Can't tell if I've seen through the illusion

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

No worries...I'm out on the town so I'll get back to u tomorrow.

Tx

TY

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

This ME that needs to be given up really isn't there at all. The mistake is that the effort that has been used to move the body or think has been confused as ME. There is a habit of refuring to this effort as a me but is it OK to just refer to it as effort?

It doesn't feel that the body just moves on it's own. There is energy or effort moving it. Thoughts definitely show up on their own.

As far as looking and seeing what is there... it does seem like choices are made but who would make them?

[blackh]

Hi Ty,

Lovely to hear from you. I'm tired after a long week so I'll give you a considered reply in the morning.


Steve

[Seahawks5862]

Hi Steve,
Sounds good...sleep well
Ty

[blackh]

Ty,

Morning!

The mistake is that the effort that has been used to move the body or think has been confused as ME. There is a habit of refuring to this effort as a me but is it OK to just refer to it as effort?

Yes, it's good just to refer to it as effort as long as you remember that words can never approach the reality of anything. Thoughts are nothing more than claims about experience, but they still have an effect so should be in alignment with the reality of experience as much as possible.

What's the experience of getting up in the morning when you have to get up? Isn't it full of effort yet strangely effortless when it happens? Isn't that a bit odd?

It doesn't feel that the body just moves on it's own. There is energy or effort moving it. Thoughts definitely show up on their own.

When it rains, no-one makes it happen. When your heart beats, no one makes it happen. When you are doing some automatic activity like walking into the building at work, the body makes all the individual movements and reactions to subtle influences of the environment and no-one can be seen to be making that happen. But a tiny percentage of body movements are seen as intentional, and thought says that these are the ones that something called "I" is in control of.

The individual movements of walking in to work aren't intentional, but somehow the whole act has a big bracket around it and is marked as "intentional". Is there any reality to that?

As far as looking and seeing what is there... it does seem like choices are made but who would make them?

The body is capable of making most of its vast number of complex choices with exactly nothing visibly in control of it, then thoughts say, "oh, but that choice was intentional therfore I am in control. Here are the thoughts about it to prove it."

So how many of the body's actions does ME control? Is it all, a tiny percentage, or none?

If it's not none, where other than in thought content is the lever (the control mechanism that should be at the decision point), and the little hommunculus pulling it (the actual self)?

In the mechanism of those little spontaneous choices (such as seeing the cat and deciding whether to pat it or not) what is thought content and what is really there?


Steve

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

Yes I agree...the body moves and effort provides it but it doesn't need ownership. So if the body somehow makes it's own decisions then the mind must completely work on it's own. So the looking can never really find a ME or no ME... because that is also the mind just looking. The whole thing is just one giant mind fuck.

Ty

[blackh]

Ty,

Looking isn't a function of the mind, though. Reality is the only thing you can see. It's not ME and it's not no ME because concepts like these exist only as thought content and always fall short. I's so simple that the mind can't grasp it. So don't worry about the mind. Just look. If a thought appears then look at it too.


Steve

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

OK...im back to looking. Thank u

Ty

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

I don't know any questions to ask. All there is to do is look right?

[blackh]

Ty,

Yes... All there is to do is look.

Remove the barriers to looking, and then look. That's the method. The barriers come in different forms but are all rooted in the attitude to thought. Get familiar with what's really there, and search for the self in it. We know about the word "I". Thought content is not real in itself, but it points to things. Sometimes it points to real things (cup, house, dog) and sometimes fictional things (Batman, Santa). So we look for the real self that the word "I" points to.

Where do we look? Have a look at this... It's the Bahiya Sutta from Buddhism:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
between the two.
This alone is the end of suffering

So where do we look for this real self? In experience. What does experience consist of? The seen, the heard, the sensed and the cognized.

• Is the Bahiya Sutta right? Is there any other part of experience not listed in it?
• In the act of looking, is there a subject?
• You may also want to ask, is there an object?
• In all of this experience, where are you?

Steve

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

The Bahiya Sutta is very helpful.



-The Suttra doesn't leave anything out.

-In the act poo f looking it feels like there is something there but there is nothing that can be found.

-no object either...just the feeling

-no where...A thought just came up "who says there has to be a ME? "

Sorry I have been a little absent. Between life and the mind getting frustrated...u know

Tx
Ty

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

In the Bahiya Sutta it says there is the SENSED. Am I understanding this as maybe an intuition? It's almost like theis ME is hovering above and around this body but it's SENSED that it is their. This seems to be why its so difficult to see through it. Everytime it's looked for... it moves. If this is the currect understanding of this word than this is how the ME feels. It's just felt that it's there. I'm looking and maybe that is just another barrier that I have created but thats just how it seems right now.

tx
Ty

[blackh]

Ty,

Sorry I have been a little absent. Between life and the mind getting frustrated...u know

I definitely understand. Life is like that, and of course I went through this process myself. We will get there. I was asleep all day today because I was up all night driving someone to the airport.

