and you would hold on to the tickler's hand to stop them going in too quickly to prepare yourself and only very gingerly let go of their hand. This is, then, a mixture of excitement and fear. But this is only momentary, and this kind of fear is not real fear. There is certainly no on-going fear or dread, and if it is seen that there is no "I", e.g., when looking at the scenery, the word that best describes the feeling that arises is wonder, or the beginnings of (small) awe.

Hope this makes sense!

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

However, I must say that at the moment it is indeed direct experience - and if I ruthlessly stay with it, cutting out thought - that confirms the absence of "I" in body movement and decision. This through the simple observation, again and again, that I don't know what the hell happens when decisions are being made, or when the body moves.

Really good to hear that.

It is when I start thinking about it that I start having doubts.

And doubts are nothing more than thoughts that are believed. But you've clearly seen that thoughts just arise, out of nowhere, with no thinker involved. Like all experiencing that you've investigated so far, there's no 'I' doing anything. So doubts can be seen for what they really are, and so not be taken seriously; just noticed and not believed.

Please just confirm, if it's the case, that when doing any action that's undertaken, you can find no 'I', no separate self, present or doing anything; and that (for want of a better word) all actions just seem to be 'automatic', i.e. they appear to 'just happen' without the agency of any sort of controlling entity

Yes this is the case.

Good. And the same for choosing and deciding.

Sorry about the Sam Harris link not working but you clearly found out for yourself what he says regarding free will. He's someone who doesn't necessarily share my understanding (for want of a better word) of 'reality', but the fact that he comes from another more materialist/rationalist perspective makes his corroboration of the absence of an entity that thinks or decides or chooses, for me, that much more telling. But, as I say, it's peripheral, not direct experience.

Well, in my previous post I said I was enjoying our investigation. However, I have a slight niggle of doubt, in that I feel things are running too smoothly at the moment and so I wonder if I am missing something, or I am bamboozling myself in some way. Having looked at things so far, there has been no noticeable change in my day to day life, apart from a marked increase in my just observing what's going on. For instance, when walking somewhere, I look for the "I", or just observe the surroundings more carefully with a focus on the experience of observing, and when I interact w others and so on. I noticed that life is made up of masses of small, apparently inconsequential decisions - and I have still not worked out how they are made!
I read some of the other strings by other seekers. I notice a fair amount of people report feelings of anxiety or sadness. Again, I am worried, am I missing something, because I have none of this. Maybe it is yet to come!
In those moments when it is clearly seen that there is no "I", there is a sense of nakedness, of openness, and of being at the mercy of, of what?, of reality or life? Yet this is not anxiety, it is more a thrill like feeling, like when you are about to jump into the cold water, there is a slight hesitation. Or, and this may sound perverse ;-) when we were kids we used to tickle each other "to death", and you would hold on to the tickler's hand to stop them going in too quickly to prepare yourself and only very gingerly let go of their hand. This is, then, a mixture of excitement and fear. But this is only momentary, and this kind of fear is not real fear. There is certainly no on-going fear or dread, and if it is seen that there is no "I", e.g., when looking at the scenery, the word that best describes the feeling that arises is wonder, or the beginnings of (small) awe.

I'm glad that you're enjoying this Stephen. And don't worry about this going so smoothly. I've guided many people over the last couple of years or so and, in quite a few, but by no means all, cases at some point in this looking process, the client has told me something to indicate that their mind, ego, whatever you want to call it, is putting up a rearguard resistance, whether via, fear, doubt or anger arising, or disappointment that expectations haven't been met etc. These have appeared with varying degrees of intensity but, once these are seen for what they are, not personal, just thoughts and feelings arising, they subside. So, your 'slight niggles of doubt' that this is too smooth or that life doesn't look or seem much different should be seen in that context. Don't worry about not being anxious or sad!

