Deconstructing the self

[MoonChild625]

When you look at these sensations, can you find a separate feeler of these sensations? Or are they simply present without a feeler, controller or owner?
When thoughts about these sensations arise, do you find a separate thinker of these thoughts? Or are they again simply present without a thinker or owner?

When looking at these sensations is there a sense/feeling of "I am looking at sensations?"?
If so, where is this feeling located? Is there something like a perceived centre of the sense of I/self? If so, where is it? How does it feel?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Please accept my apologies for missing a day in our inquiry.

Sensations present themselves as they are/where they are without a separate feeler/controller/knower. Thoughts come in after sensations present themselves with a claim "I feel that". The problem is, through habitual use of language, a subject/object split is presented: I------>feel/felt/know. Because the thoughts arise within the head, it seems like the knower is in the head. But, sensations are known everywhere on the body. If the "knower" of them was only isolated to the head, how would they be known anywhere else?

The sense "I am looking at sensations" is simply a habit. The perceived I/self behind the eyeballs still seems like an observer, especially when looking around, even though we established that looking/seeing happens on it's own and focusing/shifting of the eyes are sensations.

Intellectually, I know there's no one back there, but something remains persistent about the delusion of self.

MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Yes, well seen - sensations arise without a "separate feeler/controller/knower".

The problem is, through habitual use of language, a subject/object split is presented: I------>feel/felt/know.

Yes, true. There is the idea that there should be a subject that looks, feels, thinks... and thus we latch onto something that comes as close as possible to such an imagined entity as possible...

Because the thoughts arise within the head, it seems like the knower is in the head.

Yes, the knower seems to be "in the head", just like the looker seems to be behind the eyes... but is this really so?
When thoughts appear - do they appear "in your head"? Do they really have a location at all?
Please look at these thoughts that arise. What can be said about them? Do they have any substance? Do they have a location?
Or is this location only an idea of a location? Maybe there is a slight contraction in the head-area and then this contraction is attached to thought - as the location that thoughts seem to come from... Please look for this location that thoughts arise from. Where is it?

The perceived I/self behind the eyeballs still seems like an observer, especially when looking around, even though we established that looking/seeing happens on it's own and focusing/shifting of the eyes are sensations.

Please sit down and relax. Look at the scenery around you.
Where exactly is this information, this scenery, the seen, present? Is it present "in your head" or is it simply present "out there", wherever the seen might be located? Is there a "in here" at all or are there only some physical sensations that are then labelled as being "in here"?

When this sensation behind the eyes arises, does it have anything to do with this scenery, with the seen? Does it do anything to/with the seen? Does it see it? Or is the seen there no matter if there is a physical sensation present or not?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Yes, the knower seems to be "in the head", just like the looker seems to be behind the eyes... but is this really so?
When thoughts appear - do they appear "in your head"? Do they really have a location at all?
Please look at these thoughts that arise. What can be said about them? Do they have any substance? Do they have a location?
Or is this location only an idea of a location? Maybe there is a slight contraction in the head-area and then this contraction is attached to thought - as the location that thoughts seem to come from... Please look for this location that thoughts arise from. Where is it?

If I examine closely, the "knower" or "looker" is just assumed. Thoughts seem to be heard as my voice within the head, but in the past I've also had the insight that they were just located in space, nowhere in particular. Again, another assumption or habit to think a knower/thinker is in the head. Also, energetic contraction in the head is assumed to be associated with thinking, but it's seen that those contractions appear when there's no thinking also.

Please sit down and relax. Look at the scenery around you.
Where exactly is this information, this scenery, the seen, present? Is it present "in your head" or is it simply present "out there", wherever the seen might be located? Is there a "in here" at all or are there only some physical sensations that are then labelled as being "in here"?

When this sensation behind the eyes arises, does it have anything to do with this scenery, with the seen? Does it do anything to/with the seen? Does it see it? Or is the seen there no matter if there is a physical sensation present or not?