In the Bahiya Sutta it says there is the SENSED. Am I understanding this as maybe an intuition? ...

I did some quick digging on the word "sensed" in the Bahiya Sutta which was originally written in Pali:

2. Muta, ie, what is tasted, smelt and touched
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 0-piya.pdf

• Often in set diṭṭha suta muta what is seen, heard & thought (? more likely "felt,"
• ...so that from the interpretation it follows that d. s. m. v. refer to the action (perception) of the 6 senses, where muta covers the 3 of taste, smell & touch

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... pali.75485

Looks like two interpretations are possible but the text is clearly attempting to cover all the senses. If intuition is really part of direct experience, then it needs to go on your list of places to look for a self. Find your own way to categorize experience.

I'm not a Buddhist, but the Bahiya Sutta is great because when you've seen through the illusion of a separate self, it's pretty clear that 2500 years ago someone called Gautama Buddha discovered the same thing and said, "Hey guys..." Bahiya Sutta is exactly the LU process.

The question of whether an object exists in the act of looking - that is, whether physical objects exist independently of the perception of them - isn't directly relevant to what we're doing here so don't worry about this too much, but it's part of the whole picture. We're trying to find out what we can know for sure. The point is to notice that only sensations of objects are ever directly experienced. You never experience objects directly. So there is no proof that they actually exist. This could be a very consistent-looking dream, or we could be a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer in some mad scientist's laboratory. That is, interpretations other than "objectively existing matter" are possible.

In all of this experience, where are you?

-no where...A thought just came up "who says there has to be a ME? "

Exactly! You might want to try to take it as a literal question and answer it. Clearly someone says there has to be a ME. Who is it and why do they say it?

On this topic, Greg Goode argues in his books that ideas about human knowledge were modelled on the theory of optics by influential thinkers in the 17th century. The cultural idea that "I'm in here, the world is out there" could be based on the fascination with science and the popularity of the camera obscura of that time.

Nearly everyone has a deep assumption that there is a ME. We are so sure of it that we don't even realize that we're not even quite sure what ME actually is. If you're going to identify with something and by doing so, use it as the foundation of a belief structure/interpretive framework for living, then surely it makes sense to find out what it is.

... It's almost like theis ME is hovering above and around this body but it's SENSED that it is their. This seems to be why its so difficult to see through it. Everytime it's looked for... it moves. If this is the currect understanding of this word than this is how the ME feels. It's just felt that it's there. I'm looking and maybe that is just another barrier that I have created but thats just how it seems right now.

Great! I know you can't always put your finger on it, but when barriers like this are seen make sure you let me know. It gives me something to work with. As I've said, honesty in describing how you are now is your best asset in this process.

So, take a look around the room. You see objects, right? Here's my experience: I see objects. There are thoughts saying it's known this is just an interpretation. The objecty-ness of the image seen is a little thinner/less convincing that it was before the gate, yet objects are stubbornly there because that's how the perception mechanism works. Why would perception of self be any different?

If the self moves when it's looked for, isn't that a little suspicious?

Your task is to find out whether your interpretation of a hovering ME of sensing and intuition is reasonable or not. Of course this has to be backed by looking, because you will get nowhere unless you're sure about what is really there. But, there is a mental/interpretation component to it. Categorizing experience into thought, intuition, senses, etc and understanding the nature of each will help with this.

Compare: I am using a metal object with four pointy bits on the end to eat my food. I look and find colours, touch, a sensation of weight. I call it a fork. This can only ever be an interpretation of what it is, but it's a reasonable one. I am justified in saying that this fork is real. I see Spiderman on TV. I look and find moving colour + sound. Looking + interpretation leads to a conclusion that Spiderman is not real. Are you justified in saying that the sensed/intuited ME is real?


Steve

[Seahawks5862]

Steve,

Thank you for clarifying SENSED for me. I will make sure I let you know where I am feeling stuck from now on. This feeling of a ME hovering is something I looked at today and was able to put into words for the first time.

This hovering sense is not reasonable it is just a thought. Looking and interpretation definately leads to the conclusion that the ME is made up.

Tx
Ty

[blackh]

Ty,

I interpret the Bahiya Sutta like this: There's no thing here (there's no subject) and no thing there (there are no objects). So you're not located in the world of this (you can't be the subject) or the world of that (you can't be an object) or anywhere in between the two (seeing, hearing, sensing and cognizing - which do exist - but you're not to be found in them).

Tell me how you're feeling tomorrow and we'll see if we can break this down some more.


Steve