Anatta

[No_One]

Can this I be found in any action, thought, feeling, observation and so on? Are you the experiencer? Really look, forget the right answer, look like you don't know the answer. Really try to find an I in all those actions


Then ... if there is no I how does it come from action to 'I did this', from thought to 'I was thinking'?

[Knick]

Been busy lately. Offer is out there if anyone sees themselves as being able to help me I'll work with you in One-On-One.

How could an I be IN action, thought, feeling, observation. If anything I is the vague sense of being behind them eh? Generally its understood as perceiver->perceiving->perceived right? And you guys get rid of the perceiver part so it just feels like stuff happening? It would make zero sense to say I is perceiving itself, or thing perceived, so I guess it gets to be abstraction perceiver.

I-making is something the mind does, or maybe its more cultural in the necessity for an IvsOthers distinction. Who knows. Even without sense of self there is still a being with processes, which the I can refer to. So is this really about there being no you or rather getting rid of made up sense of self?

Anyway what does that matter. Its all about this seeing and looking action or whatever to actually get the job done, that remains unclear.

Ross K
I think I have an idea of what you mean by felling tone in head, but I don't get so much what you mean by something stable there or you in control of the knowing.

[No_One]

Been busy lately. Offer is out there if anyone sees themselves as being able to help me I'll work with you in One-On-One.

How could an I be IN action, thought, feeling, observation. If anything I is the vague sense of being behind them eh? Generally its understood as perceiver->perceiving->perceived right? And you guys get rid of the perceiver part so it just feels like stuff happening? It would make zero sense to say I is perceiving itself, or thing perceived, so I guess it gets to be abstraction perceiver.

I-making is something the mind does, or maybe its more cultural in the necessity for an IvsOthers distinction. Who knows. Even without sense of self there is still a being with processes, which the I can refer to. So is this really about there being no you or rather getting rid of made up sense of self?

Anyway what does that matter. Its all about this seeing and looking action or whatever to actually get the job done, that remains unclear.

Knick, I am not a big fan of 1-On-1's so I would like to keep it here. Feel free to jump in a pending duel if you feel like it.

Just to make it clear. This is not about mental understanding. This is not about proving there could not be an I, it's about seeing that. In real life. Just look at your actions, thoughts, feelings. Can you find an I there? Sure ... you will find very fast a thought about it but can you find a real I? It's not about "there could not be", it's about ... is there or not? So yes, this is about really being no you. The thought / sense of self will remain for a while but it will not stand for anything.

You say I is a product of the mind. That's actually true. A thought that does not do think feel. It just gets attached afterwards and claims the experience. But don't trust me ... look for yourself. Check if this is true

[Knick]

So you guys have one main stick that is beaten to death -- look and see. But that does not mean much to me. Can't be more specific? Neither does this concept I mean much to me. Clearly its a word that has some meaning. Clearly some processes in the brain. But anything much beyond that hard to say. So you are all about aksing me is there an I. And I'm considering, what is this I anyway? How would I know if it is or is not, without understanding what it is I'm looking for?

I take it I'm considering the wrong way, since it only takes a moment to see eh? I don't have to assume anything in particular, or understand some concept, but just look the right way for an instant right? Looking at experience and realizing it as empty of self?

I tended to think of some particular mental activity making up sense of self. But more like mental activity of ideas about self making up sense of self? I-making as just being another thought that gets attached to experiences. So this attachment mechanism is what is taken to be the perceiver? For example, pretty much everyone thinks in terms of "Im hungry" instead of just bare sensations at gut, or mood. Just seems to easy and natural when looking around the room to say Im looking around the room.

[Space]

Find a strong isolated sound like a fan, highway, or music. Search for the perceiver of sound. Use your eyes to locate the exact place where sound is heard. You shouldn't be able to find an actual perceiver. Let me know if you do. What is it? What then, is perceiving what you've just found?

Sent from my ADR6325 using Tapatal

[No_One]

So you guys have one main stick that is beaten to death -- look and see.

Well ... guess we should plead guilty on that :) The mind needs more sticks, maybe a blue one would do better, i don't know. And trying 100 sticks does not work. 1 is enough if you are serious about it

But that does not mean much to me. Can't be more specific? Neither does this concept I mean much to me. Clearly its a word that has some meaning. Clearly some processes in the brain. But anything much beyond that hard to say. So you are all about aksing me is there an I. And I'm considering, what is this I anyway? How would I know if it is or is not, without understanding what it is I'm looking for?

