Hello

[Space6006]

Hi Xain. Still considering your post. Will reply soon.

[Xain]

I'm not convinced that your heart is in this guidance at the moment, with the long delays in between posts.
Perhaps we need to have a break at this point.

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

This guidance is all I think about. My difficulty responding these past few days isn't due to a lack of interest but my inability to figure out what to say. Honestly your response on the 15th shook me a little and I lost faith in my ability to communicate with you.

One thing that is sticking a bit is a matter of semantics. This is of course difficult to explain and that is on top of my inadequacy with words to begin with. But basically what I'm trying to say is that even though there is no separate entity here in experience having the experiences, the condition to which I am referring when I talk about a self still obtains. I've been talking about a self all this time not because I ever sensed or was acquainted with a separate experiencer, (because such a thing has never been here) but because of this condition which still obtains. It doesn really matter for the sake of this particular point what that condition is, but all I want to say is that there is a bit of a minefield saying the self doesn't exist because you can get into a referent/referring expression equivocation. Of course this is very hard to explain ... but I'm just trying to get an understanding of what It is exactly you are guiding me to see. My longish post which you suggested was irrelevant was my attempt at trying to clarify with you whether or not I had this all square in my head, and then you told me it sounded like I was talking about the wrong thing, which shook me a little because I was quite sure I had gotten it. There remains the possibility that I just didn't explain it very well, of course.

[Space6006]

This guidance is about realising that there is no separate self in experience. It seems to me that a good pointer for this realisation would be the consideration that there is no evidence, in experience, that the condition were calling experience is experienced by anything. Ie, evidence that it's experience rather than just stuff existing. This is because the sort of evidence you would need would be the exact thing which can't be found: an experiencer. I'm telling you this because I thought it might help you discern whether or not I've had had the appropriate realisation.

[Xain]

Honestly your response on the 15th shook me a little and I lost faith in my ability to communicate with you.

You began discussing philosophical points (about 'experience') which don't really have anything to do with this guidance.
My guidance isn't to allow new beliefs to form - Merely to examine the ones that are there.

But basically what I'm trying to say is that even though there is no separate entity here in experience having the experiences, the condition to which I am referring when I talk about a self still obtains

Is this condition personal? Who owns it?

Do you expect it to change?
Who will it change for?

This guidance is about realising that there is no separate self in experience.

No. This guidance is for you to realise that there is no inherent self.
The wording is very specific for a reason.

Since I asked the questions, you now seem to be using the word 'experience' constantly. Your replies have shifted to address something different.
'Experience' is just a word. A pointer. It doesn't 'exist' in the way you are referring to it.

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Is this condition personal? Who owns it?

Thoughts definitely suggest that it is personal, but I don't think there's any evidence that it is. (I mean there's nothing about it which actually makes it personal besides the thoughts that insist it is, or assumptions about other people's brains being loci of such conditions.) As a matter of experience, there's nobody here owning it; though an owner can be inferred by recourse to knowledge about the brain etc.

Do you expect it to change?
Who will it change for?

I can't predict how this condition will change when certain beliefs are questioned or fall away or rise up. I've read some of the other threads here where, upon completing their guidance, people profess feelings of joy or freedom, but others where people seem sort of unmoved.

Who will it change for? I could say 'me', but the 'me' there is the me in thoughts and concepts - not a me which actually exists.

No. This guidance is for you to realise that there is no inherent self.
The wording is very specific for a reason.

I'd gotten it into my head that the words 'inherent' and 'separate' were being used to get at the same point about the 'self'. you defined the 'inherent self' like this in you first post to me: "For the words 'discrete entity' I usually use the words 'inherent self', a separate self that has no real existence 'of itself'."

Since I asked the questions, you now seem to be using the word 'experience' constantly. Your replies have shifted to address something different.
'Experience' is just a word. A pointer. It doesn't 'exist' in the way you are referring to it.

