Still looking...

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

Sorry for my late reply, I missed your last post.

One note before I answer these questions: I generally avoid putting quotes around "I" or "my" unless absolutely necessary. Given the context of our dialogue, the quotes are kind of assumed - at least by me!

This is a tricky one. Often people when intellectually understand that there is no I (or after a few glimpses), they start to putting quotes around it. But it is self deceiving. Since this is not their experience. So how is it for you? Do you actually experience that there is no I, or you just learned it (or maybe even have glimpses of it, which is just a memory now), and now it has become knowledge? From your last replies, it seems to be mostly knowledge. Since as long as you perceive any agency, that the I is real for you. Is it not? Self honestly is essential here. And yes, the intellect is not happy about this :)

It is the conscious effort that suggests an agent to me.

Well, this is exactly that is in question here. And unfortunately, no amount of reasoning, no amount of thinking or analysing will make you see it. Only when the intellect is put aside can it be experientially recognized.

Please go to the experience of 'conscious effort' and describe it step by step. How you do it?

But please make sure that you don't use analogies, don't go to the real of reasoning or philosophizing. Just simply describe your experience of how you do it exactly.

Thoughts come and go just like the sounds and sights around me. They arrive and are 'clocked' with no effort and - for the most part - unremarked and unremarkable.

So is there such thing as an agent behind the phenomenon that seems like as a conscious effort?
WHERE is that agency making an effort?

I would qualify that to say, thinking sometimes requires effort.

What is doing the effort? WHERE is the DOER?

Just look… isn’t that effort itself happens totally effortlessly? Without a doer?

It is the "I" that enjoys things. I currently lack the imagination to see enjoyment without - crudely - ownership.

But how could an I enjoy anything? For that to be true, there must be a receiver or an enjoyer of the joy.
This assumes an agency. But where is this agency?

You see, the belief in a person is still hanging around, whom enjoyment is happening TO someone, someone that owns it, someone that enjoys it. It’s still the same belief.

WHERE is the enjoyer? Where?

In my head

MY head! What is it that HAS a head?
Where is the owner of the head?

Please don't say that you mean quotation around the I, so there is no owner of the head, but rather really, deeply investigate this base assumption that is so commonly shared.

But there is certainly an idea of self and ideas are most certainly real in their effects.

Yes, but the idea of a self is NOT a REAL, ACTUAL self. And this needs to be seen experientially, no amount of reasoning can help with seeing it.

Can an idea be an enjoyer?
Can an idea be the owner of thought?
Can an idea make conscious effort?

Can an idea do anything at all?

Is an idea alive, conscious entity?

Vivien

[Locutus1452]

Please go to the experience of 'conscious effort' and describe it step by step. How you do it?

I can't do it. Most of the time there is just a flow of thoughts including decisions. Quite clearly in my experience these have happened without an I directing them. On the end of something that I might think required 'conscious effort' I find that my mind might be 'wise after the event' but not during. I can never catch me in the act. THe idea that there must be a driver me is ... an assumption.

So is there such thing as an agent behind the phenomenon that seems like as a conscious effort?
WHERE is that agency making an effort?

There is a wee voice commenting on things, sometimes making judgements or trying to remember this or that. I believe that this might be what I identify as a me. But - and it's not a small but - I find myself less and less likely to identify that as a me and more like traffic noise.

What is doing the effort? WHERE is the DOER?

I find it difficult to answer to WHERE when the DOER in this case appears to be a person and therefore only a WHO would make sense 😬. Perhaps your use of WHERE is meant to point the way more effectively and I should take it very literally?

Just look… isn’t that effort itself happens totally effortlessly? Without a doer?

I'm experiencing that as the case. I'm certainly having the experience of something being absent. What is absent? An I trying to grab the wheel and steer. He/it is redundant. I'm thinking that this experience of flow or absence of I should be ever-present but neither do I spend much of my day experiencing the lack of belief in Santa. It's confusing when I think about it but not as an experience.

