Hello

[Xain]

You might be onto something, here...

But make it your own. Don't let me persuade you - Look at these things I suggest for yourself and make your own realisation out of it (or not if it doesn't work for you).

What is found can be interpreted, or thought of, as stuff being found by a self, but it doesn't have to be thought of this way. You can instead think of it as just 'stuff happening': images happening, smells happening, etc. At face value this is actually all there is but the habit of interpreting it in terms of 'self feeling' is very strong and almost automatic for me

As a description, sure I understand what you mean.
But within what you've said there is a 'me' that is interpreting and for whom these things are 'automatic' for.
Is there really?
Or is this just another idea?

You can see I'm still doing it when writing these sentences. (But is that inevitable?)

Does something need to change? Does something need to be seen as wrong or to be different?
How about just realising what's been going on all this time?

Who or what is writing the sentences?
Can an inherent self be found replying? Or just thoughts appearing in experience suggesting that there is one?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Still considering your last post. I've been called into work unexpectedly so will write a full reply when I am finished. :)

[Xain]

Sure thing.

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

But make it your own. Don't let me persuade you - Look at these things I suggest for yourself and make your own realisation out of it (or not if it doesn't work for you).

Well, you asked: "Does 'an image of a self' only appear when memory gets involved?". An image of a self is one way to think about it. There might be an image corresponding to some actual thing which is a self - like there is an image of a table corresponding to an actual table - but that doesn't seem to be the real thing I'm looking for, here. The other way of looking at finding the self is to look not at the images themselves or the contents of images, but at this side of the images, so to speak - for that is where I had supposed the self to be. It was supposed that at one end of experience you have the image, and at the other end you have the seer. But truthfully there is nothing at the other end of the experience. I'm not even sure I can say it truly has two sides. It makes some sense to say that the light bulb within the image is over there, in front of the nose hovering in the visual field; but the image itself, regardless of what the contents of the image are, doesn't really seem to be anywhere in particular. Even though there's perspective to images when you consider the contents of the images, there isn't perspective when you consider the image itself.

The notion that there's a person over here looking at a light bulb over there is a product of the contents of images. The contents of the image indicate that there is some distance between here and there, and this combines with the knowledge that I have about what is behind this nose that I see hovering to fill in the picture of what is happening - to fill in the picture of what it would look like from a third person perspective. So it makes some sense to say that the light bulb is being viewed from a certain distance. But for the image itself, regardless of its contents, I don't think I can say the same thing. The image itself, the very experience of seeing, gives no notion of perspective because the image itself appears nowhere in particular, at no distance in particular from any other point in particular.

[Xain]

But truthfully there is nothing at the other end of the experience.

Does it have two sides in language? In thought? In conventional ideas and assumptions?
Could it be that our assumptions / beliefs / language itself seems to 'create' two sides simply for the purpose of communication?

but that doesn't seem to be the real thing I'm looking for, here.

Indeed it isn't. We are looking for a 'real thing'. Not just an idea - Not just a thought - Not just a word 'I' - Not just a creation of language.

I'm not even sure I can say it truly has two sides.

Good. That's why it's referred to as non-duality. Not two. Advaita.
You're on the right road :-)

It makes some sense to say that the light bulb within the image is over there, in front of the nose hovering in the visual field; but the image itself, regardless of what the contents of the image are, doesn't really seem to be anywhere in particular

Yes. Don't get too hung up on the fact that experience seems to be from a perspective. That's for further looking.
(From the further things you suggest, you are looking deeply into this as well! Good!)
It does seem like you've grasped what I'm pointing to though - There is a visual experience (what is seen). Anything further demands assumptions.

It seems like you are clear on the senses.
What about choice and control?
What about thought?

Where is the REAL self in these things? (Outside of ideas, thoughts and words).

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Does it have two sides in language? In thought? In conventional ideas and assumptions?
Could it be that our assumptions / beliefs / language itself seems to 'create' two sides simply for the purpose of communication?