Well, of course the word 'experience' is just a word, but there is something that the word refers to, and that thing is not just a word. Surely you know what I mean when I use the word? Bearing in mind that I'm using it in it's noun form not the verb form. Synonyms would be 'perceptions' or 'sensations' (or the sum thereof). Do you not agree that what I'm referring to exists?

[Xain]

Well, of course the word 'experience' is just a word, but there is something that the word refers to, and that thing is not just a word.

Well, of course the word 'self' is just a word, but there is something that the word refers to, and that thing is not just a word.
Right?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Well, of course the word 'self' is just a word, but there is something that the word refers to, and that thing is not just a word.
Right?

In sentences like "I smell bacon" or "I think that's tasty", The word 'I' refers to something in the model of 'reality' that we build in thoughts. Strictly speaking, the word refers to a character. But on another level, when we say "I smell bacon" its actually a convenient way of talking about the sensation of bacon-smell occurring. I don't think "I smell bacon" is asserting the existence of a smeller of experiences in experience, but asserting the existence of a smeller in the 'reality model' which is inferred and not known directly.

[Xain]

At this stage, I think it's best if another guide takes over from me.
I will arrange this for you.

All the very best for the future
Xain ♥

[Hannah B-T]

Hi Jake, my name is Hannah and I will be happy to take over from here if that's ok with you.

I know Xain very well and looking at your conversation in the last few pages I think it's mostly been a matter of approaching things from slightly different angles which is not 'gelling' rather than any serious problem here. But I would like to explore a few areas with you afresh if that's ok.

One thing is I'd like to know your current thoughts on the phrase 'sense of self'. Just give me a pargraph if that phrase points to anything going on in the current experience, and describe that to me.

Secondly I've actually got no issue with discussing the 'experience' thing. Many traditions distinguish between a 'small self' (the personalised individual 'Jake')
and the unmistakable appearance of aliveness and experience.

So using the above model will it be clear when I use the word 'Jake' vs the word 'experience' what we both mean. This is what we need to work towards to clearly understand each other, and for other guides at LU to as well.

So on this basis let me ask you a few questions about Jake:

What is the word 'Jake' referring to as it is seen right now?

Is 'Jake' more real than Santa claus or Batman? In what way does that analogy resonate now, and in what ways does it not?

And then regarding 'experience'-

Is experience bounded or contained in any way? For instance is experience contained within bodies, this experience here being separate to that experience over there in X's body?

Is experience 'personal' in any way?

Is experience related to or linked to 'Jake', and if so in what way?

Many thanks
Hannah
xx

[Space6006]

Hi Jake, my name is Hannah and I will be happy to take over from here if that's ok with you.

I know Xain very well and looking at your conversation in the last few pages I think it's mostly been a matter of approaching things from slightly different angles which is not 'gelling' rather than any serious problem here. But I would like to explore a few areas with you afresh if that's ok.

Hi, Hannah. I'm happy to continue on with you. Thank you. :)

One thing is I'd like to know your current thoughts on the phrase 'sense of self'. Just give me a pargraph if that phrase points to anything going on in the current experience, and describe that to me.

The sense of self for me is about this experience happening here, as opposed to the experiences of other brains/bodies/people. I can look to experience and see that there is no separate experiencer of this experience, true enough; such a thing is not here to see. But there is a sense of separation from the outside world: there is some experience going on here which is only one part of the whole reality beyond this experience. Is that reality beyond this experience available to me? No. But I admit I have a propensity to think as if the things I'm experiencing now (the computer screen, the walls, the traffic noise) actually ARE parts of that reality beyond this experience, but I can rationalise that this mustn't be the case, for they really are just appearances in experience. But there is still a sense that some of the things being experienced are more personal than others. For example, the traffic noise is presumably audible to other people, but my thoughts are not. It seems like I'm constantly running a model in thoughts which places 'my' experience in a presumed greater whole.