Here I am constrained by words and a description which inevitably(?) have the flavour of thoughts rather than experience. What I need to say is that more of more of waking hours are full of a feeling of transparency, of simple awareness. Like a thin veil has been pulled away.

This assumes an agency. But where is this agency?

See above on 'where' vs 'who". I'm aware of a congealed complex of a lifetime of habits and stories. On seeing a film I might think: "I'll mention this to x, he/she'll like that" In this sentence I and he/she are 2 separate people one of whom I'm responsible for. At least, I'd like to think so.

MY head! What is it that HAS a head?
Where is the owner of the head?

My mentioning my head was simply my best and nakedly honest attempt to answer the WHERE 😂
As to what it is, see my answer to the previous quoted question...

Can an idea be an enjoyer?

No.

Can an idea be the owner of thought?

No. I can't see how one thought can own another. Follow it, yes, but own... no.

Can an idea make conscious effort?
Can an idea do anything at all?

No. I can't see how a thought can make conscious effort.
An idea can lead to action. As in "the idea of common ownership of the means of production" can read to a revolution. But the idea did not actually carry out a revolution, people do.

Is an idea alive, conscious entity?

No.
It's part of being conscious but not all of it.



J

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

THe idea that there must be a driver me is ... an assumption.

Yes. Now this needs to be seen again and again. Make sure you don’t just simply conclude that there is no I doing anything, rather any time when it feels like that something is done with ‘conscious effort’, look and see. Only the repeated looking and seeing can undo the belief in it.

find it difficult to answer to WHERE when the DOER in this case appears to be a person and therefore only a WHO would make sense 😬. Perhaps your use of WHERE is meant to point the way more effectively and I should take it very literally?

Yes, exactly :) Please take my questions / pointers very literally. I don’t speak in analogies :) or when I do, I’ll make that clear.

So take your finger, and literally point to the doer. Point to the location where the doer resides.
Where does your finger pointing?

There is a wee voice commenting on things, sometimes making judgements or trying to remember this or that. I believe that this might be what

Yes… this voice is what needs to be seen for what it is. Since it is what is mistaken for a doer, for a person.

So look…
Is there anything else to this voice other than thoughts?

Is there someone / something thinking up these thoughts? A thinker? Where?
Take your finger an point to it. Literally.

I believe that this might be what I identify as a me. But - and it's not a small but - I find myself less and less likely to identify that as a me and more like traffic noise.

Now let’s go even a step further. So there is this voice and there is a desire or an act of trying to not identify with it.

What is it that is doing that? Trying not to identify with that thought?
Where is the doer?

Where is the you that identifies? Where is the identifier? The one that needs an identity? Or have an identity?

I'm experiencing that as the case. I'm certainly having the experience of something being absent. What is absent? An I trying to grab the wheel and steer. He/it is redundant. I'm thinking that this experience of flow or absence of I should be ever-present but neither do I spend much of my day experiencing the lack of belief in Santa. It's confusing when I think about it but not as an experience.

Yes, exactly. It doesn’t really matter what a thought says, what matter is what is the experience. Seeing is always about experience, it’s never about a thought story.

What I need to say is that more of more of waking hours are full of a feeling of transparency, of simple awareness. Like a thin veil has been pulled away.

Very good, just keep looking.

On seeing a film I might think: "I'll mention this to x, he/she'll like that" In this sentence I and he/she are 2 separate people one of whom I'm responsible for. At least, I'd like to think so.

WHO would like to think so? Or more precisely, WHERE is this WHO that wants to think that? Take your finger, and point to it. Where is it?

And about the owner of the head. Just notice that there is a belief that there is someone here who has a head. Isn’t it? – make sure you are super honest with yourself.

So, as long as it FEELS like or SEEMS like that there is an owner of the head or the body, the work is not done. This needs to be seen repeatedly that the body / head doesn’t belong to anyone.

So, take your finger, and point to the owner of the head. Where does the finger pointing?

No. I can't see how a thought can make conscious effort.