I take it I'm considering the wrong way, since it only takes a moment to see eh? I don't have to assume anything in particular, or understand some concept, but just look the right way for an instant right? Looking at experience and realizing it as empty of self?

I tended to think of some particular mental activity making up sense of self. But more like mental activity of ideas about self making up sense of self? I-making as just being another thought that gets attached to experiences. So this attachment mechanism is what is taken to be the perceiver? For example, pretty much everyone thinks in terms of "Im hungry" instead of just bare sensations at gut, or mood. Just seems to easy and natural when looking around the room to say Im looking around the room.

Yeah ... we have usually no idea about what we name as I. So the way to find out what is that about is ... guess what ... look & see. We use the I 1000 times per day. I type, I go to work, I think. And yes, anything that we do (almost) since we were born seems natural. But when we are asked what do you mean by "I am hungry" and look at that activity we don't know. This is not about not using the I anymore ... it's about seeing what it stands for. Just do some simple experiments. Like move your hand ... you would say "I move my hand". What does I stand for? Close your eyes, look at thoughts ... you would say "I think". What does I stand for? Really ... what does this I stand for? Just cultivate the curiosity about this I ... try to see what it's about each time it pops

[Space]

You're not doing this wrong or anything. Its just a natural and expected process. There is a tendency to push for the insight when what is required is very cool, honest, investigative interaction with your environment. Where is the sense of differentiation between the environment and the "me."

[clyde]

Hi Ross K,

I like your questions.

How could an I be IN action, thought, feeling, observation. If anything I is the vague sense of being behind them eh?

That's a good pair right there. You're right, the I isn't in action-thought-feeling-observation. It's really just an empty reference. It may seem like the reference is to a "vague sense of being." But actually that "vague sense of being" is pretty empty if you look at it. (Sorry used the look stick again LOL). Look right at that vague sense of being. What's there?

Generally its understood as perceiver->perceiving->perceived right? And you guys get rid of the perceiver part so it just feels like stuff happening?

The funny thing is, no getting-rid-of is necessary. It's as substantial as a mirage. The mirage can't be gotten rid of, it just vaporizes when examined.

I-making is something the mind does, or maybe its more cultural in the necessity for an IvsOthers distinction. Who knows. Even without sense of self there is still a being with processes, which the I can refer to. So is this really about there being no you or rather getting rid of made up sense of self?

Hmm, I don't really see a distinction there. The made up sense of self, when attended to, is seen as made up and then the statement 'there is no you' just seems like a no-brainer. heh

Anyway what does that matter. Its all about this seeing and looking action or whatever to actually get the job done, that remains unclear.

How are you doing on that?

[Knick]

Alright there's a dehumidifier here, basically it pushes out air with constant drone. No visual clues sound is coming from that area, so its the same sound with eyes closed or open. If I move my head, sound changes slightly as vibrations to ears change. The perceiving of the sound is in the hearing of the sound, and brain is hooked up to the ear mechanism and interprets signals from it. But does no make much sense to call that the perceiver. Still the assumed something beyond that? But it still comes quite naturally to have thoughts of "I'm hearing a sound". Just like I use "I" all throughout this post.

I can relate to this guy (in progress):
http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/view ... f=3&t=1482
I guess I'm stuck on this sort of stage where hicquodiam writes, "Now, the mind is programmed (or conditioned, I'm not entirely sure yet) to assume that there is a self, and act as if there is a self. But, there isn't. It's a false belief. And the way to kill a false belief is to show the mind concrete evidence that it can't be true, which is why we repeat "look" so often on this site. It's possible to notice the absence of a self, and in doing so create a permanent distinction in the mind between the concept of the self, and the fact that there is no reality."

When considering "is there a self" "this is no you" an similar thoughts, repeating it in thought, with more intensity, I get typical effects like when doing meditation, such as goosebumps, kind of shiver though the body, feeling tone in head.

I'll also say that I've had flow experiences, but not anytime recently, several times when younger in sports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29
Sense of effortless action, loss of self-awareness, great performance, etc. While these were great experiences, not sure I can really relate to living like that all the time since it seemed so non-reflective, out of it. Thats surely a specific state of consciousness, while what you do there is just seeing a certain aspect to be true?