In one breath I can say that it seems that there's a 'me' behind my eyes, looking out at stuff that's not me; but in another breath I can acknowledge that no such 'me' can be found. Since I've been under the impression that nothing about experience was going to change during/after this guidance, I presumed that this way of seeing the world - as if from behind the eyes, looking out at a world other than me - would not change. Is this supposed to change? How come it hasn't already given that I acknowledge there is no 'me' behind the eyes to be found?

What is the word 'Jake' referring to as it is seen right now?

I don't think it refers to any one thing that can be found. And yet still it seems to work as a word and seems to successfully pick out one thing as opposed to other things. Jake as opposed to Obama, or Steve, etc.

Is 'Jake' more real than Santa claus or Batman? In what way does that analogy resonate now, and in what ways does it not?

Batman doesn't exist in the sense that there's no biological organism walking around who that name refers to, whereas there is a biological organism to which the word 'Jake' refers. But at the same time I see that this is all just based on assumptions about an 'external' world. Based only on experience, there's no guarantee that biological organisms exist at all. Not only is there no evidence that any of the organisms in 'my' experience exist beyond my experience, but there's no evidence that 'my' experience belongs to a biological organism, or to anything at all, biological or otherwise, because no owner of this experience can be found.

Is experience bounded or contained in any way? For instance is experience contained within bodies, this experience here being separate to that experience over there in X's body?

As a symptom of the condition, I might say it seems like this experience is bound to this body: I look through these eyes, and feel through these fingers. But actually, I know that these eyes and these fingers and all the rest of it are just manifestations in experience. Experience itself cannot be said to be bound to anything or not bound to anything. Experience can't be found to be existing in relation to anything else. Experience is all there is.

Is experience 'personal' in any way?

I don't really know how to answer this.

Is experience related to or linked to 'Jake', and if so in what way?

'Jake' would just be a label that I put on this experience. This sound of traffic isn't 'Jake', but this is Jake's experience of the traffic, because this experience of the traffic only exists here, and not for Obama, or for Peter sat across the room. 'Jake' is a made up thing that is supposed to preside over the experience, but can't be found to be actually doing that. Obama is another made up thing supposed to be presiding over the experiences assumed to be going on as a product of that organism's brain.

[Hannah B-T]

Ok, as a general comment it strikes me as quite a bit of inconsistency or being unsure in your answers. I'm going to be quite firm in pointing this out when i see it, not to have a go at you, but because this method of inquiry is about using thoughts and logic in a different way to 'shortcircuit' the normal ways of answering such questions and instead going to the current experience directly for the answers. Thoughts wil lthen pop up and say 'BUT'. Ignore the but.

But there is a sense of separation from the outside world:

So the logic here is flawed. If there is separation from 'objects' the outside world, there must be a 'subject' here to be separate from that out there, would you agree?

If so then how would that work with this statement?

I can look to experience and see that there is no separate experiencer of this experience, true enough; such a thing is not here to see

We need to get honest to examine the appearance of a separate experiencer, don't assume anything, check. Every single time.

But I admit I have a propensity to think as if the things I'm experiencing now (the computer screen, the walls, the traffic noise) actually ARE parts of that reality beyond this experience

The key word here is THINK. We can think about anything. This inquiry needs to stick, to sometimes what seems like an absurd degree, to what is actually in perception right now.

So let me ask this- If you are sitting in a room, is there ANY direct evidence whatseover of a world, anything outside the room you can here see touch right now?...

BUT! says thought ;)

But there is still a sense that some of the things being experienced are more personal than others

This is important. Give me some examples of experiences which are or seem more 'personal'. As many as you can.

For example, the traffic noise is presumably audible to other people, but my thoughts are not.

presumably. This is a word that points to assumption. along with might be seems could be appears to be....
We are aiming for more clarity that that. Assumptions are purely thought based.
And the assumption here is that there is a little person inside this body here hearing sounds, and therefore also a little personal or something inside that body there also hearing that sound.

Is that answer coming from experience, or inference/assumption/learnt ideas?

I presumed that this way of seeing the world - as if from behind the eyes, looking out at a world other than me - would not change. Is this supposed to change? How come it hasn't already given that I acknowledge there is no 'me' behind the eyes to be found?