OK… so if you say that the I is just an idea, then it is clear that this idea is NOT doing anything. Since an idea is inert. It’s not alive, it cannot do anything. An idea no more active or alive than a stone.

But the word I supposedly pointing to someone real, not just to an idea, isn’t it? so we are looking for an actual I, and not just an idea of an I. An actual doer, not just the idea of a doer. Find it. Literally. If it exists, it must be super easy to see it, experience it, thus finding it.

Vivien

[Locutus1452]

So take your finger, and literally point to the doer. Point to the location where the doer resides.
Where does your finger pointing?

Well, that would be at my head. That said, here's where a difficulty arises. Now it might be a theoretical one rather than one based in experience but it arises because I anticipate (worry about?) a direction that says because I can't put my finger on - or point my finger at something- it doesn't exist. Now in my experience of being guided here, I would say things are definitely progressing - as you can probably tell. So of course I'm happy and indeed grateful to be one half of the dialogue based on what's actually there as opposed to what I want to be there or are simply habituated to. But there are many things in my life and I'm sure yours that are real and meaningful that can't simply be pointed at. What say you?

Is there anything else to this voice other than thoughts?

No. It's rather like an aching leg or an irritating back itch. As these are below my head, I'm happy not to identify with them 🤣

Is there anything else to this voice other than thoughts?
Is there someone / something thinking up these thoughts? A thinker? Where?

.

There are just thoughts. The thoughts appear to be behind my eyes and in between my ears. Difficult to see why I'd give them a privileged status of other thoughts. Why are some thoughts an I whilst other are just random, unbidden noise?

What is it that is doing that? Trying not to identify with that thought?
Where is the doer?
Where is the you that identifies? Where is the identifier? The one that needs an identity? Or have an identity?

Now that's a cracking question! I'm gonna probe that for a while but yes, that's been nagging me...

WHO would like to think so? Or more precisely, WHERE is this WHO that wants to think that? Take your finger, and point to it. Where is it?

So, take your finger, and point to the owner of the head. Where does the finger pointing?

See my previous on questions of "where".

Literally. If it exists, it must be super easy to see it, experience it, thus finding it.

Well, you'd thnk so wouldn't you but it ain't necessarily so....


J x

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

Well, that would be at my head. That said, here's where a difficulty arises. Now it might be a theoretical one rather than one based in experience but it arises because I anticipate (worry about?) a direction that says because I can't put my finger on - or point my finger at something- it doesn't exist. Now in my experience of being guided here, I would say things are definitely progressing - as you can probably tell. So of course I'm happy and indeed grateful to be one half of the dialogue based on what's actually there as opposed to what I want to be there or are simply habituated to. But there are many things in my life and I'm sure yours that are real and meaningful that can't simply be pointed at. What say you?

Yes. Just like electricity, you cannot point to it, but you can experience it. You can definitely feel it, right?

So HOW do you experience the me in the head?

You cannot point to it. All right.
Can you see it?
Can you FEEL it?
Can you taste it?
Can you smell it?
Can you hear it?

Can you observe it ANY way at all?
Or you can only ever THINK ABOUT it?

I’m not saying that the me/self doesn’t exist at all. What I am saying that the me is not what we THINK it is. It exists, but not as an actual, living entity, but rather as a concept / idea in thoughts. And this is a huge difference.

So when you look for the self you CAN find it. Not as an actual entity, not as an experienciable thing, but as concept, as a thought with all the words of I/me/my/mine. Look at that. Check if this is true in your experience. What do you find?

There are just thoughts. The thoughts appear to be behind my eyes and in between my ears.

This is also questionable. Yes, thoughts are. But how could a non-physical, non-material experience be inside of something physical? Isn’t this just another learned idea? Linking thoughts to the brain?

Do thoughts REALLY have any location where they appear? I mean in actuality?
Or this location is always INFERRED BY another thought, by reasoning?

Vivien

[Locutus1452]

So HOW do you experience the me in the head?