A marked increase in just observing what's going on is spot on, exactly what 'should' be happening. Also when you say, ' In those moments when it is clearly seen that there is no "I", there is a sense of nakedness, of openness, and of being at the mercy of, of what?, of reality or life? Yet this is not anxiety, it is more a thrill like feeling, like when you are about to jump into the cold water, there is a slight hesitation', bells ring. That sounds familiar; I recognise that. Anyway, you're doing great. Really :)

Let's move on Stephen. So far, you've been able to see that there's just no separate self present in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, doing, controlling, deciding or choosing. So, what about the body? Let's look to see whether there's a separate self to be found in or as the body:

Solely from experience:

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?


Pete x

[stephen.s]

Hi Pete,
Just when I worried that things are moving to smoothly...!
This is a difficult area for me.
As I start typing now, I realise I am a bit constrained for time today.
I will likely reply in 2 posts.
Also, your 2 questions are in many ways different and I need to give them both time.
i'll start with the first and see how things go:

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

I'll start with the thoughts.
The body does not experience thoughts, but it does react to them.
If I think there is a man behind the door about to jump me, my body will tense up, release adrenalin etc.
So, there is a causal link between thoughts and body.
But this is not the way in which you meant your question I think.
Thoughts have an impact on the body, but I would not call this "to experience".
In this sense, I would say thoughts are experienced by Awareness.
Although, I feel that that is not putting it quite right.
It will do for now (I await your response...)

Does the body experience sensations?
Well, in DE, I place my hand on the rough wood of the bench I'm sitting on.
The roughness of the wood is felt, there is the feeling in awareness.
But at the same time, I feel this wood and also the pressure of it on my hand.
So, does that mean that the hand is experiencing?
In fact, both the roughness of the wood, and the pressure on the hand are experienced in awareness.
Indeed: the whole body is experienced (again, I am not sure this is putting it right) by/in awareness.
So, I have to conclude it is not the body doing the experiencing but the whole is "experienced" by awareness.

I step on a rusty nail. My foot lifts itself immediately - even before "I" am aware of the pain.
Does this mean my body does experience, but in a way not open to my awareness??

As you see I am struggling with this.
I will continue to observe.
Do you have any experiments or further questions that may help?

I will return to tackle your second question.

Many thanks
S

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

First of all, I'll just reiterate that the purpose of all these questions/exercises is simply to get you to look into direct experience to see whether there's a separate self to be found 'there'. So, the above questions are solely to see whether, having already been unable to find a self-entity anywhere else in experiencing, you can either find that self as your body, or in your body, or whether, alternatively you simply believe thoughts that might be telling you that.

Thoughts have an impact on the body, but I would not call this "to experience".
In this sense, I would say thoughts are experienced by Awareness.

Given that you can see that 'thoughts are experienced by awareness', can you even find 'a body' arising in awareness, i.e. in direct experience? There may be feelings and sensations but is there 'a body', or is this merely a concept, a label, arising as thought (s) in awareness?

In fact, both the roughness of the wood, and the pressure on the hand are experienced in awareness. Indeed: the whole body is experienced (again, I am not sure this is putting it right) by/in awareness. So, I have to conclude it is not the body doing the experiencing but the whole is "experienced" by awareness.

You may well be answering my last question here but 'conclude' still suggests an intellectual rather than experiential understanding, although I suspect from what you say that it's that as well. As always, I just need to be sure :)

When you look in direct experience, and entirely without reference to what thoughts might be telling you, can you find a separate self either as or in 'your body'?

As is often the case, it's only thinking that makes this seem more of a problem than it is.

Pete x

[stephen.s]

Thanks Pete, for getting back to me without waiting for a second post.
This I feel is an important juncture in our investigation and so it's best to go slowly.
I want to get (or rather: see!) this right.

I will pick up your new questions and leave the previous one I left unanswered to one side (in fact, one of your last 2 q's is pretty much the same anyway).

When you look in direct experience, and entirely without reference to what thoughts might be telling you, can you find a separate self either as or in 'your body'?