While looking at scenery, it's known just where it is. In direct experience, it can't be said that seeing takes place in the head. The sensation behind the eyes arises, it had nothing to do with what's seen or the seeing. Scenes appear no matter what physical sensations are present, & scenes don't depend on them. Again, apparent focusing, shifting of eyes, or squinting are automatic/habitual movements with no locatable controller.

Somehow, this just doesn't seem to equal a complete realization of no-self, & the freedom that might come with that, the freedom from pushing away/attraction to certain experiences, the ease that there's no one to become free, etc.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Somehow, this just doesn't seem to equal a complete realization of no-self, & the freedom that might come with that, the freedom from pushing away/attraction to certain experiences, the ease that there's no one to become free, etc.

This process is a bit like peeling away layers of an onion... you peel one layer then another and another until... nothing is left...
Seeing through the illusion of a separate self is only one layer. Even when seeing through this belief has happened there will still be selfing mechanisms at work. This can be somewhat unsettling as doubts will arise if the primary belief has been really seen through etc etc... Why would there still be pushing and pulling at experience if there is no one there to do that? Why would there still be aversion and desire if there is no one to have any of these emotions...?

The inquiry that we have been doing where you look at certain sensations (in the gap) and at the reactivity that arises is a powerful tool to deconstruct more selfing layers. When these selfing patterns have been seen through and dropped the "pushing away/attraction to certain experiences" will be gone or at least drastically reduced.
The dropping can not be forced, the only way to get there is to keep looking for the entity that reacts, for the owner of these sensations that wants them gone and that thus reacts in a certain way (with aversion or desire). It is not enough to only understand in a logical way that there is no separate self at all. It has to be seen, not just concluded.
This looking (and not finding) when in the gap will eventually lead to a clear realisation and thus to the fading away of this reactivity.
To be successful with this approach it is important to find an issue that is highly emotionally charged. That really bothers you, that you want gone. That normally leads to strong reactions like anger, fear, aversion etc...
Would you like to explore that in more depth? If yes, then please see if you can find this key issue that seems to bother you and formulate a sentence like "I don't want X to always correct me in front of others.".

[MoonChild625]

To be successful with this approach it is important to find an issue that is highly emotionally charged. That really bothers you, that you want gone. That normally leads to strong reactions like anger, fear, aversion etc...
Would you like to explore that in more depth? If yes, then please see if you can find this key issue that seems to bother you and formulate a sentence like "I don't want X to always correct me in front of others.".

Hi Alex,

Ok, another highly charged area for me is when I visit my family. They are extremely needy in that they are always seeking tons of attention for themselves. In many ways they appear to be very immature to me, and I find it very hard to be around them & to listen to much of the repetitive, nonsensical bullsh*t that comes out of their mouths. Hanging out with them really pushes my buttons, so-to-speak.

I have thoughts like: why can't he/she/they just relax & stop commenting on everything that comes to mind? Why does/do he/she/they repeat the same f*cking comments about so & so every time I'm here? I've heard it all 1000 times. Why can't he/she/they stop talking about themselves so much?! Why do/does he/she/they complain so much? Why can't they just shut up?!

Get the idea? Obviously, this makes for a sh*tty time with the family, & I'm not the only person who feels this way about it! I feel so turned-off & at the same time I feel completely justified thinking this way because they are so predictable.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Yes, that sounds like something that we could inquire into...
Lets look if we can find the perfect statement that leads to real, physical (uncomfortable) sensations...
How about "I can't stand X complaining all the time!" - if you can find something with more charge please feel free to change it.
Once you believe you have found the best statement, please sit down and relax. After a few minutes intone this sentence a few time, imagine you are in this situation right now. X is talking and complaining. Intone the sentence again. Do you feel any physical sensations arising? What are they like? Can you please describe what is happening.

