Path or No Path

[Canfora]

Ok, thank you.
And what would you do to show that the non existence of a separate self is a fact?
What would you point to?
What can be seen here now that shows there is no real self?

[pwsamadhi]

And what would you do to show that the non existence of a separate self is a fact?

I would walk them through the process of searching for a self and asking if it can be found outside of thought.

What would you point to?

To observe their thoughts. And to see a thought for what it is, another sensory experience. I would point out existence, because nothing can be separate apart from existence.

What can be seen here now that shows there is no real self?

That reality here now is just a collection of sensory experiences. There's nothing personal about it.

[Canfora]

Nice!

Did anything change since you started this exploration? How is you daily life going on?

How does it feel to see the illusion?

Is seeking still going strong? Do you still feel a strong need to find the right answers to life conundrums?

[pwsamadhi]

Did anything change since you started this exploration? How is you daily life going on?

Not drastically since my understanding was fairly close. It was helpful to see through certain layers of concepts I was still holding onto, that was pointed out as merely being conceptual. The first guide (Robyn) was able to help me see clearly thought as thought sensation. To recognize emotion too. Prior to that, there were several times I was still trapped in the content of thoughts.

Daily life is still just daily life. It's good and will continue as-is.

How does it feel to see the illusion?

Not all that different, aside from seeing things more objectively now than subjectively. There's definitely a sense of ease, since there's less inclination to be wrapped up in thought or story content. Also do feel a little wiser as this understanding can be used as a different perspective in navigating life.

Is seeking still going strong? Do you still feel a strong need to find the right answers to life conundrums?

Yes, I still will continue my other practices (mindfulness & vipassana). Although there's the understanding of no-self now, there's still a strong need to pursue my practice. Since it has been beneficial studying the inner workings of the mind/body phenomenon. One can never stop learning from it and it's fascinating. Aside from no-self (anatta), I'll continue to fine tune and train the mind to pick up on the other insights. That is impermanence (anicca), the temporal nature of reality, and dissatisfaction (dukkha). Some of these are beginning to bear fruit, so I do not want to stop.

Not necessarily looking to find the "right" answers, but still look to penetrate reality more deeply to gain the same understandings and experiences my teachers have expressed, that one will ultimately see continued practice. I see it as sharpening the mind (tool) use to understand and pick apart reality.

[pwsamadhi]

Came across this reading an interview on pdf today...

Culadasa: Now the thing about ‘no separate self’ … it’s really that the self manifests in us in two different ways, one is conceptual - I call it the ‘ego self,’ it is the idea of who we are. If I ask you to describe who you are or write it down, if I ask you to spend the next week … every day sit down for half an hour and write down a description, what you would get is a conceptual description of who you are – what you like, what you don’t like, your personality characteristics, bla, bla, bla. And that’s a good description of who you are, that’s the ego self.

Rick: Yeah, it’s who my relative self is.

Culadasa: Right. That’s what goes away with first path, with stream entry. What remains is the inherent sense, this feeling, a feeling that I’m a separate self even though I know I’m not. From stream entry on I’ll know I’m not a separate self, I’ve seen through that but I still feel like it. What goes away with the arhat is the feeling, the inherent sense of being separate, that’s completely dissolved.

Author of The Mind Illuminated. I practice under one of Culadasa's previous students.

[Canfora]

I wonder if the goals you describe are feeding your self identification.
Would you say behind them is a separate entity?
What needs to progress? What needs to improve? What learns?
Are you a student? Are you a Buddhist? What are you?

[pwsamadhi]

I wonder if the goals you describe are feeding your self identification.

I'm familiar with the teaching that the practice or attainments, if goal driven becomes another form of identification or something to grasp/cling to that's not here now. E.g. spiritual seeker, seeker, spiritual ego, stream enterer, guru, etc. However I don't practice in that manner. I primarily practice to train my mental faculties (like any other art form, say Martial Arts). With repetition, you just get better at it and more skilled than the average person. Mindfulness and concentration is a skill that helps in all facets of life, to develop an increase in the mind's capacity for both peripheral awareness and sustained attention.