As an (often) annoying hitchhiker. He just chips in occasionally with unwanted comments. It's a habit.

Can you see it?
Can you FEEL it?
Can you taste it?
Can you smell it?
Can you hear it?

Nope.

Can you observe it ANY way at all?
Or you can only ever THINK ABOUT it?

The latter and only after the event.

I’m not saying that the me/self doesn’t exist at all. What I am saying that the me is not what we THINK it is. It exists, but not as an actual, living entity, but rather as a concept / idea in thoughts. And this is a huge difference.

You know... I cannot recall it ever being put that way before. Or perhaps I have but wasn't in the right frame of mind to hear it. "What I am saying that the me is not what we THINK it is.". That helps. A lot.

So when you look for the self you CAN find it. Not as an actual entity, not as an experienciable thing, but as concept, as a thought with all the words of I/me/my/mine. Look at that. Check if this is true in your experience. What do you find?

That'll be my task for tomorrow (it's late in the UK).

But how could a non-physical, non-material experience be inside of something physical? Isn’t this just another learned idea? Linking thoughts to the brain?

Well, it's called "the hard problem" by philosophers for a reason... 😂😒 I guess I'd say my brain is involved for obvious reasons. You can take away any other organ and I could still think, but not my brain, therefore....

Do thoughts REALLY have any location where they appear? I mean in actuality?
Or this location is always INFERRED BY another thought, by reasoning?

I'm not sure how that points the way. Take the example away from brains and thoughts to say, music. If I'm at a concert listening to a Beethoven piano sonata: where is this sonata? Is it in the pianist's fingers? the sheet music? the keys? is it hanging in the air? It's very real and affecting phenomenon but the question of where it is is more than unanswerable ... it's an inappropriate use of language and therefore thought. We can't say where it is but we can experience it.


J

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

You know... I cannot recall it ever being put that way before. Or perhaps I have but wasn't in the right frame of mind to hear it. "What I am saying that the me is not what we THINK it is.". That helps. A lot.

Let’s focus on this. Let’s look at what is here now that is mistaken for a self. Since something is there, usually 2 things, that are mistaken for an I.

There is a seeming feeling of an I somewhere inside the head. FEEL it. Spend lots of time feeling that area and investigating, without analysing.

If you stay with what is actual, and don’t try to analyse or conceptualize, what is it that is actually felt there?

And I? A person? Jim? – Can you know anything about an I/person/self/Jim/doer/thinker without thoughts (concepts)?

So what is FELT there in actuality without concepts?

And don’t forget to deeply investigate this:

So when you look for the self you CAN find it. Not as an actual entity, not as an experienciable thing, but as concept, as a thought with all the words of I/me/my/mine. Look at that. Check if this is true in your experience. What do you find?

Vivien

[Locutus1452]

Vivien - I'm currently visiting my Mum in the north of England with my wife and daughter so quite busy with limited access online. But I thought an interesting update might be in order.

If you stay with what is actual, and don’t try to analyse or conceptualize, what is it that is actually felt there?

I stayed with this on Monday and could not effectively feel what was there because ... there was no object of experience I could label as I. The feeling - if feeling it was - could be expressed as being in an office for a long time with the air con on and suddenly it was off. There's a relief from something I wasn't really aware was there, until it wasn't.

And I? A person? Jim? – Can you know anything about an I/person/self/Jim/doer/thinker without thoughts (concepts)?
So what is FELT there in actuality without concepts?

I would say no to the first question and as for what is felt... a sort of faintly luminous back-drop to business as usual. In fact, I was conscious - suspicious - of an I co-opting the feeling. Owning it. But then, if something is pleasurable after a result of effort... why should I not enjoy it? But did it feel like an I owning something? I don't think so.

Now. Let me be clear. I'm slightly suspicious that an apparent absence of I is simply, for instance, me being in a good mood or simply not looking hard enough. I need longer to look more, look more honestly and in different situations... Including and especially the following:

So when you look for the self you CAN find it. Not as an actual entity, not as an experienciable thing, but as concept, as a thought with all the words of I/me/my/mine. Look at that. Check if this is true in your experience. What do you find?