[MoonChild625]

Yes, that sounds like something that we could inquire into...
Lets look if we can find the perfect statement that leads to real, physical (uncomfortable) sensations...
How about "I can't stand X complaining all the time!" - if you can find something with more charge please feel free to change it.
Once you believe you have found the best statement, please sit down and relax. After a few minutes intone this sentence a few time, imagine you are in this situation right now. X is talking and complaining. Intone the sentence again. Do you feel any physical sensations arising? What are they like? Can you please describe what is happening.

Hi Alex,

For me: "Why does/do he/she/they repeat the same f*cking comments about so & so every time I'm here? I've heard it all 1000 times" brings up so much frustration & anger.

When I sit with this thoughts arise: it's going to be the same BS again, the same comments, over & over. Then, intense dread arises, tension in the stomach, & thoughts like: I should stay home, I don't want to hear this again. I'm so tired..., along with images of me & family members sitting around, & I see myself squirming, restless, wanting to leave as soon as I arrive. Thoughts of criticism arise, along with thoughts of: why can't you broaden your perspectives? There are more important things in life than the BS you go on about all the time!!! No wonder you're all so f*cking narrow minded!!!

Restlessness, tension, heat, wanting to run, etc. All of these arise in the body when the thoughts & images are noticed.

I mean no disrespect, Alex, & I appreciate you taking the time to inquire with me, but, we've been down this road before. It feels like a dead end. Like I said in the beginning, on a scale of 1-10, I'm a 10 with wanting to break through the self & the struggle with the world. What am I missing?

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

You recently said: "Somehow, this just doesn't seem to equal a complete realization of no-self, & the freedom that might come with that, the freedom from pushing away/attraction to certain experiences, the ease that there's no one to become free"

At first we have explored what we mean with direct experience, compared to just thinking about experience. Then we normally look at the raw sense information - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling - and we explore what can be found in perception, in this experience (and also what can not be found). You found that all references to an I/me/self is only in thought, which is great. You found that there is no one seeing, that there is just the seen. You saw that there is no one making a decision, just things happening, right?
But this, as you stated above "doesn't seem to equal a complete realization of no-self" - and, yes, you are righty, it isn't complete. It is only the first step. Seeing that there is no separate self seeing, hearing or even thinking is great, but as you said it doesn't free you from "pushing away/attraction to certain experiences". This is the next step and that is what we are just starting to look at - we are trying to look at the emotional side of this I/self-belief. This is a bit harder and also uncomfortable as it involves looking at aversion, ill-will, fear and anxiety. These are also all illusory, just like the I that seems to have these emotions, but before you can see that you will have to look - and in this case the looking is not comfortable...

But maybe we have moved too fast and we should again look at a few beliefs that are still at work... Maybe we should go back to looking, hearing, smelling, feeling and thought. What do you think? How do you feel about that?

Also please let me know your expectations about what would "equal a complete realization of no-self" - what will it be like? What will be different compared to how things are now?

[MoonChild625]

Seeing that there is no separate self seeing, hearing or even thinking is great, but as you said it doesn't free you from "pushing away/attraction to certain experiences". This is the next step and that is what we are just starting to look at - we are trying to look at the emotional side of this I/self-belief. This is a bit harder and also uncomfortable as it involves looking at aversion, ill-will, fear and anxiety. These are also all illusory, just like the I that seems to have these emotions, but before you can see that you will have to look - and in this case the looking is not comfortable...

But maybe we have moved too fast and we should again look at a few beliefs that are still at work... Maybe we should go back to looking, hearing, smelling, feeling and thought. What do you think? How do you feel about that?

Also please let me know your expectations about what would "equal a complete realization of no-self" - what will it be like? What will be different compared to how things are now?

Yes, looking at beliefs might be helpful, since they arise when not in a state of inquiry, & they are automatically believed.

The expectations about what would constitute a complete realization of no-self might be really seeing, without a doubt, that the thoughts/ideas/beliefs/feelings, etc., do not harbor someone within them who is defending/fighting/liking/disliking. Like I stated in my initial expectations, I don't expect certain facts of life to stop happening. What I want to see stop, is the belief that these things are happening to "me", or that there is an "I" within this body that is going to gain or lose something.