No, I can't. This is clear to me. I can see this in DE. The body is being experienced (or: is in awareness). This I guess answers your first question more conclusively ("Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?"). The body is in awareness, it is not aware itself.

What got me confused was the word "experience", in the sense that the body does of course interact with the environment and has an inner environment where lots of things are going on and to which the body responds. You could call this "to experience". A bit like an amoeba will respond with perhaps chemical changes and movements etc. to its environment. But I don't think this is the kind of experience you mean - and, your follow up q, quoted above clarifies this. So yes I am clear on this that the body does not experience, it is an object of experience/awareness. And there is no separate self in the body and the body is not the self.

Given that you can see that 'thoughts are experienced by awareness', can you even find 'a body' arising in awareness, i.e. in direct experience? There may be feelings and sensations but is there 'a body', or is this merely a concept, a label, arising as thought (s) in awareness?

Okay, so this is the question I left unanswered.
This is difficult...
I can propose:
Seeing that tree there, can you really see that tree arising in awareness? - I would have to answer "yes".
There may by feelings and sensations (I see the branches, the leaves, I feel the bark etc.) but is there "a tree", or is it merely a concept. Well, again, realising that to call a tree a tree is to use a concept, I would have to say there is a tree (because we have to use concepts to describe our experience).
Or, alternatively, seeing thoughts arise, do you think there really are thoughts? Again: yes...

So, the body is experienced (it is in awareness), so yes, I have to say that there is a body.

As you can see Pete, I'm really struggling with this one. But that's fine, that's what it's all about. It wouldn't be fun otherwise, right? Okay, I have to let this marinate in there for a while, and look and question and look.
(It took me a few days of pondering, looking, pondering, looking etc. until I had a clear realisation that there is no mind.)

Ste

[stephen.s]

Further observations.

To experience the body I rely predominantly on sight and touch.
Touch is divided into kinaesthetic and touch proper.
(Maybe better: somatic sensations --> touch + kinaesthetic, it doesn't matter)

If I close my eyes and rely on touch and KE, then I do not experience my body.
I just have a conglomeration of sensations.
For instance if I observe the sensations where my legs should be, the sensations don't match
where I know my legs and feet are. The senses are disjointed, vague.
If I were to paint a picture from them, there would be no legs more like ill defined blobs, and I think they would be shorter than my actual legs.

Using my eyes, vision, I see a body.
In this respect there is no difference with other objects, e.g., a tree, a chair.
If I look in the mirror, I see as much of my body, and as clearly defined, as I see a tree or chair.
If I look down my body, I see as much of it as I would if I cut down the tree, put it on its side and looked at it from the crown downwards; similarly, if I stood above the chair and looked down on it, it would be a similar experience as looking down my body.
So, for sight, I have to say that I do see/experience a body.

Now, is I go about my business, I generally don't look at my body, but look at my focus of interest. So, most of the time the concept "my body" doesn't come into the equation. In DE, I observe, say someone I am talking to, and have all sorts of peripheral impressions, the room, the temperature, the back ground noises, and - the feelings related to my body, and vague visual impressions of my body. But during this time my body doesn't preoccupy me.

Given that you can see that 'thoughts are experienced by awareness', can you even find 'a body' arising in awareness, i.e. in direct experience? There may be feelings and sensations but is there 'a body', or is this merely a concept, a label, arising as thought (s) in awareness?

You don't mention sight in your question.
For DE of sensations (i.e. feelings, touch), the answer is no.

But for sight I still have to say, as with the tree and chair, yes - to the degree that of course also for the tree and chair I have had to resort to concepts to relay to you what I am seeing. And, as with the chair and tree, the body is observed, seen, without the presence of a separate "I" doing the seeing. These objects are all just seen.

Cheers
S

[stephen.s]

Just to clarify:

>For DE of sensations (i.e. feelings, touch), the answer is no.

Meaning: I don't find a body...