J x

[Vivien]

Thank you for your feedback. All right, just keep looking. Let me know what you find.

Love,
Vivien

[Locutus1452]

Vivien

I confess that I'm at something of a loss. I can find no obvious I. So it's very difficult to report back on

what is FELT there in actuality without concepts

And yet, I don't feel 'liberated'. There's still mental chatter, but that - like the idea of a self - I would expect to persist.

I'm stuck - can you suggest anything to knock the needle out of the groove?

J

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

And yet, I don't feel 'liberated'.

It’s time to really look at your expectation, since this can really hold you back.

What do you think, how ‘being liberated’ would feel like?

What should happen when liberation happen?
What do you think what are the signs of it? By what signs would you recognize it?

And now from the point of view of inquiry:

What is here right now that gets liberated?
What does liberation happen TO?

What is there to be liberated?

Vivien

[Locutus1452]

What do you think, how ‘being liberated’ would feel like?

Being less likely to "appropriate" good things and push away bad things. Not that this would cease, simply get turned down.

What should happen when liberation happen?

I see that I is an illusion. That it has no agency.

What do you think what are the signs of it? By what signs would you recognize it?

Less internal chat using the word "I". Less fizz, more calm. A definite experience of flow as in undriven flow of seeing, hearing etc without some ego in the background chopping it up and dealing it out.

What is here right now that gets liberated?

What does liberation happen TO?

What is there to be liberated?

Nothing. Given the nature of the enquiry and believing that the end is possible, it's the only response.

J

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

Less internal chat using the word "I". Less fizz, more calm. A definite experience of flow as in undriven flow of seeing, hearing etc without some ego in the background chopping it up and dealing it out.

these are pretty heavy/big expectations.

Why should the internal chatter with the word ‘I’ be less?

What does this have to do with seeing that there is no person BEHIND the thought / word ‘I’?

Why would it be more calm? And more importantly, FOR WHO?

And is there really such thing as a background ego chopping things up?
Where is that ego? WHERE? Show it to me.

Notice that you expect to have a different experience than what is happening now. Well, experience won’t change, it won’t stop being an ordinary, everyday experience. The number of thoughts, even the thoughts of I, doesn’t matter. They won’t stop, why would they? It’s like when you are in the desert seeing an oasis with water. When you recognize that it’s just a mirage, a play of light, does the mirage go away? No, it doesn’t. You just recognize it again and again, “oh… this is just a mirage, there is no real water there”.

And about the even flow of experience… notice that what you really expect that thoughts will change. So thoughts will stop appearing, labelling, categorizing, etc.

But why would they change? Do they even the matter?
Or the matter is that it’s believed that there is a real me behind the thought me/I?

The words of I/me/mine are free to be there, and will stay there. The question is if they are ON BEHALF an ACTUAL, REAL self/me?

This is what needs to be seen, not having different thoughts. Can you be open to this (and not to having different thoughts, or having different experiences)?

Given the nature of the enquiry and believing that the end is possible, it's the only response.

End – well, this inquiry is definitely not the end. Far from it. Seeing that there is no real self behind those thoughts is just the beginning, far from being and end. A lifetime of conditionings won’t go away. That takes time, often lots of time… also, lots of further inquiry.

When there is any form of suffering (or any form of discontent), it’s not just because there is a belief in a self. Suffering happens when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added narrative.

The personality stays almost completely intact when the self is seen through (at least at the beginning). All the conditionings from childhood, all the traumas, all the gathered emotional pains won’t dissolve in an instant just because the self is seen through. These most likely will stay, however, they are much more accessible and easier to work with after seeing through the illusion. This is just the first step, just the beginning, and not the end. But it is the beginning of the falling away of conditionings, which can last until the end of the organism.


Vivien

[Locutus1452]

Why should the internal chatter with the word ‘I’ be less?