Would you say behind them is a separate entity?

No, there's no doer. There's no self or actual "I" that's struggling to do something to attain something. There's just continual practice and how it molds and shapes "me" and what it may or may not potentially lead to. I see the practice not as a means to an end, but is complete unto itself. Life is expressing itself through me as practice.

What needs to progress? What needs to improve? What learns?

What is that which is looking out through the eyes? ;)

Are you a student?

No I don't consider my self a student nor do I identify as one. But in relation to a teacher teaching me something, that implies I'm a student in the world of concepts and relativity.

Are you a Buddhist?

No, I actually don't identify with any religion or creed. But if you as me about my gender and ethnicity, I'll still say I'm male and Chinese. Although I know that those too, are only concepts that describe this personal "me", this body.

What are you?

We are what we seek. ;)

[Canfora]

Thank you for your answers. You are as slippery as a eel! It is very obvious that you are clever, intelligent and well educated but the feeling I have is that you are just writing what you think are the right answers without having a experiential background of what you're talking about. I may be wrong of course but I don't find any evidences in your answers that you are experiencing what you talk about.

Although I know that those too, are only concepts that describe this personal "me", this body.

What do you think this personal me is? Don't tell me what you think. Describe what exists in your actual experience that you think is a personal me.

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

You are as slippery as a eel!

LOL

It is very obvious that you are clever, intelligent and well educated but the feeling I have is that you are just writing what you think are the right answers without having a experiential background of what you're talking about. I may be wrong of course but I don't find any evidences in your answers that you are experiencing what you talk about.

Thanks for the compliment, but it could be. To be honest I don't know, which is what got me to LU to begin with, so I prefer to keep an open mind. I'm pretty fuzzy about whether I understand it intellectually or have I really come to a legitimate no-self understanding/experience. Not sure where one begins to draw the line.

Hence, one of my earlier posts regarding if a transcendental experience is necessary. Also why I posted that short snippet from Culadasa on stream entry (first path) vs (fourth path). I feel that there are many non-dualist out there who are first path, where the feeling of "I" is still there, even though there's the understanding that there's no-self. The fourth path, the self is truly eliminated (final enlightenment, moksha, nibbana, liberation, lasting ego death, etc). States supposedly free from desire/aversion.

I definitely don't experience the oneness that sages speak of, where one intuitively and experientially knows all things are themselves (as in The Self, Godhead, True Self, Buddha Nature, Christ Consciousness, Krishna Consciousness). I imagine it sometimes, but I know it's not authentic.

It's a funny thing though, the very nature of questioning my own understanding, creates a bit of a paradox. The thought content itself implies I don't know, but yet I also understand this too is just a thought. So if the question is not asked, then what's left?

What do you think this personal me is? Don't tell me what you think. Describe what exists in your actual experience that you think is a personal me.

I've come to know this personal me as both the inner voice or dialogue as thought as well as the emotions that arise. In general, there's a natural tendency to identify with "I". And a stronger inclination to take "I" for real in the moment of an intense experience, say if thrown in front of a large crowd to say a speech. Things begin to feel real personal very quick and the separate individual becomes more pronounced because there's an increased sense of self consciousness, the spot lights on "you".

It's very sticky, but takes bare attention and clear comprehension to see through, which is challenging to do on the spot in tough situations. Without investigating or looking careful, it can easily be mistaken for "I", "me", or "my". But as the situation deescalates, the understanding is there again and the emotions, stories, and experience can just be observed objectively.

Outside of intense experiences, I often catch these subjective pronouns when they arise and quickly check them with self-enquiry (e.g. Who is this "I" or "me" that's experiencing so and so or making these stories). As for emotions, I often catch these too and look at them arise and pass, realizing they are impersonal. Rather, they arise based on current conditions coupled with past conditioning. So emotions pass through fairly quickly.