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

I'm impressed by all the work that you've put in on this one!

When you look in direct experience, and entirely without reference to what thoughts might be telling you, can you find a separate self either as or in 'your body'?

No, I can't. This is clear to me. I can see this in DE. The body is being experienced (or: is in awareness). This I guess answers your first question more conclusively ("Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?"). The body is in awareness, it is not aware itself.

Fine.

Given that you can see that 'thoughts are experienced by awareness', can you even find 'a body' arising in awareness, i.e. in direct experience? There may be feelings and sensations but is there 'a body', or is this merely a concept, a label, arising as thought (s) in awareness?

You don't mention sight in your question. For DE of sensations (i.e. feelings, touch), the answer is no.
But for sight I still have to say, as with the tree and chair, yes - to the degree that of course also for the tree and chair I have had to resort to concepts to relay to you what I am seeing. And, as with the chair and tree, the body is observed, seen, without the presence of a separate "I" doing the seeing. These objects are all just seen.

That's all fine and absolutely clear to me - in direct experience you have clearly said that you cannot find a separate self either in or as the body, which in terms of tactile and kinaesthetic sensations you can see is just a label anyway. Even in terms of seeing, you can see that, like 'outside objects' such as a tree, a chair or anything else for that matter, a 'body' is a concept i.e. a label necessary to communicate that 'external object'. We could go into this a bit more deeply but it really isn't directly relevant to this process of looking for a self-entity, so I suggest we leave it there. It may be something you might wish to pursue after we've finished this, when 'you' are naturally assimilating this new experiential understanding of how things are, and various beliefs are, over time, being seen to spontaneously fall away.

So Stephen, you've now looked and looked everywhere there is to look in direct experience and you haven't been able to find even a trace of a self-entity lurking anywhere. But, before we review and revisit any areas that might be needed, let's just look from a different perspective:

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

Pete x

[stephen.s]

Hi Pete,
A bit later than usual today: it's been a hectic day at work today...

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What remains is all this stuff happening, appearing and disappearing.
All objects, phenomena, happen, do their own thing, and they appear in direct experience.
There is no writer or painter who directs this show, there is only awareness of all this going on.

However, this is the way it is, when I take the time, the few moments, when I can sit down, or walk, on my own, and just relax and observe. I know this is the way it is all the time, but I only notice it when I have a moment to myself and can let go and notice it. A lot of my time is taken up by either work or family stuff. During these interactions, I generally don't think about sitting back and observing, I am engaged with what I need to do in my job or at home. This is fine, because mostly I am pretty fully engaged then and the "I" is not a problem. (as an aside, I have noticed that I am much calmer and more observing of goings on around me, where in the past I would have enter the fray so to speak; so there is a bit of space in my mind now).

Hope this all makes sense. Basically, mostly I am just as I was (with the noted slight difference), and only intermittently when I am able to can I become fully aware of the absence of "I" and the "I-less" appearance of phenomena.

What experiences?

Everything is in awareness, but no-one experiences. There is experience or experiencing with no experiencer.
Again, with the above proviso, that this is only evident, noticed, in those certain moments.

What thinks?

Nobody thinks, thoughts just appear in awareness. But the same proviso counts here. In the case of thoughts, if I don't remember to Look, I function as I always have, as if I am the thinker of my thoughts. To be clear, I don't go around thinking, say during my job, "I have just thought of doing such and such" or " I have just had a thought", I just don't think about that: I have certain tasks to fulfil, and thoughts play a part in fulfilling them.

What does?

Nobody does, things just happen. The proviso, is very similar to the one relating to thoughts: when I don't Look, I just do things - but obviously not thinking, e.g., "I am doing that". In other words, I don't go around thinking I am doing things or thinking thoughts, they just happen, but equally, I am not aware that there is no I doing these things.Hope this makes sense, because I think this is probably the clearest way to put it; it comes the closest to what is actually happening during the moments when "I" don't Look for the absence of "I"...

