Deconstructing the self

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

I hope the busy weekend was a good one for you!

Yes, this resistance... where is it coming from? Try to find out what is the basis for resistance.

You have found out already that resistance is obviously not coming from any of the senses, it comes from thought judging a certain situation... agree?
This would mean that there really is no resistance before thought labels it as such and then keeps on going weaving stories around it. There are some physical sensations, fine, but do they qualify as resistance? No! The only thing that can (seemingly) resist is thought... Can thought really resist anything? Or can it only talk about something called "resistance"..?

The basis for resistance is the thought that "I" am threatened or "I" don't like a person/situation that I'm encountering. There's an opinion formed by thought: I don't like this/him/her/what he/she said, etc.

Yes, the resistance doesn't come from the senses, only from the judgement formed in thought by something taken in through the senses, something seen/heard, that is perceived by the mind as unpleasant, threatening. There might be physical sensations co-existing with thoughts & stories, but they aren't the resistance. Thoughts can't resist anything, they can only sound like they're resisting something! So all the b*tching about certain unpleasant situations is just a displacement of unpleasant bodily energy, blowing off steam & projecting out onto a situation/person that it is to blame for how I feel. It really accomplishes nothing at all, other than intensifying unpleasant feelings in the body.

So, it seems that the key to seeing through resistance is seeing through these thoughts... when these thoughts arise again, look for the one that is resisting. Sure, something is there, sensations, thoughts, its even ok to label it "resistance", but is there a separate entity that resists or judges? If there is only "resistance" but no one resisting... what are you resisting?

This might lead you to the question "What am I?" A separate entity that is able to resist? Or is there only pure and simple knowing of sensations and thoughts that state this and that...? Is is there a knower or even knowing that is separate from the known?

Alex

There's no separate entity that is resisting. There are just thoughts about resistance. The thoughts don't equal someone who is resisting, but they seem to arise in resistance to other thoughts or to protest feelings that arise: I don't like this/it!/him/her, etc. What am I resisting? My own feelings of discomfort & that people/situations don't match my thoughts about them!

There are just sensations & thoughts, two separate happenings that, when not examined, are taken to be something solid, a self who is resisting. But, as we discovered, the "self" can't be in the feelings, nor can it be in the thoughts.

There can't be a separate knower from the known, or it would also be an object like the known itself.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

There's no separate entity that is resisting. There are just thoughts about resistance. The thoughts don't equal someone who is resisting

Yes, perfectly right. There are just thoughts about resistance, but there is no separate entity there at all...

What am I resisting? My own feelings of discomfort & that people/situations don't match my thoughts about them!

Are they your feelings? Your thoughts?
Is the sound of the rain your sound? Is an experience personal in any way?

What if there is no personal experience at all..? What if this individual ownership is just an interpretation of something that truly functions in a perfect, impersonal and automatic way...?

Look right now - in this current moment: Can you find anything at all that "you" control? That you are in charge of? Please describe what can be found that is in your control.

But, as we discovered, the "self" can't be in the feelings, nor can it be in the thoughts.

OK... where is it? Is there a separate self at all? Is there any separation at all? If you think that you experience "separation" then please describe how this is sensed, felt, experienced.

There can't be a separate knower from the known, or it would also be an object like the known itself.

Please sit down and look at the scenery around you. Now focus on an object. After a minute unfocus and again observe the scenery. After a while go back to the object... Again, return to the unfocussed state... Now... What do you find in the unfocussed state? Are there any objects? Or is there simply seeing happening?
When you focus on the object... is seeing turning into an object, is there an object created, or is there still simply seeing happening (and maybe some thoughts appearing naming "parts" of the seen)?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Are they your feelings? Your thoughts?
Is the sound of the rain your sound? Is an experience personal in any way?

Wow, you always notice where I slip up in the inquiry. Great catch!

No, feelings can't have 'me' as an owner because I can't control/prevent/enhance them. They come and go according to conditions beyond the control of anyone. The sound of rain is just sound, and experience is happening without a chooser/controller of experience.