Some of this is further guidance yes, but im just starting to push harder on this because I feel there is need for more clarity here. Remember its not about making anything stop or go away or change how is manifests, it's simply about seeing clearly what is an illusion, a construction as it appears.

So explore exactly what makes up the impression there is a little 'me' sitting inside the head looking out.
Where does this apparent little me end and 'out there' begin, what is that dividing line made of?
Get really curious.

I don't think it refers to any one thing that can be found. And yet still it seems to work as a word and seems to successfully pick out one thing as opposed to other things. Jake as opposed to Obama, or Steve, etc.

This answer is not clear at all, does it or does it not refer to a thing?

whereas there is a biological organism to which the word 'Jake' refers.

Ok so Jake refers to the body? The body is 'the thing'?

Based only on experience, there's no guarantee that biological organisms exist at all. Not only is there no evidence that any of the organisms in 'my' experience exist beyond my experience, but there's no evidence that 'my' experience belongs to a biological organism, or to anything at all, biological or otherwise, because no owner of this experience can be found.

ok, now we are getting somewhere.

I might say it seems like this experience is bound to this body: I look through these eyes, and feel through these fingers.

yes, this is the standard way of looking at it. But even basic science can start to undermine this quite easily, take a look at this video.
Let's explore this in more detail. you may have done some body exercises with Xain, but it feels like it might be worth revisiting this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk

If you feel frustrated looking at this stuff, that is a really good sign by the way.
xx

[Space6006]

So the logic here is flawed. If there is separation from 'objects' the outside world, there must be a 'subject' here to be separate from that out there, would you agree?

If so then how would that work with this statement?

I can look to experience and see that there is no separate experiencer of this experience, true enough; such a thing is not here to see

I agree with you it's inconsistent. Those two things don't work together.

The key word here is THINK. We can think about anything. This inquiry needs to stick, to sometimes what seems like an absurd degree, to what is actually in perception right now.

So let me ask this- If you are sitting in a room, is there ANY direct evidence whatseover of a world, anything outside the room you can here see touch right now?...

All there is evidence of is what is here now. Images, sounds, tastes, smells and feels. A world outside of the room is based on inference. Thoughts based on an assumption of consistency with memories etc.

This is important. Give me some examples of experiences which are or seem more 'personal'. As many as you can.

So, if my hand touches something, as opposed to two chairs touching over there. Or for another kind of thing, feelings of suffering or pleasure seem somehow more profound or intense or personal, in the sense that they can seem more important ... when I feel suffering it can feel like an injustice, like its really important that I'm feeling this and that I shouldn't have to feel it. It feels personal in the sense like ... you know when people say "it's nothing personal", but the opposite of that. Like I take those feeling personally rather than with a sense of acceptance and equanimity. They're not just things that are happening, but things that are happening to me. How dare they! It's pretty selfish, as if the world revolves around me. I don't like that about my attitude sometimes.

presumably. This is a word that points to assumption. along with might be seems could be appears to be....
We are aiming for more clarity that that. Assumptions are purely thought based.
And the assumption here is that there is a little person inside this body here hearing sounds, and therefore also a little personal or something inside that body there also hearing that sound.

Is that answer coming from experience, or inference/assumption/learnt ideas?

That answer is based on assumptions. Yes.

So explore exactly what makes up the impression there is a little 'me' sitting inside the head looking out.
Where does this apparent little me end and 'out there' begin, what is that dividing line made of?
Get really curious.

It's a good question. There's no one place as far as I can discern. Whenever I look for the thing 'here' it's not there. There isn't anything here, and there's only the stuff 'out there'.

This answer is not clear at all, does it or does it not refer to a thing?

The best I can do is say it refers to a presumed experiencer presiding over the experiences hare.

Ok so Jake refers to the body? The body is 'the thing'?

