Seeing No-Self

[Matt]

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

OK, so now I'm asking you to question the belief that you have two selves.

• Who is it that sees both of these selves? Is it a third self?

[Griselda]

OK, so now I'm asking you to question the belief that you have two selves.

• Who is it that sees both of these selves? Is it a third self?

Hmmm.... the word 'belief' doesn't seem to fit what I find in DE, because to me it implies Time. For me a belief is something stored in thought that you pull out when convenient. When I say I see two selves, I mean that in the instant you ask me, and I LOOK, I see another self. Is there a THIRD self that sees two selves? I don't find that in actual experience. I've been looking for the last half hour, and I don't find it.

[Matt]

Thanks, describe that other self that you see. Is it really a 'self' apart from any modicum of belief?

I want to make sure we're communicating. We may be using words differently.

When I look at "Matt", I'm actually seeing an image (an image is not an actual self), feeling sensations (sensations don't make up an actual self), and associations such as a name and stories (and a name or a story are not a real self).

Belief makes these data seem like a real self, a decider, a doer, a separate perceiver.

When we question and deconstruct this data, a bit like Greg Goode, there is just raw data found.

Can you jive with this conversation, or should we put it aside? Perhaps a different guide will communicate in ways that you engage with more readily.

Let me know.

Best wishes,
M

[Griselda]

Hi Matt,

Is it really a 'self' apart from any modicum of belief?

To me it's energy. I feel it in my head. I don't find a belief associated with it. It doesn't have qualities, like young or old,
male or female.

sensations don't make up an actual self

I think this is where you and I find different things in DE. I can tell that for you this is true. But I see no reason why sensations can't make up an actual self. I find that sensations are EXACTLY what make up my 'self'.

Belief makes these data seem like a real self, a decider, a doer, a separate perceiver.
When we question and deconstruct this data, a bit like Greg Goode, there is just raw data found.

That's not what I find when I look, although I'll keep questioning. I do like Greg Goode.

Can you jive with this conversation, or should we put it aside? Perhaps a different guide will communicate in ways that you engage with more readily.

I enjoy our conversation, but I would totally sympathize if you think it's not a good use of your time. I'm a tough nut to crack.

[Matt]

Thanks, are we using the word "self" differently?

On this forum, by "self" we mean "you" in the normal, conventional sense of the word. Therefore, what's "you" and what's "yours" are not the same; these words do not have an identical meaning.

For example, in direct experience, is "your home" "you"? When you lock up and leave your home, do you necessarily lock up and leave yourself?

If your home is destroyed and annihilated, are you necessarily destroyed and annihilated?

If you sell your home, have you sold yourself and no longer have ownership of yourself? Or have you sold your home?

Look for yourself: when your sensations change from one sensation to another sensation, the conventional "you" has not changed to another you — as in a different person with different name and surname, a different personal history, a different birth certificate, birthplace, etc.

Please answer each question, and stick to conventions of language and communication....

Best wishes,
me

[Griselda]

Hi Matt,

I'm using the word 'self' the same way you are. I would not confuse the house I live in with the 'self'.

I agree, the self doesn't change from one moment to the next, even though sensations change.

[Matt]

"I would not confuse the house I live in with the 'self'."

Yes, it seems you would. Because you said "I feel it [the self, 'me'] in my head."
You clearly believe that YOUR feelings or sensations are 'YOU'.

Also, you wrote, "I find that sensations are EXACTLY what make up my 'self'."
You clearly believe that YOU are exactly YOUR sensations.

That's a confusion between 'you' and 'yours'. Thus we are not using language in the same way, as I tried to clarify:
"On this forum, by "self" we mean "you" in the normal, conventional sense of the word. Therefore, what's "you" and what's "yours" are not the same; these words do not have an identical meaning."

I'll give you one more chance to begin the conversation. If we can't get to square one together, it's probably better that you try other means or a different guide, etc.

Meanwhile, I recommend listening to this video and actively doing the 'looking' that it asks. You can pause it to do the investigations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FMSggSSJOU

With respect and friendship,
M

[Griselda]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for sending the link to the Christian Shadlock video. I had seen that years ago, and it brings back good memories.
Christian says "No location can be found where seeing happens." For me, there is a location, and I can perhaps come closest to it by saying "I am". I mean that in the sense that Nisargaddata used when he said "I cannot say what I am. Yet, I am. The question ‘Who am I’ has no answer."

Yes, it seems you would. Because you said "I feel it [the self, 'me'] in my head."
You clearly believe that YOUR feelings or sensations are 'YOU'.