It certainly has two sides in language; the very word 'experience' stacks the deck in favour of a two-sided understanding, implying a thing and an experiencer of the thing. But why shouldn't I notice that this condition (what I'm talking about when I'm talking about experience) is just what it is, on it's own. The condition I'm calling experience has no character of the two-sidedness implied in the word, insofar as there is just the experienced thing, and that's it. If there's something doing experiencing, that's fine, but it's not a part of this condition unless it's one of the things experienced (which it may or may not be but either way it's irrelevant, because you can't look at that side of experience to find the experiencer which is supposed to be at this side). The experience that is here doesn't 'come into' anything at this side ... it seemingly gathers around nothingness at this side.

If I look into a mirror, I can see my eyes in the mirror, and I can see them being on this side from that side, but I still can't see them being at this side from this side. Does this make sense? I just mean to explain how even if I could find something which might be 'the self' in perceptions, it wouldn't be the same as finding it on the other side of perceptions, and I think this might be a distinction you want me to see? Maybe my analogy is bad.

I might go even further and say that the only stuff at this side is the stuff I had thought was at the other side. You could say that the only sense in which there's an experience-er here is the sense in which there is experience here - that there being experience at all is the same as there being an experience-er. But isn't that admitting non-duality? That the experience-er and the experience-ed aren't separate? That any trace of the former is actually just the latter?

It seems like you are clear on the senses.
What about choice and control?
What about thought?

Where is the REAL self in these things? (Outside of ideas, thoughts and words).

Thought is easy because it's just like the other senses. Thoughts that are language are just the same as the hearing sense to me. Thoughts that are images are just the same as the seeing sense. I can't really identify any other kinds of thought.

But choice and control are more confusing because I'm still not sure on what experiences make up the feeling of control or choice. I can't locate those thoughts. They don't seem to occur.

[Xain]

It certainly has two sides in language; the very word 'experience' stacks the deck in favour of a two-sided understanding, implying a thing and an experiencer of the thing.

Yes it does, which is why it can be very difficult to talk about these things in order to 'break them down' for the purpose of realising something.

But why shouldn't I notice that this condition (what I'm talking about when I'm talking about experience) is just what it is, on it's own.

You are implying that there is a real self that notices, or does not notice something.
Is there such a thing?

The experience that is here doesn't 'come into' anything at this side ... it seemingly gathers around nothingness at this side.

You've got it.
But do you find 'nothingness' at this side? 'Nothingness' would still be a 'thing' that you are implying experience comes into.
My questions to you is . . . whatever is assumed that experience comes into . . . can it only ever be an assumption? A belief or an idea?
That would include 'self' and 'I' as a separate 'thing' that is being assumed.

If I look into a mirror, I can see my eyes in the mirror, and I can see them being on this side from that side, but I still can't see them being at this side from this side

Yes. Whatever is in the mirror is 'what is seen'.
To suggest 'Those eyes are doing the seeing' is to imply that what is being seen is also doing the seeing.
An impossibility.

I just mean to explain how even if I could find something which might be 'the self' in perceptions, it wouldn't be the same as finding it on the other side of perceptions

Yes. But if you DID make an assumption of what it was . . . could it ever be really true? Or ONLY an assumption - An idea - A belief.
Would it be 'just a belief' to hold that the 'thing' was something separate to everything else?!?!?

But isn't that admitting non-duality? That the experience-er and the experience-ed aren't separate?

You are referring to two things that are not seperate.
Non-duality would be the realisation that there are not two things.
You could say 'experiencer and experienced are not separate' as some-sort of simplicity for the purpose of understanding. That would be OK.
But if it were REALLY TRUE, you would be able to find these two things that you are referring to and find them 'not separate'.

Why does there have to be an experiencer anyway? It might suggest that there is still a clinging to the subject/object model. Still the belief that there is a real self but they are located somewhere else.

But choice and control are more confusing because I'm still not sure on what experiences make up the feeling of control or choice. I can't locate those thoughts. They don't seem to occur.

Are there thoughts about 'what made that choice' or 'what made the arm move' occurring afterwards?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Hi Xain. Will write another reply after work. Just letting you know!

[Space6006]

Xain, I'm struggling to find something to latch onto from your last reply. I know you asked plenty of direct questions but Im struggling to answer them. I'm currently seeing this as a sort of semantic adjustment. I knew from the beginning that nothing about perception would change during this inquiry, and that's true. So there's no self at this end of experience, and actually all there is is experience, but of course this leaves you basically where you started, only now the separate self is known as an assumed entity rather than a directly known one. But I sort of feel like I already knew this all along and only semantics was keeping me from seeing it. Does this indicate I'm still not getting it?