[Canfora]

Hello! One of the things I enjoy in our talk is the way you handle with the things I say to you. You seem to be very open to being questioned and fortunately you seem not to take things too personally. I'm aware that the post below is a little blunt but it's what I think, based in the experience I have guiding. I hope you don't mind.

To be honest I don't know, which is what got me to LU to begin with, so I prefer to keep an open mind.

I wonder what your idea of "an open mind" is. I don't think you have an open mind. On the contrary. What I see from this perspective is that you cling to all your knowledge, like if your life depends on it.

Hence, one of my earlier posts regarding if a transcendental experience is necessary. Also why I posted that short snippet from Culadasa on stream entry (first path) vs (fourth path). I feel that there are many non-dualist out there who are first path, where the feeling of "I" is still there, even though there's the understanding that there's no-self. The fourth path, the self is truly eliminated (final enlightenment, moksha, nibbana, liberation, lasting ego death, etc). States supposedly free from desire/aversion.

See? Closed minded. Clinging to second hand knowledge.

I definitely don't experience the oneness that sages speak of, where one intuitively and experientially knows all things are themselves (as in The Self, Godhead, True Self, Buddha Nature, Christ Consciousness, Krishna Consciousness). I imagine it sometimes, but I know it's not authentic.

It's very unlikely that your experience will meet your expectations. You focus mainly on ideas. Experience is what is happening regardless of your ideas.

It's a funny thing though, the very nature of questioning my own understanding, creates a bit of a paradox. The thought content itself implies I don't know, but yet I also understand this too is just a thought. So if the question is not asked, then what's left?

So no thinking, no questioning, nothing left? Are you aware that there are breaks happening between your last thought and the next thought? And that when that break happens, life goes on?

I've come to know this personal me as both the inner voice or dialogue as thought as well as the emotions that arise. In general, there's a natural tendency to identify with "I". And a stronger inclination to take "I" for real in the moment of an intense experience, say if thrown in front of a large crowd to say a speech. Things begin to feel real personal very quick and the separate individual becomes more pronounced because there's an increased sense of self consciousness, the spot lights on "you".

It's very sticky, but takes bare attention and clear comprehension to see through, which is challenging to do on the spot in tough situations. Without investigating or looking careful, it can easily be mistaken for "I", "me", or "my". But as the situation deescalates, the understanding is there again and the emotions, stories, and experience can just be observed objectively.

Outside of intense experiences, I often catch these subjective pronouns when they arise and quickly check them with self-enquiry (e.g. Who is this "I" or "me" that's experiencing so and so or making these stories). As for emotions, I often catch these too and look at them arise and pass, realizing they are impersonal. Rather, they arise based on current conditions coupled with past conditioning. So emotions pass through fairly quickly.

I've asked for a description. You wrote a story. Why do I say it's a story? You have talked about the past. You didn't focused in your current present experience. You didn't look.

You know how to describe stuff, yes? Pick an object and describe it. Don't think about the object. Grab it, look at it and describe it.

Don't tell me the name of the object, just give me a simple description about its color, size, shape, etc.

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

You seem to be very open to being questioned and fortunately you seem not to take things too personally. I'm aware that the post below is a little blunt but it's what I think, based in the experience I have guiding. I hope you don't mind.

I don't mind, blunt works for me because I'm pretty blunt and direct myself. It takes an ego and pride to take offense. Since there is no-self, then there's nobody to offended, only exchange of information and a play of words.

What I see from this perspective is that you cling to all your knowledge, like if your life depends on it.

It is possible, the waters are muddy for me where there is true wisdom vs regurgitated learned information. It's a mixture of what's spontaneously arising and also based on things recalled.

See? Closed minded. Clinging to second hand knowledge.

Agreed, this is all learned knowledge from Buddhist teachers, principals, and philosophy. It is in itself, a framework of concepts used to attempt to define the absolute in a relative world.

It's very unlikely that your experience will meet your expectations. You focus mainly on ideas. Experience is what is happening regardless of your ideas.

