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

[sadhaka]

=====
Question 5

Do you see that the I is a thought based construct, an ongoing narrative starring you as the central character?

Is there any seperate I located outside thought?

=====================
Of all the things, this I see the clearest, and am most convinced of now. The “I” is a construct. It is no more factual than one of those optical illusions -- it just appears to be there but is not factual. Nothing seems to support its existence.

There seems to be no “I” outside of thought. You need to think it into separate existence.
=================

[sadhaka]

================
Question 6

Does thought have any inherent substance or is it empty?

============

This is a very deep question. I spent some time on this but need to spend more time on this. Currently, thought seems like a form of energy, having no separate substance in and of itself. I am not sure if it is empty.

Is your sense of I just a thought story?

This I can see partially. That is, I can see that the "I" itself is a story. I am not able to see that the "sense of I" is a story. By this, I mean that I can sense just "being". That does not seem to be a thought story to me.

[sadhaka]

Question 7

Who's body? Who or what owns a body?

Or could this be seen as "There is no self and no boundaries within perception"

Have a good look!!

Perhaps there is just perception?

On a deep look, there is nothing that owns the body. No more than anything owns the earth or the sky. The ownership of the body seems to be another convenient story, cooked up by thought.

P.S : Sorry about the multiple posts, but I thought it might be easier for you to guide along whichever lines you felt were most fruitful.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Wow! You've been on it. Great looking!

On a deep look, there is nothing that owns the body. No more than anything owns the earth or the sky. The ownership of the body seems to be another convenient story, cooked up by thought.

Difficult to get clearer than that, so I think we can leave the body unless any concerns come up later.

Do you see that the I is a thought based construct, an ongoing narrative starring you as the central character?

Is there any seperate I located outside thought?
=====================
Of all the things, this I see the clearest, and am most convinced of now. The “I” is a construct. It is no more factual than one of those optical illusions -- it just appears to be there but is not factual. Nothing seems to support its existence.

There seems to be no “I” outside of thought. You need to think it into separate existence.

You also state;

There is nothing other than experience occurring. Indeed, it seems to be impossible for anything other than experience to be occurring! This seems almost obvious, in hindsight.

This is also very clear. Well done :)

Do you see that the I is a thought based construct, an ongoing narrative starring you as the central character?

Is there any separate I located outside thought?
=====================
Of all the things, this I see the clearest, and am most convinced of now. The “I” is a construct. It is no more factual than one of those optical illusions -- it just appears to be there but is not factual. Nothing seems to support its existence.

There seems to be no “I” outside of thought. You need to think it into separate existence.

Wonderful!

You also say;

I cannot find where I begin or end. It seems to me that I am perception.

Excellent!

From the remainder of your post this just leaves a couple of points to clarify.

Firstly, in relation to the emptiness of thoughts I am really just trying to point at their lack of any real substance and help you clearly distinguish them from the rest of your sensual input. When we look at a tree we see it and perhaps hear a breeze rustle the leaves but then we have thoughts about the tree. Thoughts are not the tree. Usually they label, identify analyze and problem solve etc (all very useful) but they also continuously create the 'I' story. As you have seen now for yourself it simply lacks an inherent reality. Because a thought states something it doesn't mean it is true!

Secondly,

Is your sense of I just a thought story?
This I can see partially. That is, I can see that the "I" itself is a story. I am not able to see that the "sense of I" is a story. By this, I mean that I can sense just "being". That does not seem to be a thought story to me.

Good. This came up once before but you are clearer now. It looks as if you have seen that there is no separate self outside the thought constructed narrative but as you rightly describe there is a sense of being. We are not expecting that to disappear.

Lastly, when asked to point at the location of self you said it was everywhere or nowhere. Can you state clearly now which it is?

Warmly

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Firstly, in relation to the emptiness of thoughts I am really just trying to point at their lack of any real substance and help you clearly distinguish them from the rest of your sensual input. When we look at a tree we see it and perhaps hear a breeze rustle the leaves but then we have thoughts about the tree. Thoughts are not the tree. Usually they label, identify analyze and problem solve etc (all very useful) but they also continuously create the 'I' story. As you have seen now for yourself it simply lacks an inherent reality. Because a thought states something it doesn't mean it is true!

Thanks for expressing this so clearly! This struck me very deeply while reading it. What I understood was that we never really have access to the tree itself -- only to our unique experience of the tree and to our thoughts about it.