If it's all just going to happen the way it will, I would like to see it realistically, not through the idea of this personal "I", which seems to only be a form of resistance & opinions, etc. The "I" keeps getting reinforced in daily life interactions & that's exactly what I feel is in the way & what "I" want to lose. I'm not afraid of really, viscerally knowing this!

I don't know if I'm making sense, but thanks for reading...

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

What I want to see stop, is the belief that these things are happening to "me", or that there is an "I" within this body that is going to gain or lose something.

Yes, ok... how do you stop a belief?
You see that it is not true in the way you thought it was, right? It is a bit like the old story with Santa Clause. As a kid you believe in him. He is real. Then someone tells you that he is just a man in a red costume and suddenly it all makes perfect sense. The strange things that were happening before, when you maybe saw your dad's eyes behind these fake glasses etc etc have not been enough, but somehow when looking at it directly, when being directly pointed to the truth, you see and the belief dissolves. You don't do anything for this to happen, you simply see it clearly. It's as easy as that.
You can still work with the idea, the concept, of Santa Clause, and you will still have to work with the concept of there being a separate self, otherwise you might have trouble functioning in this society. But you don't have to believe that it is inherently true and existing, right?
When seeing through the illusion of Santa your life changed in a certain way, but most things were still the same. Now, with seeing through he belief in a separate self this has a slightly stronger impact, but on the other hand, life still goes on as it always did. The difference is that many things that seemed to have meaning and importance somehow lose their power - they are part of the ego that has been seen to be just a story... how important is a story? But don't expect certain things to happen otherwise you are blocking a natural process - its a bit like building a man made canal directing a river instead of letting it flow naturally... you need to remove these blocks and let things happen.

So when you look at this believe that "there is an "I" within this body"... then how does this belief manifest? Can it be experienced in physical sensations, in the visual perception of the body, in its smell? Or is it only thought that labels things as me/mine?

Please sit down and relax. Now look for this "I" within the body. Find the part of the body that hosts this self. When you have found the location then please note how it feels. What are the characteristic properties of this I?

[MoonChild625]

So when you look at this believe that "there is an "I" within this body"... then how does this belief manifest? Can it be experienced in physical sensations, in the visual perception of the body, in its smell? Or is it only thought that labels things as me/mine?

Please sit down and relax. Now look for this "I" within the body. Find the part of the body that hosts this self. When you have found the location then please note how it feels. What are the characteristic properties of this I?

Hi Alex,

The "I" beliefs/thoughts manifest as self-images, memories of my history, a person who has had certain experiences, did this & that, has a significant other, has likes/dislikes, is a person who hates injustice, a non-conformist, someone who doesn't take sh*t easily from others, etc.

So, it seems like "I" am a collection of past images & experiences, but I can't be those because they are gone and the "me" is still present. What I think of as my history only exists for me & no one else. If those memories were lost, then what?

Then there are thoughts of how I view myself, what kind of person I am. But, that only arises in certain situations. At home, I'm one way, at work another. With family I'm in another role. So, the roles change all the time. Which of those is truly the "I" when they come & go? None of those can be the "I".

When physical sensations arise, I notice that the unpleasant ones trigger strong thoughts of dislike & frustration, judgments about this body & how it suffers. How it's getting older day by day. Sensations can't be an "I", because they always change, appear & disappear. Which one of those would be me? Only the ones I like & associate with happiness?

Where is the "I" with the body? What part of the body hosts the "I"? I always return to the head. Sometimes it feels like the observer, behind the eyes. Other times, it's the voice/speaker in the head that sounds just like my speaking voice. At other times, it's what hears. But, we've already established that it's none of those functions. I can't refer to a singular "I" while attributing multiple functions/characteristics to it, or changing feelings, or thoughts/images.