Yes, I'm starting to come to that conclusion. You want me to perceive in the world of direct experience. What is seen, heard, and felt. Colors, sound, and tactile sensations.

So no thinking, no questioning, nothing left? Are you aware that there are breaks happening between your last thought and the next thought? And that when that break happens, life goes on?

Haha, yes very very well aware. I go through extended periods without thought, sometimes 15, 20, 30 minutes of pure silence, just being. Life goes on even during that break.

I think you misinterpreted what I was alluding to. "So if the question is not asked, then what's left?" What's left is here now, what is seen, heard, and felt. It's also the space where thoughts arise and subside.

I've asked for a description. You wrote a story. Why do I say it's a story? You have talked about the past. You didn't focused in your current present experience. You didn't look.

I'm confused. Let's be clear about what you were asking, I would've answered accordingly.

You asked me what I think the personal me is. Which I replied, "as both the inner voice or dialogue as thought as well as the emotions that arise." So I went into detail about it.

Now had you asked me about no-self, I'd tell you about current and present experience. Which would be that there is this animated body made of flesh typing away at a keyboard looking at some digital screen. And all the experiences that come along with that event.

You know how to describe stuff, yes? Pick an object and describe it. Don't think about the object. Grab it, look at it and describe it. Don't tell me the name of the object, just give me a simple description about its color, size, shape, etc.

I already know what you're getting at here without doing the exercise. There's conceptual knowledge and then there's absolute knowledge of direct sensory experience. Conceptual knowledge, like "I", "Equator", or "Screwdriver" are ideas. But outside of the idea, absolute knowledge is the direct experience of the object. For example, with "screwdriver", it would be black, solid, long, etc. Although these descriptions, are concepts too, but I think we both get the point.

And with this analogy, is why the "I", is just an idea or concept based on how we define it. Conventionally, "I" points to this body, these thoughts, these emotions. But that's based on how it is traditionally defined. What's to say this "I" does not encompass all of reality and what is directly experienced. Then where would be it's boundaries. In that sense, then there is no self that is separate, for all is "I" and all is one.

[Canfora]

I'm confused. Let's be clear about what you were asking, I would've answered accordingly.

You asked me what I think the personal me is. Which I replied, "as both the inner voice or dialogue as thought as well as the emotions that arise." So I went into detail about it.

Your details were all about what you think. In thoughts there is a self -- language implies the existence of a subject. The idea is to check if the thoughts, if language, matches what can be found. If a subject is more than a concept.

Now had you asked me about no-self, I'd tell you about current and present experience. Which would be that there is this animated body made of flesh typing away at a keyboard looking at some digital screen. And all the experiences that come along with that event.

Are you saying that if I change my questions you will change your answers? That tells a lot about your approach.
Imagine that you're drinking a coffee.
Let's say I ask you if your coffee is hot.
Let's say I ask you if your coffee is cold.
Let's say I tell you I hate coffee or that I like coffee.
Does my questions and opinions change the coffee?
It may change the content of your thoughts about the coffee. It may change your perception of the coffee. But does it change the coffee?

How will you know which answer can be trusted? Aren't all answers conceptual, regardless of their content?
You can think there is no self.
You can think there is a conventional self.
You can think a self is real.
You can think whatever pops up as a thought.
A thought may seem to give credibility to another thought. Until it's proved wrong.
How will you know the truth?

And with this analogy, is why the "I", is just an idea or concept based on how we define it. Conventionally, "I" points to this body, these thoughts, these emotions. But that's based on how it is traditionally defined. What's to say this "I" does not encompass all of reality and what is directly experienced. Then where would be it's boundaries. In that sense, then there is no self that is separate, for all is "I" and all is one.

It seems you are trying to convince yourself that a self is illusory using logic.
Conventionally we can say China or Portugal are real. Does that mean they are?
Conventionally we can say a self is real. Does that mean it is?
How do you know if something is real or not?