What does this have to do with seeing that there is no person BEHIND the thought / word ‘I’?

I do get that we're dealing here with the 1st of the fetters only. So it's not an absence of chatter I'm looking for merely a turn down on the volume. Why? I see the I impulse as the primary stirrer of the pot. I can see that many thoughts and feelings simply have their own momentum and 'habit energy'. But I believe that killing the chief will scatter the followers - if I was to use a kind of 50's "cowboys and indidans" movie analogy 🤨

Why would it be more calm? And more importantly, FOR WHO?

Interesting question. as for calm... see above. For Who? Well, Is this not a language difficulty? By which I mean, love, affection, fear are all present following the fall of the first fetter. I suppose one can shift language from "I experience this/that" (ownership) to "there is the experience of this or that" but what changes? Might you not feel calm? Is that experience any different from mine on the other side of the gate, so to speak.

And is there really such thing as a background ego chopping things up?
Where is that ego? WHERE? Show it to me.

So, the first is merely my experience. How could I show you? Can you show me your experience of the colour orange?

But why would they change? Do they even the matter?

So. In Gateless Gatecrashers there appears to be an "authenticty check" towards the end of dialogues. Reassuringly, there's wariness of mere parotting. But my question would be, how - by medium of an exhange in a forum using words only - can one vouch for another's experience? I cannot point to or offer an I. You've confirmed what I believd was the case that there's still pleny of mental/emotional static post 1st fetter. Let me put it plainly, how do you personally ascertain that the illusion of self is seen thru in another?

But why would they change? Do they even the matter?
Or the matter is that it’s believed that there is a real me behind the thought me/I?
The words of I/me/mine are free to be there, and will stay there. The question is if they are ON BEHALF an ACTUAL, REAL self/me?

There is no separate me. Just a profoundly embedded habit of thought and emotion that seeks to 'own' experience. but it is just 'habit energy' having no more priveleged position than any other habit.

This is what needs to be seen, not having different thoughts. Can you be open to this (and not to having different thoughts, or having different experiences)?

I believe so. I do catch myself reflecting during the day like I'm trying to remember that there's no me. Which is ironic, becuase the thought itself is an intrusion on mere experience. Does this sound like "trying to have different thoughts"?

End – well, this inquiry is definitely not the end. Far from it.

This I think is a sinple misunderstanding thru rushed phrasing. I should have been more specific. I merely meant the end of the first fetter, not anything other than that. I'm aware of others following up with much work to do still.

J

[Vivien]

Hi Jim,

I suppose one can shift language from "I experience this/that" (ownership) to "there is the experience of this or that" but what changes? Might you not feel calm? Is that experience any different from mine on the other side of the gate, so to speak.

Well, the change of language doesn’t really matter. What matter is if thoughts are seen to be thoughts only and thus not believed, or they are believed to be mine, and happening to me.

Calmness or peace can happen, but the question is if it’s owned?
Is calmness happening to me, or there is just calmness happening, as another phenomenon?

Let me put it plainly, how do you personally ascertain that the illusion of self is seen thru in another?

Yes, I cannot know that for sure. No-one can know that. I just read your comments, and from that I recognize the signs. It’s hard to explain, but when you’ve seen it for yourself, you can recognize it in another, but I can never be 100% sure. And honestly, that doesn’t really matter if I’m sure of it or not. What matters if you are sure of it or not.

I believe so. I do catch myself reflecting during the day like I'm trying to remember that there's no me. Which is ironic, because the thought itself is an intrusion on mere experience. Does this sound like "trying to have different thoughts"?

I would say that this is a ‘war’ on thoughts. Not wanting to have thoughts overcasting experience. And when that happens, the belief in the I is active. I don’t like these thoughts; I want unfiltered experience instead. It’s all about me, what I want, what I like, what I prefer.

As if the problem were the presence of thoughts (or certain thoughts) and not the believe in them... not the inability to see them as plain phenomena, just like wind happening that I have nothing to do with.

Vivien