I "get" no-self but have no experience of it

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Firstly, thank you for your patience. I am really touched, humbled and inspired that you are able to spare this time despite your own challenging circumstances.

So as a warm-up exercise, can you write a few lines to convey some of your direct experience as you (I assume) sit in front of your computer now?

My direct experience right now is --

Feel the keys against my hands as I type. Can feel my elbows against the table. Can see the cursor blinking and letters appearing on the screen as I type. Some peripheral vision -- a backpack, a bottle. As I take a break to think, I can feel breath and my chest moving......

Some paradoxical thoughts arising about "I cannot really see an "I" behind all this. There is just perception". Given the topic under discussion, some questions naturally arise about the nature of these external objects and a thought comes that these -- the keyboard, backpack, everything is just part of "me".

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

In your answer you describe your immediate experience and then state:

["I cannot really see an "I" behind all this. There is just perception"]

Well noticed this is really great seeing!

Can you now continue to experiment with this way of experiencing by just sitting and looking for a sense of "I".

To so this simply sit quietly and see if you can notice the following components of experience: bodily sensation (pressure, warmth, tingling etc), what is seen, heard, tasted and smelt. Also any thoughts (including images and memories etc) that pass through the mind.

Is there an "I" behind them? Is an I necessary for them to occur? Is there anything other than perception?

Have fun looking,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Is there an "I" behind them? Is an I necessary for them to occur? Is there anything other than perception?

That was very interesting. The more I pay attention to the sensations, the lesser I can feel an "I" . There seems to be no necessity of an "I" for these to occur.

However, apart from the perception, there are thoughts and judgments about the perception. There is also some movement searching for an "I". This movement seems to be an "I" as best as I can see it. This movement is what makes me sit there looking for an "I". It seems to me that is impossible for it not to exist. Is that not an "I"? Did "I" not decide to sit and do the exercise? This is where I am stuck.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

That was very interesting. The more I pay attention to the sensations, the lesser I can feel an "I"

Excellent looking again. Well done. Lets stay with this for a while longer before we move to intentions.

You then go on to say;

There seems to be no necessity of an "I" for these to occur.

Very well noticed!!

Let's be really definite here.

Is there an "I" that gets bigger or smaller the more attention is paid to sensation?

Is an "I" necessary for sensations, or any other phenomena, to occur?

Have a good look,

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Is there an "I" that gets bigger or smaller the more attention is paid to sensation?

That is such a profound question! I spent a lot of time with it and here are my observations at the moment:

1) When I pay attention to sensations deeply, I cannot find an I. There is no I that gets bigger or
smaller. Something feels different but it cannot be called an "I".

2) When I don't pay attention to sensations, i.e., when I am not being mindful or deliberate,
there is something which feels qualitatively different. At this moment I am calling it an "I", but I do
not know what else to call it. Perhaps just greater attention to arising thoughts?

Looking for an I, almost seems like the refrigerator-light phenomenon in reverse. When I look for it, it is not there. And when I don't look for it, it is there! It is both funny and frustrating.

Is an "I" necessary for sensations, or any other phenomena, to occur?

I am not sure about this, but at the moment, it does *feel* like an "I" is not necessary for sensations.

Thanks,
Sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Loving that you are really in looking mode now....

When I pay attention to sensations deeply, I cannot find an I. There is no I that gets bigger or
smaller. Something feels different but it cannot be called an "I".

Well done this is really clear looking. Indeed there is no "I" when you pay attention to sensations. When awareness of sensations occurs the sensations may change, and feel different, but as you state whatever occurs cannot be called an "I".

You also go on to say;

at the moment, it does *feel* like an "I" is not necessary for sensations.

The word Bingo! comes to mind.

Mmm looking for the "I" is indeed a bit cat and mouse like. It just turns out that there isn't a mouse!

So what I would like you to do is continue to explore further in this vein:

Is there a seer necessary to notice objects?
Is a hearer required for sounds to be heard?
same with the other senses.
Is a thinker required for thoughts?

To cut through the notion of a perceived object, an act of perception, and a perceiver, you could take an object, place it on a table in front of you and look.

What do you find? Is there a self present, or is there just perception?

Enjoy!

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

So what I would like you to do is continue to explore further in this vein:

Is there a seer necessary to notice objects?
Is a hearer required for sounds to be heard?
same with the other senses.
Is a thinker required for thoughts?

I had an odd experience with this question. The honest answer to these questions currently is different from what I theoretically "know" to be the correct answer. The honest answer is as of now "Yes". That is, it seems to me that a seer is necessary to notice objects, a hearer for sounds and a thinker for thoughts. In particular, I am unable to see how the last (thinker/thoughts) would not be true. This is despite the directly contradictory experience that when I pay attention to sensations, there seems to be no need of a "sensor" there. Perhaps I need to look deeper?

To cut through the notion of a perceived object, an act of perception, and a perceiver, you could take an object, place it on a table in front of you and look.

What do you find? Is there a self present, or is there just perception?

When I pay attention, there does seem to be only perception -- no self. There also seems to be just a single fluid "experience" -- no distinct object, act of perception and perceiver. Differentiating between these seems to require extra assumptions that do not actually sit within the experience itself.

Thanks,
sadhaka

P.S : I might be traveling tomorrow and might not have internet connection, so my next reply might be a bit alte.