And yes, real is also a convention. But I'm sure you don't believe in Santa Claus, even if conventional Santa seems to exist at Christmas time. And you don't need to think about Santa over and over again wondering about its existence or nonexistence. You know the answer already. You know with 100% certainty that Santa Claus isn't real. Why? What is it that lets you know that conventional Santa doesn't exist?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Your details were all about what you think. In thoughts there is a self -- language implies the existence of a subject. The idea is to check if the thoughts, if language, matches what can be found. If a subject is more than a concept.

What do you think this personal me is? Don't tell me what you think. Describe what exists in your actual experience that you think is a personal me.

I don't quite follow. Not sure if there's some miscommunication or misinterpretation going on. But that's what I said. You asked me to describe "a personal me" and I replied with it being experienced as thought and emotion arising. I mentioned emotion too, it wasn't just what I thought.

Are you saying that if I change my questions you will change your answers? That tells a lot about your approach.
Imagine that you're drinking a coffee.
Let's say I ask you if your coffee is hot.
Let's say I ask you if your coffee is cold.
Let's say I tell you I hate coffee or that I like coffee.
Does my questions and opinions change the coffee?
It may change the content of your thoughts about the coffee. It may change your perception of the coffee. But does it change the coffee?

I don't think this has anything to do with approach. Every question warrants its own answer. You asked about a "a personal me", not "direct experience". Because there is no personal me in direct experience. A "personal me" cannot be seen, heard, or felt.

It doesn't change the coffee, but every question you ask gives rise to a different answer. If you ask if it's hot, I'll say "Yes". If you ask if it's cold, I'l say "No". Because hot and cold is not the same. Likewise "personal me" and "direct experience" is not the same. So I said let's be clear about what you're asking about.

How will you know which answer can be trusted? Aren't all answers conceptual, regardless of their content?
You can think there is no self.
You can think there is a conventional self.
You can think a self is real.
You can think whatever pops up as a thought.
A thought may seem to give credibility to another thought. Until it's proved wrong.
How will you know the truth?

I see what you mean, but I can ask you the very same thing. How do you know, and how would you be able to communicate what is true? We can't. The absolute cannot be communicated without concepts. Even our dialogues are filled with conventional references, "you", "I", "me" yet we are saying there is no separate self. Truth is lost in language. But in silence, is where truth can be found.

It seems you are trying to convince yourself that a self is illusory using logic.
Conventionally we can say China or Portugal are real. Does that mean they are?
Conventionally we can say a self is real. Does that mean it is?
How do you know if something is real or not?

We're saying the same thing here. Both of us are saying what is conventional is not necessarily true.

And yes, real is also a convention. But I'm sure you don't believe in Santa Claus, even if conventional Santa seems to exist at Christmas time. And you don't need to think about Santa over and over again wondering about its existence or nonexistence. You know the answer already. You know with 100% certainty that Santa Claus isn't real. Why? What is it that lets you know that conventional Santa doesn't exist?

Ooh.... this one can get tricky. That's a good question. I actually don't know why or what is it that lets me know Santa Claus doesn't exist. I never investigated. It may have been based on common understanding that older kids come to know growing up. Although common understanding is not basis for fact (e.g. the world was once thought to be flat). But thinking about it now, at least in our realm, I'd say lack of evidence and just physics, which prevents things like a flying sleigh, fat man fitting through the chimney, endless toys in a red bag, or bio-mechanics of a glowing red nosed reindeer that flies. Although, the Santa Claus at the shopping mall exists, but the magical one doesn't :).

Just a side note, lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist.

[Canfora]

I don't quite follow. Not sure if there's some miscommunication or misinterpretation going on. But that's what I said. You asked me to describe "a personal me" and I replied with it being experienced as thought and emotion arising. I mentioned emotion too, it wasn't just what I thought.

I'll try to explain other way what I mean. I've asked you to describe something - the personal self you have talked about. It seems to me you have described noticing thought + emotion. Not a personal self. Am I wrong? Do you believe that when you notice thoughts and emotions you spotted a real self? Are you saying the thoughts and the emotions you've noticed are a real person - a real separate self?