I guess I'll try to do more of:
1) what does I stand for? curisoty about it. experiments
2) investigate interaction with enviroment. where is distinction beteween it and me.

[clyde]

Alright there's a dehumidifier here, basically it pushes out air with constant drone. No visual clues sound is coming from that area, so its the same sound with eyes closed or open. If I move my head, sound changes slightly as vibrations to ears change. The perceiving of the sound is in the hearing of the sound, and brain is hooked up to the ear mechanism and interprets signals from it.

Seems like you're paying attention to the right stuff. Stay with the immediate.

But does no make much sense to call that the perceiver.

it's just a habit really, encouraged by everyone from day one.

Still the assumed something beyond that? But it still comes quite naturally to have thoughts of "I'm hearing a sound". Just like I use "I" all throughout this post.

They're 'natural' sort of like habits seem natural. It's conditioned behavior that just arises. But I'd say that "I'm hearing a sound" is different than using the first person in a post like this. The latter is a linguistic convention whereas the former has that plus a possible belief that there is some owner of the action of hearing the sound. It's that belief that is the focus here. Is there an actual entity that can claim ownership over the activity of hearing sounds?

I can relate to this guy (in progress):
http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/view ... f=3&t=1482
I guess I'm stuck on this sort of stage where hicquodiam writes, "Now, the mind is programmed (or conditioned, I'm not entirely sure yet) to assume that there is a self, and act as if there is a self. But, there isn't. It's a false belief. And the way to kill a false belief is to show the mind concrete evidence that it can't be true, which is why we repeat "look" so often on this site. It's possible to notice the absence of a self, and in doing so create a permanent distinction in the mind between the concept of the self, and the fact that there is no reality."

When considering "is there a self" "this is no you" an similar thoughts, repeating it in thought, with more intensity, I get typical effects like when doing meditation, such as goosebumps, kind of shiver though the body, feeling tone in head.

Repeating anything like this is being on the wrong track. It's not a mantra at all. It's a pointer.

Just sit back, look away from the computer monitor, close your eyes, notice those immediate physical sensations, then notice if there is some entity that could be labeled "I". Is there some personal Knick that is somehow responsible for generating this or that thought? Is there substance to it? Can it be located?

I'll also say that I've had flow experiences, but not anytime recently, several times when younger in sports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29
Sense of effortless action, loss of self-awareness, great performance, etc. While these were great experiences, not sure I can really relate to living like that all the time since it seemed so non-reflective, out of it. Thats surely a specific state of consciousness, while what you do there is just seeing a certain aspect to be true?

That flow is non-conceptual awareness. The mind and the thoughts can't keep up with the body when it's in the moment doing something intense like sports. That's one reason so many people are drawn to participating in activities that bring them to a state like this -- extreme sports, birdwatching, art....

One of the benefits of this whole focus is to stop being bogged down by obsessive thinking revolving around the empty reference of self and I. There is nothing there that the word "I" refers to. You can see this. You may have already, in fact.

Reflective, conceptual awareness, aka thinking -- these are all tools and functions that are useful and should be used as such. Once no-self is recognized, those tools can be used when needed rather than obsessed about ad-nauseum.

I guess I'll try to do more of:
1) what does I stand for? curisoty about it. experiments
2) investigate interaction with enviroment. where is distinction beteween it and me.

Those sound good. But this isn't a practice. There is no better time than right now to see this. Looking at this whole thing as some cool mystical practice is just more thought stuff keeping you from actually engaging in the challenge at hand. That challenge is to actually try and locate some personal entity that can be labeled "I." Go for it!

[Knick]

So a practical question on practice and looking. When looking should I try not to internally think in English and just be aware? But then it would just be the flow of experience, so there needs to be this investigation component or looking?

So sitting there are 1. the basic senses like hearing, touch,etc 2. consciousness/awareness 3. thoughts in English as internal

I could be taken as an organism with various processes over time.
If perceiver cant be seen/perceived because it does not exist, what the heck am i doing here?

How does an organism see that self is not.
That would be like seeing that god is not. Sure, as far as I can tell no god, and that's all there is to it. I don't claim to see for sure that there is not god.
"No you", what does that shit even mean.