What if there is no personal experience at all..? What if this individual ownership is just an interpretation of something that truly functions in a perfect, impersonal and automatic way...?

Look right now - in this current moment: Can you find anything at all that "you" control? That you are in charge of? Please describe what can be found that is in your control.

Yes, ownership is an interpretation. Everything happens impersonally, without regard for 'my' welfare/pleasure/gain, etc. I can't find anything that is controlled by a separate entity called I/me. I can't even control/predict what my next thoughts/feelings will be.

OK... where is it? Is there a separate self at all? Is there any separation at all? If you think that you experience "separation" then please describe how this is sensed, felt, experienced.

Separation is only a concept in thoughts/ideas, and it appears to be a 'me' that's here vs. stuff outside 'me' over there, spatially distant. Even the concept 'outside' isn't true, because other people/things abide in space with/alongside 'me', not outside 'me'. It couldn't be that way if there's no I/me inside the body. It's not real in experience.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Great! You are very much spot on.

The sound of rain is just sound, and experience is happening without a chooser/controller of experience

Yes, true.
Is there anything that you can find that is the same in every experience? Something that is inherent in every experience... something that doesn't change, that is not objective..?

Did you have time to do the inquiry that I mentioned at the end of my last post?
What did you find?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Is there anything that you can find that is the same in every experience? Something that is inherent in every experience... something that doesn't change, that is not objective..?

The quality of knowing or awareness seems to be the same, the fact that experience is known.

Did you have time to do the inquiry that I mentioned at the end of my last post?
What did you find?

Yes, here's the inquiry:

Please sit down and look at the scenery around you. Now focus on an object. After a minute unfocus and again observe the scenery. After a while go back to the object... Again, return to the unfocussed state... Now... What do you find in the unfocussed state? Are there any objects? Or is there simply seeing happening?
When you focus on the object... is seeing turning into an object, is there an object created, or is there still simply seeing happening (and maybe some thoughts appearing naming "parts" of the seen)?

There aren't objects, just various colors, and just seeing happening. Seeing doesn't turn anything into an object, but, the faculty of perception, together with memory, tags recognizable forms with "book", "chair", "desk", etc. Mind overlays labels onto recognized colors & shapes within the entirety of the scene, where there is just simple seeing & knowing that seeing is happening.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Yes, beautiful!

The quality of knowing or awareness seems to be the same, the fact that experience is known.

Is knowing separate from experience or are they one and the same?
Do you know experience (in an objective way) or do you know "knowing" or "awareness"?

Do you ever know anything but "awareness"?
Who is the one that is knowing?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Is knowing separate from experience or are they one and the same?

If knowing were separate from experience, it wouldn't know experience. So, no, it's not separate from experience. They have to be one & the same because they can't be separated to examine them & make a comparison. Knowing/the Known always occur together.

Do you know experience (in an objective way) or do you know "knowing" or "awareness"?

objective |əbˈjektiv|
adjective
1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective.
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact.

In considering the above definition of objective, I'd have to say that I never know experience without personal feelings, or, said another way, I never know experience impartially. And, depending on how you define "mind", it seems that the experiences that I know are always shaped/influenced by it. There is knowing/awareness of experience, but it never is unconditioned by mind/memories/thoughts/opinions.

Do you ever know anything but "awareness"?
Who is the one that is knowing?

I think we can all agree that, besides having the faculty of awareness, or knowing, there are people & objects in experience. However, they can only be known by the awareness that also knows this mind & body. So, "Do you ever know anything but "awareness"? is a question that I've been pondering. If I say I know only (anything but) awareness, then I'm going to one extreme & denying the presence of things that awareness can know. If I only admit the existence of a physical world, then I deny awareness/knowing.

By thinking about this, though, I can't know how anything is outside of this awareness or if there is a "truer" way that things are beyond this alive, aware, body-mind. If the world can't be discovered beyond awareness, then nothing but awareness can really be known.

"I" can't be the one that is knowing, because "I'm" known. There is awareness/knowing of the body, feelings, thoughts, intentions, and even the memories & self-image of this character, MoonChild625. This body-mind, labeled MoonChild625, is known along with/within the entirety of experience.