That would be like saying that if you think about a pink elephant and feel emotions that seem to prove there is a pink elephant next to you, you've found a real pink elephant.

I don't think this has anything to do with approach. Every question warrants its own answer. You asked about a "a personal me", not "direct experience". Because there is no personal me in direct experience. A "personal me" cannot be seen, heard, or felt.

Hmm... it seems we are dancing around semantics. To me personal me, me, no self, self, person, I, separate self, etc etc -- all point to the same, what you thing *you* are.

• NOUN
  the I
  Philosophy (in metaphysics) the subject or object of self-consciousness

It doesn't change the coffee, but every question you ask gives rise to a different answer. If you ask if it's hot, I'll say "Yes". If you ask if it's cold, I'l say "No". Because hot and cold is not the same. Likewise "personal me" and "direct experience" is not the same. So I said let's be clear about what you're asking about.

Maybe you can tell me what you think we are doing here? This is a forum where the goal is to help you see through the illusion of a separate self. Is this what you are looking for? You seem more eager to be right than to question what you believe.

If you mention a personal self or any such thing I'll question the existence of such a thing. That's what a guide does. I expect you to look and give me an honest answer based in what is noticed, seen, perceived (*do you see a personal self?* implies a yes or no answer. I'm asking if you see something. I'm sure you know if you see it or not). I'm asking what you see right now, not what your thinking is. There is a difference. What is going on right now has the plus of being what is going on right now. All the rest isn't going on, so it doesn't prove anything and it can't be seen.

What you've seem to be doing is thinking about the question because you are sure you know the answers already. That's why you are questioning my questions.

Just a side note, lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist.

We can't prove something doesn't exist. How can we prove that Santa isn't real? But the impossibility to prove a negative doesn't mean absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It doesn't make Santa real.

If someone were to assert that there is an elephant in the room, then the failure to observe an elephant there, would be a good reason to think that there is no elephant there. :)

When you realize Santa isn't real, why would you start thinking it may be real after all? You know it isn't. That's all. You're questioning what is being pointed because you don't know. And you can't know if you don't look and see for yourself. Do you see a you?

[pwsamadhi]

I'll try to explain other way what I mean. I've asked you to describe something - the personal self you have talked about. It seems to me you have described noticing thought + emotion. Not a personal self. Am I wrong? Do you believe that when you notice thoughts and emotions you spotted a real self? Are you saying the thoughts and the emotions you've noticed are a real person - a real separate self?

Okay, you definitely misinterpreted what I was implying. Just because I said the personal self is experienced as a thought or emotion, never did I say it was real. All I was describing was how it's experienced. I'm totally on board with you that it's conceptual. Not sure where you got the notion I took it for real. I was explaining to you how it's not real.

So there was definitely some misunderstanding that set the whole discussion down this path.

Hmm... it seems we are dancing around semantics. To me personal me, me, no self, self, person, I, separate self, etc etc -- all point to the same, what you thing *you* are.

I'm also in agreement here.

Maybe you can tell me what you think we are doing here? This is a forum where the goal is to help you see through the illusion of a separate self. Is this what you are looking for? You seem more eager to be right than to question what you believe.

To see that there's no personal separate self. Which I see now. And now that having had two guides, I get what LU is driving at.

We can't prove something doesn't exist. How can we prove that Santa isn't real? But the impossibility to prove a negative doesn't mean absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It doesn't make Santa real.

If someone were to assert that there is an elephant in the room, then the failure to observe an elephant there, would be a good reason to think that there is no elephant there. :)

When you realize Santa isn't real, why would you start thinking it may be real after all? You know it isn't. That's all. You're questioning what is being pointed because you don't know. And you can't know if you don't look and see for yourself. Do you see a you?

Yup, I'm on board with what's been said. No, just the phantom, conceptual thought or emotion that is mistaken as real. Outside of that, there's no separate self.