What is aware?

I love this one, haha!
Nobody is aware.
Awareness is aware.
What can I say?
The first step is realising there is no "I".
Maybe the next step is an ever deepening understanding of...Awareness?
Phenomena arise in Awareness.
Awareness just is...?!?

Looking forward to your reply!
Thanks
S

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for that.

Just off out for the evening, so I'll post a reply off to you tomorrow afternoon.

Have a good evening.

Pete x

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What remains is all this stuff happening, appearing and disappearing.

All objects, phenomena, happen, do their own thing, and they appear in direct experience. There is no writer or painter who directs this show, there is only awareness of all this going on.

Everything is in awareness, but no-one experiences. There is experience or experiencing with no experiencer.

Nobody thinks, thoughts just appear in awareness.

Nobody does, things just happen.

Nobody is aware. Awareness is aware.

Splendid replies Stephen. Now to your provisos.

However, this is the way it is, when I take the time, the few moments, when I can sit down, or walk, on my own, and just relax and observe. I know this is the way it is all the time, but I only notice it when I have a moment to myself and can let go and notice it.

In other words, I don't go around thinking I am doing things or thinking thoughts, they just happen, but equally, I am not aware that there is no I doing these things.Hope this makes sense, because I think this is probably the clearest way to put it; it comes the closest to what is actually happening during the moments when "I" don't Look for the absence of "I"...

The fundamentally important fact here is that you now know for certain, from experience, that there is just no separate self to be found, anywhere, and never has been; as you say, 'I know this is the way it is all the time'.

In my second post to you I stressed two things:

One, regarding expectations, where I said 'it's best to put aside any expectations, as they reside in thoughts about the future and so are not within direct experience. Rest assured, that when you see that there isn't and never has been a 'you', a self-entity, with my guiding to help you see that fact for yourself, you'll just know. In exactly the same way that you know that unicorns aren't real, Batman doesn't exist, and there's no Santa Claus.'

And two, regarding states, where I said, 'It's really helpful to be clear that it's not any kind of state - it's simply direct knowing, insight. The Santa example puts it very well - 'seeing through' Santa, i.e. knowing for sure that there is no Santa, doesn't mean that little kids then spend the rest of their lives constantly thinking, 'there's no Santa'! Nor does it mean that Santa isn't apparently spotted in shopping malls in December. It's just that the story has been seen through. The direct knowing of no-self may be recollected at any time, but states still continue to come and go - pleasant, unpleasant, 'positive', 'negative'. However, that said, changes will be noticed, some possibly quite dramatic, including in relation to suffering arising from a pre-occupation with a separate self that simply doesn't exist!'

So you see, the knowing that there's no separate self is there whenever you look; the story has been seen through. But it's not a unique state, one that's with you all the time; states, like everything else, come and go. When believed to be true, the separate self story demands a massive amount of energy to protect, cosset and attempt to advance this apparent entity, giving rise to various versions of suffering. Now that the apparent need to do all this has gone, energy is freed up and a feeling of lightness and freedom is revealed. How quickly this happens varies as the habit energies of a lifetime gradually fade and dim. As you already say, 'I have noticed that I am much calmer and more observing of goings on around me, where in the past I would have enter the fray so to speak; so there is a bit of space in my mind now.' As false beliefs are seen through and fall away, a new perspective is gradually revealed.

So Stephen, before we move to 'final questions' (I'll explain about them in the next post), I'd like briefly to review everything we've done so far; just to see if you need to revisit any aspects to look in more depth for any evidence of a self-entity anywhere at all.

As always, in direct experience:

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

And finally:

Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?

It might seem like a bit if a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, of course, there's something you want to examine some more. Very often, a one-word answer will suffice, It doesn't look to me as if there's likely to be much, if anything, but basically, we just need to tidy up and identify any areas that need to be looked into a bit more deeply, or clarified.