I don't think it's 'the thing'; it's just one difference between Santa and Jake. It might be incidental.

yes, this is the standard way of looking at it. But even basic science can start to undermine this quite easily, take a look at this video.
Let's explore this in more detail. you may have done some body exercises with Xain, but it feels like it might be worth revisiting this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk

If you feel frustrated looking at this stuff, that is a really good sign by the way.
xx

I've heard about that experiment in a book, but never seen it performed. It seems totally plausible, and basically makes sense to me. Even dreams illustrate this point to an extent. If I pick up a spider in a dream, I feel it in my hand, but there's nothing on my hand actually. The hand I'm feeling is the dream hand which doesn't even exist apart from in my head! My real hand is empty in bed with me. The takeaway for me is that experience can't be said to be coming from anything in particular. Whether it is made by anything or owned by anything would not matter or be knowable to me.

[Hannah B-T]

So, if my hand touches something, as opposed to two chairs touching over there.

ok, here's an experiement. close your eyes and place your hand on the table. Now relax and take a look at these:

How many sensations are there, are there actually 2 sensations, 'hand' and 'table' with something dividing them. Remember we are only looking at the raw sensations here.

Are there images appearing of a hand and or the table 'in the minds eye'?. Open your eyes, do those images correlate exactly with whats seen with eyes open? Are they the same thing?

Closing eyes again and going to the sensations only. Is there anything about that raw sensation itself that says anything at all about a hand, a table, or 'mine'?

Or for another kind of thing, feelings of suffering or pleasure seem somehow more profound or intense or personal, in the sense that they can seem more important

Ok so second exercise. Sitting quietly identify an emotion going on right now and name it. (like 'anxiety')
Then identify a physical sensation in the body and name it. (like 'low back pain' 'headache'

then look carefully at the raw sensations involved with both of those experiences. desribe them to me.
Is there anything about the two sets of raw sensations making one set more 'personal' than the other. Look carefully at ONLY the sensations.

So what else is going on to make them appear to be different catgories of experience?

They're not just things that are happening, but things that are happening to me.

Look closer at whaen something feels like it's happening 'to me'. What's actually going on in sensations and thoughts?
Can a self be found separate to those sensations or thoughts 'having them'?

There's no one place as far as I can discern. Whenever I look for the thing 'here' it's not there. There isn't anything here, and there's only the stuff 'out there'.

Ok. So what makes the stuff 'out there' then. Outside of what?

it refers to a presumed experiencer presiding over the experiences hare.

Ok, and has such an experiencer been found? Where else do we need to look.
Go through each sense in turn, hearing, touch (as we did above) smelling, tasting, and vision
Is there a separate hearer, toucher, smeller, taster or see-er to be found, seperate to the experience of hearing taste touch etc itself?

Then putting all that back together you can ask again about an 'experiencer'

I don't think it's 'the thing'; it's just one difference between Santa and Jake. It might be incidental.

Oh I don't think it's incidental at all, I think it's absolutely key ;)

[Space6006]

ok, here's an experiement. close your eyes and place your hand on the table. Now relax and take a look at these:

How many sensations are there, are there actually 2 sensations, 'hand' and 'table' with something dividing them. Remember we are only looking at the raw sensations here.

Are there images appearing of a hand and or the table 'in the minds eye'?. Open your eyes, do those images correlate exactly with whats seen with eyes open? Are they the same thing?

Closing eyes again and going to the sensations only. Is there anything about that raw sensation itself that says anything at all about a hand, a table, or 'mine'?

1) I can't feel the boudary between objects. I can feel a warm sensation here and a cold sensation there, (my hand is warm and the table is cold) but the place specifically where the hand meets the table is a feeling of pressure, which I suppose in and of itself isn't indicative of a boundary.

2) Yes, there are images. Do they correlate exactly? It seems not; they're different at least in intensity, as the minds eye images are less clear and intense and detailed. It would appear they're not the same thing.

3) I don't think so. The sensation is difficult to pin down because it seems to become strangely vague and hard to focus on. It's almost as if trying to isolate one sensation sucks the stability out of it. In a book, the narrator says "My knees were like reflections of knees in rippling water"; well, it feels to me that when I try to isolate my sensations they are like reflections of sensations in rippling water. Not literally; just metaphorically. Does this make sense?