So, clearly, none of what we think about the tree need be true. Similarly, my thoughts about myself are just that -- thoughts -- without any necessity that they are true. The thoughts may even be internally consistent but they need not be ultimately true. They are simply, as you point, useful constructs but they are constructs nonetheless.

Lastly, when asked to point at the location of self you said it was everywhere or nowhere. Can you state clearly now which it is?

The best I can express my experience at this point is that the self seems to be wherever my attention is at the moment. In some sense, experience/perception itself seems to be the self.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Yes, as you rightly say we can never really know exactly what a tree is. A mystery!

Further you also state that thoughts are constructs and whilst they may be internally consistent they may not be true.
This is the nature of the 'I' story.

Good.

To sum up our conversation so far. In brief you have observed that the body does not belong to you. That a self is not necessary for perception and that there is not an owner of thoughts - they just occur. There is nevertheless a sense of being.

Great.

At this point it may be of value to re-read our conversation to date in order to help assimilate/consolidate your insights.

In your recent post you have said;

The best I can express my experience at this point is that the self seems to be wherever my attention is at the moment. In some sense, experience/perception itself seems to be the self.

Previously you observed that attention just seemed to be paid (I paraphrase) implying that it just occurred.

So two questions

1. Is there a self where attention is paid. Look at an object e.g your computer screen. Is there just a screen or is there a self there too?

2. Can experience/perception be the self? If you look at a tree is a tree the self?

Sorry couldn't resist a third!

3. Is a self required for perception to occur.

At this point it can also help to be in nature. Look at trees, birds, squirrels doing their stuff. Does a squirrel have a self?

Think your (non)self lucky - that was perilously close to "does a dog have Buddha nature!"

Enjoy!

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Previously you observed that attention just seemed to be paid (I paraphrase) implying that it just occurred.

That is true. For the most part, I notice that attention just seems to flit wherever it wishes. Occasionally, by force, one can bring to a certain topic.

1. Is there a self where attention is paid. Look at an object e.g your computer screen. Is there just a screen or is there a self there too?

When I pay attention to an object as you had suggested in an earlier exercise, there does not seem to be any clear demarcation between the object, me and the act of paying attention -- the object (like the screen) seems to be *me*. It is not a self like a separate perceiving entity, but it seems to be part of attention itself. I am not sure if I am expressing myself clearly.

2. Can experience/perception be the self? If you look at a tree is a tree the self?

The tree does not appear to be a separate, perceiving self. That said, the tree seems like part of perception/experience.

3. Is a self required for perception to occur.

No. I am convinced that a self is not required for perception to occur.

At this point it can also help to be in nature. Look at trees, birds, squirrels doing their stuff. Does a squirrel have a self?

I think squirrels are conscious. Beyond that, I am unable to say. My *perception* of the squirrel is, however, a whole lot more mysterious. It just seems to be a pattern that is doing what it is doing -- just like my thoughts -- running here and there.

Think your (non)self lucky - that was perilously close to "does a dog have Buddha nature!"

:-)

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

My *perception* of the squirrel is, however, a whole lot more mysterious. It just seems to be a pattern that is doing what it is doing -- just like my thoughts -- running here and there.

Yes I agree, but at a risk of becoming circular - thoughts may be running here and there but are they yours?

Is there ownership of thoughts or a 'thinker' of thoughts or are they, as you noticed previously, just occurring.

What I am currently not quite understanding is that you seem to have noticed that a self is not required for perception (of an object, sensation, thought or whatever aspect of experience) but now you are identifying the self with the object.

Perhaps if you have a good look at two aspects of experience; a tree, and a sensation e.g. pressure as you sit, or breathing.

Describe exactly how it is in relation to any 'self', or thoughts that relate to a self.

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Sorry about the delay in replying..It is hard for me to get access to a computer over the weekend and I just broke my phone as well.

Yes I agree, but at a risk of becoming circular - thoughts may be running here and there but are they yours?

Is there ownership of thoughts or a 'thinker' of thoughts or are they, as you noticed previously, just occurring.

I kind of see that the thoughts are not mine, but I still need to see this clearly. The thoughts do seem to run on their own, but to repeat an earlier conversation we had, there does seem to be some connection between a topic that I choose to think about and the thoughts that appear.