Take Care,

-MC625

[Alexw]

Hi,

There is knowing/awareness of experience, but it never is unconditioned by mind/memories/thoughts/opinions.

Yes, I fully agree that acquired beliefs and interpretations (seem to) shape experience. We experience the world as we believe it to be. Thus we experience a separate self, others, objects, space and time... But once we are starting to question these concepts it is like going down the rabbit hole... the closer you look for something - and it really doesn't matter what part of your belief system you inquire into - the less you will find it.
Sure there are all these objects, you interact with them all the time, there are others, you talk to them... but in direct experience none of these seeming entities can be found. This doesn't mean we have to come to the conclusion that nothing exists. Obviously there is existence (whatever that means), but maybe it doesn't follow the made up rules that most of us believe in... playing a game by rules that really don't fit the game will lead to frustration and eventually suffering. Not because the game is a problem but because rules are being followed blindly without questioning their validity. Once it is seen that there are these rules, but the game itself doesn't follow these rules you can smile and relax. You still play to most of the rules, but you know that the game doesn't care...

I never know experience without personal feelings, or, said another way, I never know experience impartially

Really???
Has thought really so much power that it can completely remove direct experience? Or is this only an interpretation?
You might believe that there is something like a "personal feeling", but maybe there is nothing like that at all... and you only label a sensation as such...
Please sit down and find a "personal feeling". What does it feel like? Where in the body is it felt? Is the sensation itself stating "I am a personal feeling! I am you!"?
How many sensations do you feel every day that are not labelled as "personal" and how many on the other side are "recognised" as a "personal feeling"?

I think we can all agree that, besides having the faculty of awareness, or knowing, there are people & objects in experience.

Yes, sure, in a conventional way, yes. But not in "reality".
Look at it like that: You go to bed, you start dreaming. There is this dream character that seems to be you. It sees, hears, feels and even thinks. There are objects that you can see and touch, they feel "real". You talk to other people, they are real... Now you wake up! Was there ever a dream character that was separate from the dream? Any real, separate objects? Or was there simply the dream? What are you? The dream character or the dream itself?

If I say I know only (anything but) awareness, then I'm going to one extreme & denying the presence of things that awareness can know. If I only admit the existence of a physical world, then I deny awareness/knowing.

No, this is only the case if you believe that things and awareness are in any way separate or different.
Coming back to the dream metaphor above... lets say the dream = awareness. What are the things in the dream "made of"? What is the dream character "made of"? What about others?
Does the dream character itself know anything? Does the character see or feel? How would that work? Does it have a body or maybe eyes and a brain? Or is awareness/the dream ever only "seeing" itself?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Really???
Has thought really so much power that it can completely remove direct experience? Or is this only an interpretation?
You might believe that there is something like a "personal feeling", but maybe there is nothing like that at all... and you only label a sensation as such...
Please sit down and find a "personal feeling". What does it feel like? Where in the body is it felt? Is the sensation itself stating "I am a personal feeling! I am you!"?
How many sensations do you feel every day that are not labelled as "personal" and how many on the other side are "recognised" as a "personal feeling"?

Ah, you caught me slipping up again! You are right, thought never has the power to alter or remove direct experience. Thought/interpretation is added to experience, & is another thing that is experienced/known.

Yes, sensations are only labeled as personal when reality isn't observed or the habit of labeling them that way isn't dropped. We've already established in past inquiry that there's no owner/controller of feelings, that they come & go on their own, and, once again, arose the habit of referring to them as "personal" when they are not. A personal feeling can't be found, & they do not declare "I am a personal feeling! I am you!", only thoughts incorrectly/habitually label them that way. Countless sensations are not paid much attention, perhaps because they are neutral or subtle, but some of them, like pleasure might be habitually & incorrectly labeled as me or mine when "i" like them & identify with them.