Ah, language! It forces us to say things in a certain way. I looked back, and you're right, I DID say "I feel the Self in my head." I had to say that, because language requires me to have a subject and a predicate; a 'this' which is separate from 'that'. But that's not what my Direct Experience is. Maybe if I were to speak more accurately, I would just say "Self!" But that would make no sense in English.

You clearly believe that YOUR feelings or sensations are 'YOU'.

[/quote]

That is CLOSE to what I find my DE to be, but I would prefer to say "I find no SEPARATION between 'You' and 'feelings'." If I WANT to I can analyze things and determine that "me" and "feelings" are different, but that is to introduce Thought, which creates an artificial barrier that isn't really there.

So I agree with you that 'You' and 'Yours' are not the same. But the only way to differentiate them is to introduce thought as a dividing and defining principle, which I prefer not to do in an investigation which values ONLY direct looking.

Thanks for your incredible patience,

Griselda

[Matt]

Hi, you write:

I agree with you that 'You' and 'Yours' are not the same. But the only way to differentiate them is to introduce thought as a dividing and defining principle, which I prefer not to do in an investigation which values ONLY direct looking.

I think this is going in the right direction....

Maybe if I were to speak more accurately, I would just say "Self!" But that would make no sense in English.

What makes you THINK that what you find in in direct experience is "Self!"? "Self!" is a thought, a packaging and branding of the sight-sensation-hearing-taste-smell of direct experience. "Self!" may be an effective spiritual teaching; it might be a way that some people say 'rigpa' or 'I AM' or Atman, or some other effective thought-based teachings.
That is not what we're doing here on this forum. You already admitted in the beginning that Self is created by thought:

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That what we call the Self is created by thought, and is a series of recurring thoughts....

A thought-creation is not a result of direct experience. And thus, it is plain to see that it is incorrect to assert that you see Self in direct experience. Rather, you see a Self (or selves) in thought.
And you stated that you have come here to see the unreality of the thought-created Self:

What are you looking for at LU?
To see that the Self as we normally think of it is not there.

But you have not been willing or able to look at direct experience without packaging it in the thought-interpretation of "This is a Self and it is me." I won't buy that product. As long as you refuse to let go of the interpretation that what you find in direct experience is Something other than sight-sensation-hearing-taste-smell, you're wasting our time.

I know the LU books say it is as unreal as Santa Claus, but it's quite real to me.

I would challenge your assertion that Self is quite real to you. Subtract thought and look just at sight-sensation-hearing-taste-smell.
I know it's OK to challenge you in this way because you said:

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
For someone to help me see what is blocking my seeing that the self is not there.

Maybe the psychology needs to be challenged or kicked in the pants to help it stop perpetuating the lies and beliefs. Because what good is all your peaceful practice and smug understanding if you continue to nurse the lies and assumptions, beliefs and thought-based fetters?

I did Transcendental meditation for 14 years, studied Dzogchen Buddhism in Nepal for 2 years, have been to 4 Vipassana 10 day retreats, did zazen with Sasaki Roshi, and have done a lot of self inquiry as taught by Greg Goode. I also did some fetters work, although I don't think I am through the first fetter (seeing No Self).

Don't worry, you've been spinning your wheels for a lot less years than many other thought-addicts.
And another bit of good news is, you are willing to question your currently held belief that what you find in (so-called) "direct experience" is a Self:

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

This is serious claim, and I expect you to make good on it. No more trying to sell me your thought-conclusions based on traditional beliefs and jargon. I know there's nothing under the wrapper and I'm not gullible.

PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING AND REPORT ON IT. This is experiential; enough chatting. And please report on this today. This should not take several days. If you give me another thought-based answer such as "Self!", I'm just going to ask you to do the same thing again, and eventually we will both get tired of that. SO DO THIS ASAP:
'Look' at sight-sensation-hearing-taste-smell. Without the thought "that is a Self," or "That is me", what is really there?

[Matt]

Hi Griselda,
I hope you're well. I assume that the more 'pushy' approach didn't work for you either; I hope you didn't find it offensive. I don't have anymore tools in my box (that I can use on this forum specifically) to help you look and to deconstruct any assumptions. So let's officially call an end to this thread, OK? You're always welcome back if you feel ready, and you can find another guide if you wish (if you haven't already). Just one note, if you are going to look for another guide: nearly every guide wants daily or frequent posting, since it seems to support the process.
Thanks for being willing to do some deep work with me!
Many blessings,
Matt