While writing this, however, another thought occurred (there it is again!) -- Even my seeming "decision" to think something seems to happen without my express will. Otherwise it would just be an infinite series of wills. So, it seems like even the will to think about something is also not mine? Even the "will" is just another thought which is occurring? Wow! I am not sure if this is true but it seems oddly freeing.

What I am currently not quite understanding is that you seem to have noticed that a self is not required for perception (of an object, sensation, thought or whatever aspect of experience) but now you are identifying the self with the object.

Perhaps if you have a good look at two aspects of experience; a tree, and a sensation e.g. pressure as you sit, or breathing.

Describe exactly how it is in relation to any 'self', or thoughts that relate to a self.

I see what you mean. I am unable to articulate this clearly. Let me take one more day, experience this clearly, and write about this tomorrow.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Sorry to hear about your phone and difficulties communicating at weekends.

Great post though!

I kind of see that the thoughts are not mine, but I still need to see this clearly.

That's great and I'm sure that you don't need me to tell you what to do! Keep noticing that they just arrive and go. See what they do - label, analyze, problem solve etc.

See also though how they contain the me, I, mine dialogues and overarching narrative.

See if you can catch thoughts claiming an action for a self after the action has happened. For example you may be sitting reading and then get up to make a drink. Half way to getting up a thought can be noticed, "I'll get a drink now".

The thoughts do seem to run on their own, but to repeat an earlier conversation we had, there does seem to be some connection between a topic that I choose to think about and the thoughts that appear.

That's right. If there is something that needs to be thought about, thought will continue around that subject (sustained thought enables analysis and problem solving). However if you look closely you will still notice that the thoughts will be just appearing. Some useful, some not so useful etc. Looking closely and see if you can notice that even in sustained or 'directed' thinking you still can't make a thought occur or stop one etc. You are noticing how things function much more clearly now, but even though subtle and/or complex, they still don't need a self to make them happen.

As an exercise take something complex, like which replacement phone to buy, and just watch what the thoughts do. There may be all sorts of 'to and fro' to use your expression but eventually there will be an outcome. It just won't have required a 'self'. A bit like when you watched the squirrels. It's easier to see with fish and animals etc because the patterns they are running are simpler than ours.

Even my seeming "decision" to think something seems to happen without my express will. Otherwise it would just be an infinite series of wills. So, it seems like even the will to think about something is also not mine? Even the "will" is just another thought which is occurring? Wow! I am not sure if this is true but it seems oddly freeing.

Well done you!! Yes it IS freeing because what you are experiencing and describing there is bang on the money Insight. Insight = Freedom.

See if 'choice' and 'intention' are the same as will.

You are a star. Really focus now because you are getting glimpses of how things really are.

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the encouragement. My posting on the next 2-3 days might be sporadic due to the missing phone. I do not think I will miss more than 24 hours though.

See also though how they contain the me, I, mine dialogues and overarching narrative.

This is very true. Every single of these -- "I", "mine' and the narrative seem to be generated by thought in the moment.

See if you can catch thoughts claiming an action for a self after the action has happened. For example you may be sitting reading and then get up to make a drink. Half way to getting up a thought can be noticed, "I'll get a drink now".

Thanks for writing this so clearly! This perfectly describes what I have been able to notice over the last couple of days. The action, and even the thought "this was my decision" happens after the action has set in.

Looking closely and see if you can notice that even in sustained or 'directed' thinking you still can't make a thought occur or stop one etc. You are noticing how things function much more clearly now, but even though subtle and/or complex, they still don't need a self to make them happen.

As an exercise take something complex, like which replacement phone to buy, and just watch what the thoughts do. There may be all sorts of 'to and fro' to use your expression but eventually there will be an outcome. It just won't have required a 'self'. A bit like when you watched the squirrels. It's easier to see with fish and animals etc because the patterns they are running are simpler than ours.

Thanks once again for the clear description. I am able to see this more and more clearly now. What appears to be an independent decision just seems to be (a somewhat arbitrarily defined) beginning of another series of thoughts. There does not seem to be any clear independent self involved in making a decision!

Well done you!! Yes it IS freeing because what you are experiencing and describing there is bang on the money Insight. Insight = Freedom.

I am able to see this better now. It has been very revealing!

See if 'choice' and 'intention' are the same as will.