Ok so second exercise. Sitting quietly identify an emotion going on right now and name it. (like 'anxiety')
Then identify a physical sensation in the body and name it. (like 'low back pain' 'headache'

then look carefully at the raw sensations involved with both of those experiences. desribe them to me.
Is there anything about the two sets of raw sensations making one set more 'personal' than the other. Look carefully at ONLY the sensations.

So what else is going on to make them appear to be different catgories of experience?

There's an emotion that's been dogging me for a while now which I can only describe as 'dissatisfaction'. It presents itself as a heavy feeling in/around the heart. Naturally, at first it seems to be made of more than this, but when I look this heart-sensation is the only real component, besides the thoughts which spring up either in correlation with this heaviness or specifically when this heaviness is considered. Among these thoughts are labels, where this will be nominated as an 'emotion', perhaps "sadness" or "annoyed", or "dreariness" - even though the heaviness feeling is the same, I've noticed it being labelled different things at different times. Quite the vocabulary for spinning stories about myself!

I don't know if you would consider he thoughts associated with the heaviness to be part of the raw sensation of the emotion I've loosely called 'dissatisfaction'. If not, then the difference between the heart-heavy feeling and a pain in the lower back is not too great. Both are physical sensations. Both are unpleasant. Both are persistent. Neither one would seem to be more personal than the other upon inspection; yet, when I move the lens away, the thoughts are up to their old tricks again, labelling one more personal than the other, which just makes the heart-heavy feeling stronger! A cycle! Vicious!

So what else is going on to make them appear to be different catgories of experience?

I have to say it's something to do with thoughts. The problem is, thoughts themselves appear to be personal in this same way as the emotions do. And in the same way, upon inspection (lens moving closer) they are unmasked as mere sounds in the minds ear, no more personal than the sounds spoken by somebody else, or his dog. But once again, when the lens moves away the thoughts label themselves again and again. The cycle never ends, and it remains convincing still, and still, no matter how many times the experiment (inspection) is performed (administered). This is what bothers me so intolerably - the stubbornness of how it keeps up being so convincing as soon as the inspection is over. It puts me back to square one!

Look closer at whaen something feels like it's happening 'to me'. What's actually going on in sensations and thoughts?
Can a self be found separate to those sensations or thoughts 'having them'?

I think it has something to do with proximity. The touch sense. If a sensation has some thus component, it's considered to be happening to me. But the fact still remains that even with touch sensations there is not separate self found having them.

Ok. So what makes the stuff 'out there' then. Outside of what?

First thought: Outside of this awareness. Response: What is inside this awareness if that stuff is outside? End this!: nothing!

It seems it's all either outside or inside, and that's just a matter of semantics. So how some this impression doesn't stick? It's like the inner monologue doesn't care about reason or evidence at all. It just goes on saying whatever it wants, and beliefs will go on being whatever, whatever. I know the mind isn't so easily changed. I suppose repeated exposure will wear resistance thin.

Ok, and has such an experiencer been found? Where else do we need to look.
Go through each sense in turn, hearing, touch (as we did above) smelling, tasting, and vision
Is there a separate hearer, toucher, smeller, taster or see-er to be found, seperate to the experience of hearing taste touch etc itself?

Then putting all that back together you can ask again about an 'experiencer'

No, such an experiencer can't be found - that's what I meant to imply by 'presumed'. It's suggested to be there in thoughts, but isn't there actually. But it goes on being suggested by thoughts and the thoughts remain being convincing. Saying there's no experiencer rings hollow even if it is the only answer that is coherent with what can be found.

Oh I don't think it's incidental at all, I think it's absolutely key ;)

But I know that the body isn't the self. This body isn't the experiencer at the receiving end of experiences. I can't find this body to be beholding the experience. And in fact if I could I would just have a regression my my hands because I would have to ask "what beholds the body beholding the experience?"