Yes.Using only the senses, no, I find no clear "I" anywhere.
It seems we use the term "I" sort of mindlessly, just based on assumptions.
When you say that the body is perceived as separate, what do you mean? Separated from what?There is a perception that this body is part of a separate organism, and this feeds into the concept of "I," as opposed to the rest of the world.
If the boundaries are there, you can describe them. Where are they? What are they made of?It seems so. "I" may be nebulous, but the body seems clearly defined.
Yes, you have to check if thoughts match what is here.OK, here's how it seems - I admit as much because I'm aware that what I take to be direct perception is what needs to be challenged here
Would it be more accurate to say that feet are in sight?I see my feet below
Do you believe there is an I inside the skin boundary? A little me inside the body envelope?the skin is the boundary that (seems to) define the edge of the body. Beneath that is the carpet, which seems to be clearly distinct and separate from my feet
Yes, I understand what you are saying.I will investigate. I'm not saying (at least intentionally) that there is an I inside the body, only that the body seems clearly delineated from everything else.
Exactly! Consider this: there isn't an I inside the body. This is possible to realize both intellectually and experientially. How about outside the body? Can you find such a thing? If you use your senses and can't perceive a real self both outside the body and inside the body, what does this mean? Can a self be real?But I now realize, based on your last response, that "I" would somehow have to be contained by or limited by the body for even that limited distinction to matter. But that's not the case. There's nothing to be found in the body that could be called "I."
Yes! That's it.In other words, what I think you're communicating is, even if what we call the body has an apparent boundary, that does not inherently tell us anything more about the "I." Is that a fair paraphrasing?
That's a good theory. It seems logic, yes. Anyway, can you see how you are jumping into an interpretation of what you may be? Does what you are need to know what it is to be? Is what you are looking for answers? Or is the thinking that goes on and on trying to make sense of what is already the case?Let me express what I see differently: Whenever I look, this body is always present, so it seems that whatever I might be, this body seems to be a part of it.
OK, this is tough. Clearly, whatever I am does not need to know what it is in order to be; but the illusion of a self is still 'operative' here. At least I think it has not been dispelled. Some sort of direct knowing that the self is an illusion is the goal of this inquiry (although who or what, if anything, does the knowing, is not clear).That's a good theory. It seems logic, yes. Anyway, can you see how you are jumping into an interpretation of what you may be? Does what you are need to know what it is to be? Is what you are looking for answers? Or is the thinking that goes on and on trying to make sense of what is already the case?
I will work on this. My immediate response is, I don't know!Tell me something, what is looking for a self, what is doing this inquiry?
Is it the body?
The thoughts?
The sensations?
The emotions?
None of these?
If you look for the I that wants to know what it is and what it isn't, what do you find? What is behind this need to know the truth?
I hope you aren't getting discouraged! This can be frustrating among other things. Feeling challenged is a sign you are stepping outside your comfort zone. It's a good sign! I hope you aren't seeing this talk as a intellectual discussion. From reading your answers I get the idea that you would easily "win" if we go that way. I'm just trying to challenge your way of thinking a little, so that your reliance in the accuracy of the thinking content diminishes enough that you look to what I'm pointing to instead of thinking about the answers.Very challenging questions.....
Do you expect the illusion of a self to puff... disappear? If the conditions are in place (and they have been for all this years - the illusion is an habit!), the illusion is present. Just like a rainbow or a mirage. We aren't trying to end this illusion, only to notice that it is an illusion.OK, this is tough. Clearly, whatever I am does not need to know what it is in order to be; but the illusion of a self is still 'operative' here. At least I think it has not been dispelled.
It's not a knowing, it's a seeing. First the seeing then the knowing.Some sort of direct knowing that the self is an illusion is the goal of this inquiry (although who or what, if anything, does the knowing, is not clear).
Wonderful!I will work on this. My immediate response is, I don't know!
The body - clearly no. Except maybe the brain?Tell me something, what is looking for a self, what is doing this inquiry?
Is it the body?
The thoughts?
The sensations?
The emotions?
None of these?
If you look for the I that wants to know what it is and what it isn't, what do you find? What is behind this need to know the truth?
That's good.Definitely not discouraged - motivated, actually. The moments of confusion are clearly a very good thing.
Hmm... yes, we are dealing with something non-conceptual.You point out something very crucial - the 'intellectuality' definitely gets in the way sometimes. It sometimes feels like the conceptual questions need conceptual answers "in order to be able to see directly," and sometimes it even feels like I can't even begin to try to look directly because of nagging conceptual questions. That's frustrating as hell, because I know we're dealing something non-conceptual.
So, what do you think the I illusion is? And how do you think it is possible to see past it?that the illusion of I is the source of suffering and, that through inquiry it is possible to see past that illusion
I'll do my best here.So, what do you think the I illusion is? And how do you think it is possible to see past it?
Yes, most people identify with being what you mentioned above.What is the I illusion? I think a number of things go into it. The illusion of being the thinker of thoughts. The illusion of being some sort of distinct 'subject' of consciousness - that which is aware of the world of objects.
How would you know you have seen past the illusion of being the thinker of thoughts?How is it possible to see past it? I don't know yet.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 40 guests