Wow! This is a very profound question. I had never thought along these lines before. I had assumed till now that all these were equivalent. However, I am able to see that there seem to be subtle and important differences between all three. In particular, "will" would require a self but it seems like choice and intention need not.

What I am able to see as of now -- Choice just seems to happen automatically when one vacillates for a while, and settles down on one option -- sort of how mud in water settles down if it is left alone. Intention seems to be just an overarching direction for making choices and does not seem to require a self as well. "Will" seems to require a self (which I cannot locate as of now). So, there is no free will since there is no self to will at all?

You are a star. Really focus now because you are getting glimpses of how things really are.

Thanks once again for the encouragement and clear guidance. I will increase my focus. As I said earlier, it might happen that my posting on the next 2-3 days might be sporadic due to the missing phone. I do not think I will miss more than 24 hours though.

Thanks,

sadhaka

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Another great post!

Every single one of these -- "I", "mine' and the narrative seem to be generated by thought in the moment.

Exactly. And they refer to a self, but where is it?

I have been able to notice over the last couple of days. The action, and even the thought "this was my decision" happens after the action has set in.

Exactly!

Although it is a strange thing to say it everything is just happening. All your life you have felt like you were organising and directing things but it is not true.

Is there a General Manager!? Was there ever one?

What appears to be an independent decision just seems to be (a somewhat arbitrarily defined) beginning of another series of thoughts. There does not seem to be any clear independent self involved in making a decision!

Boom!

Choice just seems to happen automatically when one vacillates for a while, and settles down on one option -- sort of how mud in water settles down if it is left alone. Intention seems to be just an overarching direction for making choices and does not seem to require a self as well.

Boomting!

Just keep doing what you are doing because it's working.

At this rate your next post will probably be a draft for a book on no-self!

You could put yourself in Just Sitting/Zazen and note what is there: physical sensations, taste, smells, sound and colour with thoughts labeling and chuntering on and just ask; Is there a self, is there an 'I' here, and see what answer arises.

I am also interested to know how you feel. Do you feel any different? Has your feeling of lightness continued?

Warmly,

Michael

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

Sorry. Had no access whatsoever yesterday. I just bought a new instrument and will be able to write every day now. I was just able to see the questions and exercises you suggested. I will do them and get back starting today. In the meantime, I *am * feeling lighter. Also, not to jinx it, but I am feeling close to *something* and am particularly eager to continue regularly from now on.

Thanks,
sadhaka

[sadhaka]

Hi Michael,

I am back to regular posting now, I hope for good!

Every single one of these -- "I", "mine' and the narrative seem to be generated by thought in the moment.

Exactly. And they refer to a self, but where is it?

I am now convinced that there is no such thing as a self anywhere. It all seems to be a grand illusion. However, there still seems to be something that is missing and I am not sure what.

You could put yourself in Just Sitting/Zazen and note what is there: physical sensations, taste, smells, sound and colour with thoughts labeling and chuntering on and just ask; Is there a self, is there an 'I' here, and see what answer arises.

I tried this a few times (and also nodded off in the middle :-) ), but there really seems to be nothing other than thoughts and sensations mixing together to cause an illusion of a "me".

I am also interested to know how you feel. Do you feel any different? Has your feeling of lightness continued?

I feel lighter when I notice that what seems to be going on is simply a concocted story of me. This also occurs when I get too involved in an angry burst or some other emotional burst and suddenly realize that there is no me to which all this is happening -- there is a sudden lightness at that point. The rest of the day I still feel the same as before.

Thanks,
sadhaka.

[MichaelD]

Hi Sadhaka,

Thank you.

I am now convinced that there is no such thing as a self anywhere. It all seems to be a grand illusion. However, there still seems to be something that is missing and I am not sure what.

Glad that you see there is not a separate self :)

What do you feel might be missing?

I feel lighter when I notice that what seems to be going on is simply a concocted story of me. This also occurs when I get too involved in an angry burst or some other emotional burst and suddenly realize that there is no me to which all this is happening -- there is a sudden lightness at that point. The rest of the day I still feel the same as before.

Yes. It is like that. You still may get caught up in a story which then causes a reaction occurs, but once noticed it quickly drops. There is nothing at the centre or hub that it can stick to.

As you are doing please continue to keep looking. Watch the 'I' stories. Closely notice choices, intentions, and decision making.

Was there ever a General Manager of 'your' particular part of the universe?

Warm regards,

Kevin