Yes, sure, in a conventional way, yes. But not in "reality".
Look at it like that: You go to bed, you start dreaming. There is this dream character that seems to be you. It sees, hears, feels and even thinks. There are objects that you can see and touch, they feel "real". You talk to other people, they are real... Now you wake up! Was there ever a dream character that was separate from the dream? Any real, separate objects? Or was there simply the dream? What are you? The dream character or the dream itself?

Well, since we've established no separate self, then all there is, is the dream, no separate objects, & no dream character.

No, this is only the case if you believe that things and awareness are in any way separate or different.
Coming back to the dream metaphor above... lets say the dream = awareness. What are the things in the dream "made of"? What is the dream character "made of"? What about others?
Does the dream character itself know anything? Does the character see or feel? How would that work? Does it have a body or maybe eyes and a brain? Or is awareness/the dream ever only "seeing" itself?

Yes, in really contemplating this more, everything in the dream is made of awareness, including the dream character and everything else. How would the dream character know see or feel anything if it's made of awareness? Wouldn't the awareness know the dream character and not the other way around? The dream & the character are what is seen/known as awareness. They are inseparable.

Take Care, & have a great weekend!

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi MoonChild,

Yes, in really contemplating this more, everything in the dream is made of awareness, including the dream character and everything else. How would the dream character know see or feel anything if it's made of awareness? Wouldn't the awareness know the dream character and not the other way around?

Yes... how does awareness know anything..?
Does it know anything that is not it? Does it know an object that is separate from it..? If so, who observes the separation... There would have to be another, superior knower that observes awareness observing a separate object, right? Of course this doesn't make sense, but we have learnt to operate in this relativistic, objective mode of being and thus believe that there has to be a separate observer so anything can be properly observed... luckily direct experience shows that this is obviously not the case...

So how does awareness know... it seems it doesn't have to do anything to know; a bit like you don't have to do anything to be; so... maybe knowing is its nature... like wetness is the nature of water... maybe knowing and being are the same... maybe every word, every name, ultimately always points back to one "thing"... awareness itself...

What do you really know of this world/universe? Do you know objects, me, others, sounds, thoughts... or simply "appearances of awareness/knowing"? Can awareness ever be sad, happy, hurt, anxious; can it suffer?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi,

Sorry for delay! Internet was crapping out at home & I have to use wifi at work.

Yes... how does awareness know anything..?
Does it know anything that is not it? Does it know an object that is separate from it..? If so, who observes the separation... There would have to be another, superior knower that observes awareness observing a separate object, right? Of course this doesn't make sense, but we have learnt to operate in this relativistic, objective mode of being and thus believe that there has to be a separate observer so anything can be properly observed... luckily direct experience shows that this is obviously not the case...

I guess that it has it's own nature or function, which is knowing. Just like it's the nature of fire to burn & generate heat.

It knows things/objects/processes that are material & doesn't discriminate, but there's not a two-way relationship. Objects, people/processes don't know/relate to awareness itself. And, they can't be separate from awareness because something else, a superior knower, as you said, would have to be able to stand back & then observe awareness as an object also.

So how does awareness know... it seems it doesn't have to do anything to know; a bit like you don't have to do anything to be; so... maybe knowing is its nature... like wetness is the nature of water... maybe knowing and being are the same... maybe every word, every name, ultimately always points back to one "thing"... awareness itself...

It knows because that's it's function. No, it doesn't seem like there's anything active happening for awareness to know. Sensory objects appear & disappear with awareness knowing the arising & passing of each. There's no effort involved.

What do you really know of this world/universe? Do you know objects, me, others, sounds, thoughts... or simply "appearances of awareness/knowing"? Can awareness ever be sad, happy, hurt, anxious; can it suffer?

If awareness cannot be separate from objects, then I must only know awareness, as there's no way to get outside of awareness to ascertain the true nature of what's being observed. All appearances are the display of awareness, just like the shows on TV are inseparable from the screen. Awareness can only observe/know sadness, happiness, anxiety. It observes suffering, but it is not suffering.

Again, my apologies for the delay. Thanks for your guidance.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi MoonChild,

Objects, people/processes don't know/relate to awareness itself.