Pete x

[stephen.s]

Hi Pete,
Thanks for your long reply.
It was very helpful and has reassured me that the experience of seeing the truth of no-"i" - the particular way it has manifested itself for "me" - is, well, true. As has been said more than once here on LU, this is individual and different in everyone. My awakening to the truth has been more of a gradual one rather than with bells etc. And, I have always told myself that i am not interested in "amazing experiences", I am interested in the truth. Having said that I have had "experiences" about 6 months ago following/during a period of intense looking and pondering. In those days I had may days when I had an amazing clarity of vision (sensing) lasting for hours on end; I had one funny spell when driving home from Durham, i spent a good one or 2 hours laughing to myself for no apparent reason, and on another occasion i went into a café and could barely contain the laughter within and i'm sure the girl at the counter thought i was nuts or had used some naughty substance! Interestingly in those days, there was suddenly a ceasing of all search activity - at which point i indeed stopped looking into the matter. This was followed by a period - ongoing still - of markedly increased equanimiy and trust that "all is well".
But after that, although the equanimity remained, the "special way of seeing and noticing" became less and less. This is what led me to doubt my insights and what led me to LU.
Your guidance has been very helpful in clearing up a number of things. Also, you approached the "truth" from a different angle: whereas in my own searches I was predominantly focused on "Awareness", you were on the absence of "i". This was good for me to have that different angle. A thing i realise now, from our guidance talks, is that "knowing the truth" (i am still uncomfortable with terms such as liberation and awakening) is not a state. And that is precisely what I was trying to do: to achieve these states of clarity (i was grasping after them!).

So I have you (and LU) to thank for "setting me straight" so to speak :)

The fundamentally important fact here is that you now know for certain, from experience, that there is just no separate self to be found, anywhere, and never has been; as you say, 'I know this is the way it is all the time'.

Exactly!And what you say in the following parts - true, and very helpful.

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

No, no, no and no! ;)

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Yes, but I would add also the visual aspect in which the body is seen (by noone) as a phenomenon just as all the other visual phenomena are seen. (Maybe to put it somewhat awkwardly: "there is just the seeing of an object which we label "body" ")

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

No, they are just happening: there is seeing, hearing, etc.

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

No

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

No doubt whatsoever.

Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?

Thanks to your guidance: not anymore!

Many thanks, Pete, for your putting in the time to do this.
If you can't reply today, Sunday, no worries, I understand.

Many thanks
St

[moondog]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your long reply. It was very helpful and has reassured me that the experience of seeing the truth of no-"i" - the particular way it has manifested itself for "me" - is, well, true.

Your guidance has been very helpful in clearing up a number of things. Also, you approached the "truth" from a different angle: whereas in my own searches I was predominantly focused on "Awareness", you were on the absence of "i". This was good for me to have that different angle. A thing i realise now, from our guidance talks, is that "knowing the truth" (i am still uncomfortable with terms such as liberation and awakening) is not a state. And that is precisely what I was trying to do: to achieve these states of clarity (i was grasping after them!) So I have you (and LU) to thank for "setting me straight" so to speak :)

Excellent Stephen - I'm really pleased to have been able to help clear that up.

Thanks for your clear and unambiguous answers, showing that you have no doubts about having clearly seen that there's no separate self.

So, here are the final questions. When answering question 5, please give specific and very recent examples from direct experience. Once I get your answers, and have clarified anything I might need to, I'll put them forward for to the guides for any comments. I'll then arrange for you to get access to the aftercare and various other groups on Facebook and the LU site. These are very friendly, helpful and supportive forums where you can discuss any issues relating to having seen that there's no separate self. Initially, it can be very helpful to talk with other folks who have also recently gated. So, if you do want to join the FB groups, please either let me know your details here or, if you prefer, PM them to me.

Always from direct experience:

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, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

Please give examples from recent experience.

6) Anything to add?

It's been a real pleasure guiding you Stephen.