Ok how about focus on no agent, no controller aspect. I can relate to that better then there being some separate self from brain/experience, which I already dont buy into intellectually. So I admit being deluded about feeling as if being the controller at least. I can kind of understand what it would be to have no control, no decisions, everything just occurs because of cause and effect determinism. No you making decisions, and no ability to change what will occur right? Yet what, thought process takes there to be an active controller?

"Is there some personal Knick that is somehow responsible for generating this or that thought?"
I wrote before that some thoughts are random and just seem to pop up, but there also seems to be discursive thought that can be controlled. For example I could think the words "pink flamingos" 50 times in a row. Not sure what generates this besides some brain processes. And we just seem to get back to looking again, however thats done...someone else wrote "continuously looking for a controlling self will eventually show you that there isn't one"

[clyde]

Knick! Good to see you pop in again.

So a practical question on practice and looking. When looking should I try not to internally think in English and just be aware? But then it would just be the flow of experience, so there needs to be this investigation component or looking?

Well thinking isn't needed for this activity called Looking. If by 'investigation" you mean some sort of directed thinking/inquiry, then no, that's not what is meant by looking. Looking is used in the most mundane sense. Look at your keyboard. Look at the lower right corner of your monitor. Close your eyes and look at the remaining visual sensations. All these forms of looking relate to visual stuff, but looking can also be used to be aware of other sensations. For example, eyes-closed, look or focus or pay attention to sounds, whatever sounds are arising. Or notice the tactile sensations of your body, the sensations of sitting for example. It's all effortless. It's not really a practice either, it's just part of being alive.

So when folks say Look for the I or Look for the self, it's that kind of looking. Direct your focus and attention inwards in the most mundane way. It's not like a superman iron-melting laserbeam focus it's just normal focus and attention and looking like you do all the time. Can you sense self?

The only trick here is actually doing it. Instead of starting to think up additional questions to ask about the practice of Looking or the implications of there not being a self, or thinking up what to write in the next post, just take a few minutes to look, to actually try and locate what that is that "I" refers to, that self thingy that is assumed to be hangin out somewhere. Do that first.

So sitting there are 1. the basic senses like hearing, touch,etc 2. consciousness/awareness 3. thoughts in English as internal

Yea, this is all conceptual stuff which is fun to think about. Philosophizing.

I could be taken as an organism with various processes over time.
If perceiver cant be seen/perceived because it does not exist, what the heck am i doing here?

More fun ideas and questions! Look first.

How does an organism see that self is not.
That would be like seeing that god is not. Sure, as far as I can tell no god, and that's all there is to it. I don't claim to see for sure that there is not god.
"No you", what does that shit even mean.

It does sound pretty absurd. Try locating it.

Ok how about focus on no agent, no controller aspect. I can relate to that better then there being some separate self from brain/experience, which I already dont buy into intellectually. So I admit being deluded about feeling as if being the controller at least. I can kind of understand what it would be to have no control, no decisions, everything just occurs because of cause and effect determinism. No you making decisions, and no ability to change what will occur right? Yet what, thought process takes there to be an active controller?

"Is there some personal Knick that is somehow responsible for generating this or that thought?"
I wrote before that some thoughts are random and just seem to pop up, but there also seems to be discursive thought that can be controlled. For example I could think the words "pink flamingos" 50 times in a row. Not sure what generates this besides some brain processes. And we just seem to get back to looking again, however thats done...someone else wrote "continuously looking for a controlling self will eventually show you that there isn't one"

Just look for any self at all. Anything that might be the self. This is not a puzzle. Nothing needs to be figured out or practiced or refined. Just a little time is needed. Look, then write.

Best to you Knick,

Clyde

[AnEternalNow]

Ven Thanissaro doesn't seem to understand that Buddha's rejection of the view that 'I have no self' actually has to do with the annihilationistic view that that the self first exists in life, and then ceases upon physical death (therefore no rebirth and karma). When the view of self is rejected, naturally the view of non-existence, both and neither are also necessarily and automatically rejected. In Buddhism we teach the process of karmic and causal continuity from moment to moment and life to life, but not the reincarnation of an eternal soul. But I digress because don't want to get into doctrinal discussion in this forum.

My main point is that the truth of no self is merely the seeing through and rejection of the existence of self, not the assertion about a position of non-existence pertaining to self. It is a non asserting negation of a mental delusion.

The Buddhist inclined may find these two articles of interest, the second one is written by me:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... natta.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... -self.html