Hi Jon,
Sorry for the delay in getting back, difficult to get time on the PC over the last couple of days.
Perhaps it's not so much that someone 'spots' the 'self' that is 'identified with'? (At least, this way of putting it still suggest a someone.)
Yes, action presupposes a self that is doing the action. In fact the act of looking to see if there is a separate self has the implicit assumption that there is a looker. Slightly shifted the question to, "who is the one who might see the one who is looking for the self"; "who is the one asking the question of there is a one", or other variations of that. There is certainly an argument for, stop looking; of course this makes the perfect paradox.
The separate self does not exist and yet here is something that doesn't exist looking for something that doesn't exist - itself (which doesn't exist). It goes round and round. Every time there is looking to see if there is a separate self, low and behold there is non to be found, yet the 'sense' of a separate self, the implicit assumption is quite pervasive - which in turn leads to a notion to look. ...who is the looker, how can the looker and the looking be the same? (I know these questions are for me).
Yes. But is it a trick? Tricks are part of the reasoning modus whereby it is imagined...
"Reasoning modus", you mentioned before a quote from Alan Watts, "lose you mind to come to you senses". There is a noticing of the difference in the inquiry experience when shift from inquiry with focused attention, versus periphery awareness. Periphery awareness has less intrusive "reasoning modus" (albeit focused attention can maintain focus on the question).
As mentioned before the 'sense' of self has become stronger and more privileged over the last week, as you suggested am being quite relaxed in it, to the point that it is starting for the outcome to not matter as much any more. Anyway for now the driving mantra is:
where's the entity
Much thanks and warmest regards,
Mic