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Thank you for your reply. An interesting process isn't it? At the end you state;

When I pay attention, there does seem to be only perception -- no self. There also seems to be just a single fluid "experience" -- no distinct object, act of perception and perceiver. Differentiating between these seems to require extra assumptions that do not actually sit within the experience itself.

As you are beginning to see there is the reality of direct experience and then the interpretation, assumptions and beliefs supplied by thought.

Earlier you discuss what you "know" to be true but perhaps it is just a belief? and then you state;

This is despite the directly contradictory experience that when I pay attention to sensations, there seems to be no need of a "sensor" there. Perhaps I need to look deeper?

I agree. You are doing really well but there is a conflict now between what you are beginning to see for yourself and what we are all conventionally taught and believe.

We can both trust your own intuition so continue to look and re-experience the single fluid experience you described and also try with closed eyes to explore sound. Is a self required? Can you find it?

Also begin to look at what thought is doing. Notice it labeling and interpreting direct experience. Hear the sound and then what happens?

Carry on exploring!

I understand there may be a delay in replying - no problem.

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Hi Sadhaka,

Thank you for your reply. An interesting process isn't it?

Very much so! I am surprised at the results so far.

We can both trust your own intuition so continue to look and re-experience the single fluid experience you described and also try with closed eyes to explore sound. Is a self required? Can you find it?

Also begin to look at what thought is doing. Notice it labeling and interpreting direct experience. Hear the sound and then what happens?

Here was my raw experience in these exercises:

With hearing, I find it harder to experience the fluidity that I did with sight. As you pointed out, this also seems strongly correlated with how frequently thought labels and interprets the sound -- Here's a fan, an electric drill, a computer beeping etc. Once the labeling is lesser, there is more of a fluidity to the experience, but the labeling never stops.

For some reason, I find keeping the same exercise with sight rather than sound to be a bit easier. Closing the eyes has the side-effect of identifying closely with my face region -- this is where I experience the strongest sense of "self", especially when I am having strong emotions such as anger, etc.
====

Also, over the last couple of days, I am beginning to notice occasionally (for a few seconds) an easier, more fluid state of experience -- somewhat like what I experienced during the object exercise.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

over the last couple of days, I am beginning to notice occasionally (for a few seconds) an easier, more fluid state of experience -- somewhat like what I experienced during the object exercise

Fantastic!

I find keeping the same exercise with sight rather than sound to be a bit easier. Closing the eyes has the side-effect of identifying closely with my face region -- this is where I experience the strongest sense of "self", especially when I am having strong emotions such as anger, etc.

Ok, Great, so carry on with your looking and hearing exercises as they appear to be bearing fruit.

Now though you have stated that your strongest sense of self is closely associated with your face area.

Tell me about it please

Where and what exactly is this sense of yourself (associated with face)?

Is it really your body? Your face?

Do describe the you that they / it 'belongs' to.

Am interested to learn what you find!

Best wishes,

Michael

[MichaelD]

Hello Sadhaka,

This short message is to let you know I am travelling over the next couple of days and then from Friday should be able to continue with daily posts again. I also may suggest that we move to email for the duration (2wks) of holiday but I am not sure yet.

One point of clarification. With regard to the senses try and find where the sound ends and the listener begins. Find some Jasmine or Budlea and find where smell ends and the one smelling begins.

Hope your body explorations are going well.

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for letting me know. Have a safe and enjoyable trip! I will do the exercises deeply and write my collected results on Friday, rather than updating everyday. Do let me know if and when you wish to switch to email.

Warmly
sadhaka

[sadhaka]

Hello Michael,

I hope you had a nice trip.

I was about to write a comprehensive post but your final suggestion triggered something --

One point of clarification. With regard to the senses try and find where the sound ends and the listener begins. Find some Jasmine or Budlea and find where smell ends and the one smelling begins.

While doing this, "I" felt that there is only sound, no listener. Only the experience of listening.

Similarly, with smelling a jasmine, only the smell/smelling but no one who is experiencing the smell.

When I closed my eyes my sense of "self" really seemed to be the darkness I saw at the eyelids region. So, extending the same question, if I asked where this seeing ended and where the one seeing it began, again there seems to be no one doing the seeing.

In the same line, if I start exploring where the thought ends and where the thinker begins, either the thoughts subside considerably, or the answer, "there is no thinker" arises. However, a subtle presence of something observing or initiating all these happenings ("no listener", "no seer", "no thinker") seems to be around. Should I continue further observing along these lines? Especially when it comes to "where does thought end and the thinker begin"?

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Well done you are doing really well :)

While doing this, "I" felt that there is only sound, no listener. Only the experience of listening.

Similarly, with smelling a jasmine, only the smell/smelling but no one who is experiencing the smell.

Fantastic!! So is a seperate self required for perception to occur or does it just happen?

Will do a succession of short replies as struggling to fiddle around on phone!

Warmly

Michael

[MichaelD]

Part 2!

In the same line, if I start exploring where the thought ends and where the thinker begins, either the thoughts subside considerably, or the answer, "there is no thinker"

This is really excellent seeing. Yes, when we look we see that thoughts are just occurring, that they are not being done by a 'self'.

To explore thought further try the following:

Stopping a thought
Choosing the next thought (and the next)
Only thinking thought 'you' want to think e.g. only happy thoughts.

Will quit while ahead and post!

Michael