Are there thoughts about 'what made that choice' or 'what made the arm move' occurring afterwards?

Sometimes. For example, after you ask about it I can look back and consider the choices or movements and thought will indicate they were free choices or voluntary actions. But what about the occasions where nobody asks and I don't consider my actions after the fact? I do lots of things every day without thinking about them or considering them afterwards, and yet whenever anything involuntary happens thoughts will always suggest that they were involuntary. There seems to be something in common between the types of thing that are considered involuntary. Some other person or object would be involved.

I suppose it might be simpler than this. There are a lot of actions, and many/most of them go without consideration. Without consideration of the action the difference between voluntary/involuntary is meaningless. But whenever they happen to be considered they will be lumped into one of the two groups voluntary/involuntary for some reason which is not known directly. But it seems that any actions that aren't considered are just treated like voluntary actions; for example, there's no alarm or reaction or fear, etc, in response to unconsidered actions. I typed much of this without considering whether or not it was voluntary, and yet surely if it had been thought of as involuntary I would be experiencing some kind of shock or distress. When I explicitly consider the actions and they appear voluntary, I go on as I was when the action was unconsidered. It seems like voluntary action is the default mode for things. Perhaps with closer examination, one might be able to notice what conditions tend to produce the involuntary labelling. Presumably it's not arbitrary.

[Xain]

Does this indicate I'm still not getting it?

No, you've got it.

Without consideration of the action the difference between voluntary/involuntary is meaningless

I agree.

But whenever they happen to be considered they will be lumped into one of the two groups voluntary/involuntary for some reason which is not known directly.

I agree - Along with a belief that there was or was not a self involved in this process.

But it seems that any actions that aren't considered are just treated like voluntary actions

By what?

and yet surely if it had been thought of as involuntary I would be experiencing some kind of shock or distress

Listening to the heart beating - You've control over it, yes?
Are you shocked and in distress that you haven't?

Shock and distress could only manifest if there was still a belief in a real self, but that real self had no choice or control.
But that is still the belief in a real self.

When I explicitly consider the actions and they appear voluntary

What exactly do you mean 'appear voluntary'?
What is the difference between 'appear voluntary' and 'a thought appears after the event with content that claims that that the action was voluntary'?

Voluntary and Involuntary are possible for a real self.
What is that?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

By what

Good point. I should say the unconsidered actions are followed by other movements and thoughts that also follow actions which thoughts explicitly suggest to be voluntary.

Some thing doing the 'treating' or considering isn't here, only the thoughts images etc are here. The object thing doing it is not here but a part of the model in thoughts. The thing I call me really isn't here, and that seems so wrong to say but it isn't here. It seems very wrong that I can say that and that things could still be the same as they always have been, but it's apparently true. It really isn't that profound, though. It's not here but it doesn't change anything. It's just sort of interesting.

Listening to the heart beating - You've control over it, yes?
Are you shocked and in distress that you haven't

Good point. Yes the heartbeat is involuntary. It seems that for certain things there's one standard for what's required for an action to be so called involuntary and for other actions there's a different standard. Shock or distress are only relevant sometimes. These standards seem to be just learned from somewhere subconsciously. Some things are labelled voluntary and some are labelled involuntary, and the standard for this labelling seems to have been learned implicitly. Just a part of the way I've been taught to interpret the stuff that I'm experiencing. This sort of language is also a part of that. Whether I was taught to interpret experience this way by society or biology it doesn't really matter, the point is it doesn't have to be interpreted that way. I can strip away the model and get raw stuff similarly to how I can deconstruct the hand on table feeling and get a raw vague feeling. The difference between voluntary and involuntary starts to look a bit of a sham. A convincing story with some practical benefits.

[Xain]

I should say the unconsidered actions are followed by other movements and thoughts that also follow actions which thoughts explicitly suggest to be voluntary.

Are the thoughts voluntary?
Or to be more precise, is there anything 'voluntary' about thoughts other than the content of a thought itself claiming 'that thought was voluntary'?

The object thing doing it is not here but a part of the model in thoughts.

Yes. I like that. Exactly.