Do "people" know anything? How does a person know? Can you find and describe the entity that knows? Can it be found?
Or is it really always only awareness that knows..?
...and from here we can look also at perception in general:
Do "people" see, hear or feel anything? How does a person see? Can you find and describe the entity that sees? Can it be found?
Or is it really always only awareness that sees..?

(Please keep in mind that stating that awareness sees or knows is only an intermediate step... it is only a thorn to remove a thorn)

It knows because that's it's function

Hmmm.. maybe this is just semantics, but for me a function is something that is being done, a process that is controlled...
Can you find such a process of knowing in this direct experience? Or maybe this experience, being itself, IS knowing.
Just as you said "There's no effort involved".

If awareness cannot be separate from objects, then I must only know awareness

You are saying "If awareness..."... are you sure or not really?
Do you know an object? Or do you only know knowing?
Look at this experience right now... what is there?

Awareness can only observe/know sadness, happiness, anxiety. It observes suffering, but it is not suffering.

Look again... does awareness know sadness or suffering at all?
Because there seems to be a person that is seemingly suffering you conclude that there is something like "suffering", but maybe this is just a belief... maybe awareness never knows suffering as it only knows itself... can there be any suffering in your own true self?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Do "people" know anything? How does a person know? Can you find and describe the entity that knows? Can it be found?
Or is it really always only awareness that knows..?
...and from here we can look also at perception in general:
Do "people" see, hear or feel anything? How does a person see? Can you find and describe the entity that sees? Can it be found?
Or is it really always only awareness that sees..?

Current experience is showing that "people", or, in "my"case the "person", is known. There is awareness of the body & mind, feelings, movements, intentions, thoughts, etc. I can't say that "I" see/hear/feel. All of the senses are experienced as awareness. If awareness were an entity doing the seeing, then it would have to be known as an object, since the word "entity" suggests a thing with an independent existence. Only awareness sees/hears/feels. One way to think about this is that a dead body is composed of form, has eyes, ears, nose, and tongue, but is devoid of awareness, therefore, although all sense organs are present, without awareness, nothing can be sensed.

Hmmm.. maybe this is just semantics, but for me a function is something that is being done, a process that is controlled...
Can you find such a process of knowing in this direct experience? Or maybe this experience, being itself, IS knowing.
Just as you said "There's no effort involved".

-function |ˈfəNGkSHən|
noun
1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing

There are many processes in the natural world that just happen without a controller/doer. One example would be the weather, which, as a process, is influenced by many variables, and, as such, there's no central doer. Water evaporation, formation of clouds, and the subsequent release of moisture called rain, is a natural process with no doer, nor does it have a way to be controlled.

I can't say that I see a process with awareness, but, it seems to function as "that which knows". There's no effort, and, from what I can see, no controller. If I could control awareness, then I could control what is known by awareness, but, that can't be done. And, it seems that the lack of separation between objects and what is known is one of the daily causes of suffering. For example, on Friday & Saturday evenings, I have neighbors, who love to party & play music so loud, that it's difficult to get a good night's sleep. Because these sounds/activities can't be separated from awareness, they are deemed intrusive & disturbing when I'm trying to get some rest.

Another example: I'm not a fan of hot weather, and this past summer was incredibly hot. When "I" would go outdoors at midday, awareness would know extreme heat, the feeling of skin being fried by the sun. There was no way to keep that separate from awareness, no way to control/stop the knowing of the feeling. This also illustrates that the knowing is automatic, it happens with no effort, and if there's an underlying process by which knowing happens, it's not obvious to me. It just happens.

You are saying "If awareness..."... are you sure or not really?
Do you know an object? Or do you only know knowing?
Look at this experience right now... what is there?

Looking at this right now, there is only the knowing.

Look again... does awareness know sadness or suffering at all?
Because there seems to be a person that is seemingly suffering you conclude that there is something like "suffering", but maybe this is just a belief... maybe awareness never knows suffering as it only knows itself... can there be any suffering in your own true self?

Awareness knows sadness & suffering, but awareness itself is not suffering. It's only knowing the presence or absence of suffering. It also knows the character, MoonChild625 & the appearance of feelings and emotional states that the character labels "sadness".