Any characteristic properties that occur to me to be "I" are thoughts/ideas. That means that it has no characteristics. It's no-thing.

So, how does knowing that the "I" is an idea really become a lived perspective? If the self never existed to begin with, & became a learned process of constantly conjuring it up, how does that conjuring finally stop? How does one finally sever the process of creating a me?

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

There are some great observations. Beautiful!
Yes, this "I" is really only a process that has been established over time - when this body was born there was no separate I/self at all. You have really only learned to be you over time... and somewhen this belief takes over all and everything and this is where a lot of suffering happens - from the misconception of there being someone that owns, controls and is in charge...

Anyway, when this is seen, then normally the question arises:

So, how does knowing that the "I" is an idea really become a lived perspective? If the self never existed to begin with, & became a learned process of constantly conjuring it up, how does that conjuring finally stop? How does one finally sever the process of creating a me?

Now there seem to be many teachings and different paths to "get rid of it". Most consist of some kind of practice - of someone doing something to get rid of this process. The problem is that all doing, when done from an ego perspective of gaining something, will only result in changing the selfing-process, but not in stopping it. There is really nothing that "you" can do to stop it, the only thing that seems to work is not doing anything against it, but also not supporting it in any way.
Not doing anything is not meant literally, it is meant as a state of simple being, as observing and alert presence that is fully conscious of what is going on. It is not a process of judging, avoiding or desiring, but the seeing of these processes happening. This observing is not a doing on your part, it is not the I/self observing anything, it is simply witnessing happening and with clear seeing of the observed processes their complete and utter uselessness will be revealed. This will automatically dissolve them. Its not "you" dissolving them - life dissolves it once it is seen to serve no purpose. A certain trust and patience is needed to refrain from pushing and pulling at this experience and simply letting it be as it is, once this initial difficulty is overcome the perfect naturalness of this flowing movement will be revealed.

So what can be done? Be aware, look, if possible all the time, and whenever you get lost in thought, fine, when you realise this, simply come back to witnessing. Don't worry about being lost, the more you analyse and worry the more you feed this selfing-process - simply return to presence and look.

Please try this over the weekend and note what is happening. I am busy over the weekend, so this works well. Lets talk again on Monday.

All the best
Alex

[MoonChild625]

So what can be done? Be aware, look, if possible all the time, and whenever you get lost in thought, fine, when you realise this, simply come back to witnessing. Don't worry about being lost, the more you analyse and worry the more you feed this selfing-process - simply return to presence and look.

Please try this over the weekend and note what is happening. I am busy over the weekend, so this works well. Lets talk again on Monday.

All the best
Alex

Hi Alex,

I hope you had an enjoyable weekend!

So, there was as much observation as possible this past weekend. It appears as though the sense of 'self' is wrapped up in thoughts: likes/dislikes, opinions, knowing/not knowing things, wanting, doubts, speculation, etc. Also, once a thought arises & is not immediately noticed & dropped, the habit of other associated thoughts arise with it. So, if the initial thought is seen & dropped right away, the process can end right there. If not, it becomes a runaway train of thoughts with associated emotional sensations arising.

Another issue is taking thoughts to be true. A few nights ago, while at my family's house, some uncomfortable bodily sensations were arising as a result of lots of loud, intense interaction between several teens that were in attendance for my nieces' birthday party. Automatically, the thought arose: my energy can't take this much teenage intensity. Because my physical energy felt so awful, the thought seemed true--a confirmation of how one aspect of the situation was altering my energy. But, in fact, I did get through the evening. The thoughts did nothing to change anything, and, in fact, all they did was entangle me more in a process of thinking/feeling instead of just purely feeling. Thoughts added fuel to the fire.

This is good stuff to observe. Until there is freedom from these habits, I'll have to watch & really take notice of how most of them are unhelpful/cause suffering & reinforce the "I" point of view. Physically, there is no "I". It's just a thought believed until it's not...