The thing I call me really isn't here, and that seems so wrong to say but it isn't here. It seems very wrong that I can say that and that things could still be the same as they always have been, but it's apparently true. It really isn't that profound, though. It's not here but it doesn't change anything. It's just sort of interesting.

Yes. BINGO! ♥
We have examined one object that is considered to be inherently real - the 'self'.
You've discovered that no inherent self can be found. Only a model in thoughts / created by the thinking process itself.

It seems that for certain things there's one standard for what's required for an action to be so called involuntary and for other actions there's a different standard.

I think you are right.
Could the standard simply be 'beliefs'?

These standards seem to be just learned from somewhere subconsciously. Some things are labelled voluntary and some are labelled involuntary, and the standard for this labelling seems to have been learned implicitly. Just a part of the way I've been taught to interpret the stuff that I'm experiencing. This sort of language is also a part of that. Whether I was taught to interpret experience this way by society or biology it doesn't really matter, the point is it doesn't have to be interpreted that way. I can strip away the model and get raw stuff similarly to how I can deconstruct the hand on table feeling and get a raw vague feeling. The difference between voluntary and involuntary starts to look a bit of a sham. A convincing story with some practical benefits.

Yes. In fact the whole process of deconstruction involves examining what we think is truly real, and not being able to find it (in the way it is usually said to exist).
Language itself creates the duality. Or rather, we talk about things . . . me, you, dog, cat, tree, table . . . and we forget the fact that these are only concepts - pointers - words - we think the concepts are 'real things out there'.
Perhaps these concepts were fed to us over time as children and we took them onboard in order so we could communicate . . . so we could reference the world . . . so there would even BE a world that which we could reference.

So . . .
How do you feel?
Any questions or areas of confusion you'd like to discuss?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Are the thoughts voluntary?
Or to be more precise, is there anything 'voluntary' about thoughts other than the content of a thought itself claiming 'that thought was voluntary'?

There's no quality or feature of the thoughts that distinguishes them from involuntary ones, no. Apart from maybe the fact that they arise unnoticed. This seems to allow to them in through the back door such that they just aren't noticed to be involuntary when they arise.

I think you are right.
Could the standard simply be 'beliefs'?

It raises the question of where they came from, but yes it seems just like any other habit, dogma or tradition that's very well established. Unquestioned and actually senseless apart from keeping up the narrative.

Yes. In fact the whole process of deconstruction involves examining what we think is truly real, and not being able to find it (in the way it is usually said to exist).
Language itself creates the duality. Or rather, we talk about things . . . me, you, dog, cat, tree, table . . . and we forget the fact that these are only concepts - pointers - words - we think the concepts are 'real things out there'.
Perhaps these concepts were fed to us over time as children and we took them onboard in order so we could communicate . . . so we could reference the world . . . so there would even BE a world that which we could reference

.

As a matter of experience, there is no real world actually. That's not to say that the notion of a real world is useless or that the model of semantics and ontology where a real world is suggested is 'wrong' in the strictest sense, because I think the notion of truth that we use is generally tied to that story of the real world, and I feel okay with that. I can notice that as a matter of experience there's only what is experienced, and still entertain the possibility that something exists besides this experience. But it is only ever inferred and not known directly.

I want to say that as a matter of what I'm calling experience, there actually is no experience. If there's no experiencer in this state, then how can this be said to be a state of experience rather than some state of existence which needs no experiencer or notion of experience to exist. Experience would be a misnomer that we apply to this state to keep up the model of reality we have which supposedly exists outside of this state.

So . . .
How do you feel?
Any questions or areas of confusion you'd like to discuss

I feel the same. Regarding questions, I'm sure some will come up eventually, but right now I'm just getting to grips with this new way of considering things.

[Xain]

As a matter of experience, there is no real world actually.

Yes. It is entirely inferred.
It is possible to experientially realises this also. But that's way beyond this dialogue.

I want to say that as a matter of what I'm calling experience, there actually is no experience.

Yes.

But it is only ever inferred and not known directly.

Yes. You got it in one :-)

Perhaps you are awestruck at how simple the realisation is?
Well, that's all it is.
'The self' is simply a mental construct - It is inferred. The illusion kept in place by unexamined thoughts and misperceptions.

If you feel clear that you have realised this, there are a further six questions I can ask as past of this process.
This may reveal other areas we can examine.
Ready for them?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Okay; hit me with the questions.