What's a "true" self? Isn't "self" an owner/controller? Isn't "self" what we've been trying to show doesn't exist?

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi MoonChild,

knowing is automatic, it happens with no effort, and if there's an underlying process by which knowing happens, it's not obvious to me. It just happens.

Yes, it simply happens. Perfectly automatic and without effort.

Awareness knows sadness & suffering, but awareness itself is not suffering.

Yes, agree, awareness, the knowing itself is not suffering. But I would even go one step further and contest the idea that it even knows suffering.

Lets imagine that suffering vs. happiness is similar to seeing colour, for example red vs. green (or hearing or any other experience). If you would have been brought up to hate the colour red and really appreciate green then red would seemingly bring along suffering - the experience of red itself is imagined to BE suffering and the experience of green IS pleasure...
So suffering as an experience really doesn't exist, there is an experience, e.g. the colour red and then there is a belief attached that is formulated as "I am suffering!". There might even be physical sensations that arise with this thought that seem to confirm that there is suffering happening. But what is really happening? The idea that "I am suffering!" is just a wrong interpretation of the neutral experience of "red". Awareness IS red, it is the knowing that in this moment can be labelled "red". Red is all awareness "knows" (or better IS), it never goes further to identify itself with the idea of "I am suffering" - this is only a wrong belief, an interpretation of "red" that is essentially not true... Do you see my point?

Try this little experiment:
First look at this text and note what sensations come up (maybe try to blackout the text below while doing this):
LOVE





Now, do the same with this one:
HATE




Did one experience feel better than the other one? In which way? What kind of physical sensations were present?
What thoughts did arise?

Was the knowing of experience 1 and 2 different in any way? Or was it the same for both?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Yes, agree, awareness, the knowing itself is not suffering. But I would even go one step further and contest the idea that it even knows suffering.

Yes, I understand what you're pointing to here. Suffering is a label on experience, so suffering, as such, isn't experienced.

Lets imagine that suffering vs. happiness is similar to seeing colour, for example red vs. green (or hearing or any other experience). If you would have been brought up to hate the colour red and really appreciate green then red would seemingly bring along suffering - the experience of red itself is imagined to BE suffering and the experience of green IS pleasure...

Yes, that makes sense. The learned, conditioned response to the color is what is arising.

But what is really happening? The idea that "I am suffering!" is just a wrong interpretation of the neutral experience of "red". Awareness IS red, it is the knowing that in this moment can be labelled "red". Red is all awareness "knows" (or better IS), it never goes further to identify itself with the idea of "I am suffering" - this is only a wrong belief, an interpretation of "red" that is essentially not true... Do you see my point?

Yes, I see your point & know in direct experience that this conditioned response arises to pretty much everything, not just color! And, I do see the fact that awareness mirrors, or is the color without any additional labels, interpretations, value or lack of value, placed upon it.

Try this little experiment:
First look at this text and note what sensations come up (maybe try to blackout the text below while doing this):
LOVE

Immediately, I felt positive & relaxed when seeing the word LOVE. And, it's not the word itself, but the associations/memories that came up around the word. And, we know, the word is not the associations that come up. Since associations with the word LOVE are personal, NOT universal or absolute, there's nothing definitive to which it points. As for the color, green brought up associations of calm, spring, freshness, as well as, green with envy. And the color has nothing to do with any of that. All of that is EXTRA.

Now, do the same with this one:
HATE

In light of our current presidential election, physical tension and negative associations came up around our new president elect, his past speeches, debates, how HATE, in general, carries negative connotations, etc. But, of course, it's all relative to whomever is looking at the word. Again, those are interpretations, and as such, they are not an intrinsic part of the word itself. As for the color red, thoughts of heat, red hot anger, arose. Again, a learned interpretation of something neutral.

Was the knowing of experience 1 and 2 different in any way? Or was it the same for both?

The knowingis the same. The interpretations/associations were different.

This is great stuff, deconstructing all of the meaning and values we layer onto everything. Thanks!

-MoonChild625