Pete x

[stephen.s]

Hi Pete,
Thanks for this.
I will try to answer all in this post, but if a run out of time another will follow tomorrow.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

No, this is now entirely clear to me, beyond doubt. Old patterns (= thoughts) will return, but I am almost immediately aware of them and see through them. Indeed, i have even become more tolerant of my self-thoughts and laugh at them. (e.g. I see much more clearly my own foibles, where before i would only get annoyed with others') I realise they are all only thoughts: a mechanical response by a thought-making machine.

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 illusion of the separate self, as i see it, is made up of thoughts and of emotions. Both these entities are automatic responses to what's going on. As I see it, it starts in this way: you find yourself in a situation (could be anything: at work, in the family, alone on a walk); then something sets off a train of thought and it hooks you in (you don't realise they are just thoughts, just productions of the brain); for me, then what happens is that you think you are the thought: and now the "i" is created. With emotions such as anger: this is more immediate: someone says something about you that puts you in a bad light (in your own eyes!) and there is anger: at this point you think you are the anger (you don't think this but it feels like it). So, then, with these thoughts (or anger) going on, as you have identified with it, you stay kinda immersed in it and perpetuate it. This is all the illusion of the separate self. I won't lie and say i will never again get drawn into such thoughts, but since seeing through the separate self as an illusion, it is happening a lot less: recognition is often as good as instantaneous.

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.

Okay, so this is the beauty of it, it makes me laugh and also be amazed and in awe. To see this is just amazing: such a simple thing, and still so amazing. Sometimes, I mean now in the last few days, it makes me feel as if I'm on a high, having smoked something exotic - but, with clear awareness. Other times, life just goes on, completely ordinary and nothing "happening". How it differs from before is that I now KNOW there is no separate I, whereas before, I wasn't clear on what the central issue was (no i) and was vaguer and therefore in doubt and searching around like a blind man. (see also below, next question).

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

As i said before, i had had glimpses of "truth whatever that may be" before, but what did it for me is two things.
First, the clear focus on establishing the absence of a separate self (BTW: this is immensely powerful: to have a clear focus as it prevents drift and vagueness which could go on for years...). Second, I suddenly realised that it is not about a STATE but about a realisation, a Knowing. Before, I looked at this as it being a state (and had identified with it after i had a few experiences), and consequently I was trying to re-create such a state...: not possible, not going to last, and not what it's about!
Also, the simple truth being there clearly in plain sight - I still can't quite get over it.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

Okay, this is more difficult to put in words.
Decision, intention and choice, are seemingly done by a self. However, in my DE, I have not been able to detect the decision-making process. E.g.: you set yourself the task to choose one thing or another, or to do something at a certain time. The choice or the doing happens alright, but I have no idea how. Thought may follow decisions or choice or doings, but this is just the machine doing its own mechanical reflective thing. I simply have no idea how choice happens (probably it is better not to talk about choice: it is not choice, something just happens)or how acts happen (again, it is probably better not to speak of acts, but of happenings, events).

Free will, is a more abstract concept, i think, a step above the ones i have just discussed. Free will is a concept that has been created (i think!) to explain the more basic phenomena i speak of above (and also, i presume, to justify the legal system!). From what i say above, based on DE, free will simply does not exist.

How does it work? This is how i see it: there are all sort of phenomena. These phenomena do things (such as,say, cats, birds, humans, cars, my own body) or they don't (at least not immediately visibly, such as the ground i stand on, houses, trees etc) (I don't want to get into obscure semantics like: even houses decay over years etc. I am talking about DE). So all this is going on with phenomena happening: this is being observed (seen, heard, touched etc.) not by a separate self, but just observed (maybe i could say phenomena float about their business in awareness).

What are you responsible for?
As long as i identify with a separate self, this separate self thinks it is responsible for a lot of things, as above. But when it becomes clear there is no separate self: responsibility evaporates.


I think I'll leave it at that for now.
Please let me know if you or any of the other guides want some clarification.

Many thanks
stephen