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Yes, thank you, I had a great weekend.

The thoughts did nothing to change anything, and, in fact, all they did was entangle me more in a process of thinking/feeling instead of just purely feeling. Thoughts added fuel to the fire.

Yes, well seen, thoughts add fuel to the fire of ego-self-belief. But at the same time they drain energy from direct experience. They use so much fuel to burn that the rest of experience darkens... seeing this happening can douse the fire of thought and bring attention back to simple being, to this moment, without constant pushing and pulling at experience...

Until there is freedom from these habits, I'll have to watch & really take notice of how most of them are unhelpful/cause suffering & reinforce the "I" point of view. Physically, there is no "I". It's just a thought believed until it's not...

Yes, true, physically there is no I. Is there an I anywhere else? In seeing, hearing, smelling or tasting?

Is there an I in thought?
Or is this I only inferred? Maybe it is not even existing in thought, but there are only thought processes happening that are built on the idea that there is such an entity as a self/I?
Look at these thoughts that seem to establish an "I point of view" - is there really an I with a point of view? Or is there only the (virtual) point of view, but no owner of this view/position/belief?
If there is no owner, no one with a point of view, does this point of view have to be defended, is attachment to this point of view necessary at all?

When you express your point of view on certain topics, try to be aware of this and see how opinions are uttered simply based on your previous conditioning, based on "your" beliefs of how things are or should be, see that there is no separate self required to own a belief or a point of view...
What happens when you see this clearly?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Yes, well seen, thoughts add fuel to the fire of ego-self-belief. But at the same time they drain energy from direct experience. They use so much fuel to burn that the rest of experience darkens

Yes, I have seen, from direct experience, that when there is preoccupation with thought itself, sight/sound/smell/taste & touch fade into the background. Living experience becomes dim, & when thoughts are not fueled/allowed to subside, experience reveals an intensity, a brilliance & depth that had been overshadowed while absorbed in the thought realm.

Yes, true, physically there is no I. Is there an I anywhere else? In seeing, hearing, smelling or tasting?

No, we have previously established that there is no 'I'/self in seeing/hearing/smelling or tasting. It is only by habit & strengthened by speech, ie, I----->see/hear/smell/taste/feel, that we assume a doer. The senses work on their own & display direct information with no doer. A great way to examine this is also: if 'I' control the senses, why can't I prevent stimuli from entering? There are endless sights/sounds/smells/tastes & feelings that are unpleasant. Why can't 'I' keep these out/get rid of them, if 'I' am the controller behind them?

Is there an I in thought?
Or is this I only inferred? Maybe it is not even existing in thought, but there are only thought processes happening that are built on the idea that there is such an entity as a self/I?
Look at these thoughts that seem to establish an "I point of view" - is there really an I with a point of view? Or is there only the (virtual) point of view, but no owner of this view/position/belief?
If there is no owner, no one with a point of view, does this point of view have to be defended, is attachment to this point of view necessary at all?

There's no 'I' in thought, except as a part of speech construction. The thought processes are constructed with the assumption that there is a thinker. This is conditioned behavior that has been reinforced since childhood & everytime thoughts arise or one speaks, it comes with the assumption of someone/a self who thinks thoughts or speaks. But, because it happens automatically and we have never been taught to look, we don't see the error.

There is no 'I' with a point of view. There's just a thought that is classified as a view point/point of view or position. There's no owner of the view/position/belief.

In my opinion, the attachment to the 'I'/self is what has to be seen through in order for one to stop defending points of view. When the i/self is truly, viscerally seen to be a fiction, a mere habit, then why would anyone even take points of view seriously or defend them?

When you express your point of view on certain topics, try to be aware of this and see how opinions are uttered simply based on your previous conditioning, based on "your" beliefs of how things are or should be, see that there is no separate self required to own a belief or a point of view...
What happens when you see this clearly?

Alex

I will make these observations & report back to you.

Thanks again,

-MoonChild625