seeking no self

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
There is some lovely looking happening here! :)
And please don't worry about the thinking. Thoughts are not an obstacle to this investigation. We are not trying to stop them or make them quiet. They can shout "But what about...?" and "That doesn't make sense!" all they like. The question is whether what they say is actually happening.

A couple of things caught my attention.

It's a felt sense of the parts—they feel formless, but specific. I can move my attention throughout my body.

Let's look at that. Close your eyes and notice the sensations labelled "hand," then those labelled "foot."
Do the sensations themselves tell you where they are, or is their location known through something learned?
When attention shifts from hand to foot, what actually happens? Does something travel between two locations, or does a different sensation simply become noticeable?

Is attention thought?

Good! Rather than finding an explanation, watch attention itself. Does a thought have to appear before attention shifts? Can you find anything actually directing it?
Now, something else you wrote is particularly interesting:

I is a very grippy thought. So when I think 'I' or 'my' there is stomach contracting, like it's grasping. But it's grasping nothing, it's just tense. I am not perceiving any correlation between the grabby stomach sensation and something actually owning the body.

YES! This is the kind of looking I'm pointing to! You noticed the thought "I," a contraction in the stomach, and the absence of an actual owner of the body. Next time that contraction appears, stay with it for a moment.
Does the sensation itself contain an "I"? Does it actually grasp anything? Or is there simply a sensation accompanied by thoughts about "me" and "mine"?
Can you find something doing the grasping, or only the experience of contraction?
You don't need to work out why this happens or what produces it. And we don't need an explanation about the brain, conditioning, or past experiences. All those explanations come AFTER what is happening. We're interested in what is here BEFORE the explanations.

But I'm still busy having likes and dislikes and trying...

Of course! Did we ever say that likes, dislikes, preferences, or trying should disappear?
When a dislike appears, does that mean there must be a separate "I" doing the disliking?
When trying happens, is a trier actually found?
Or are these simply more happenings that thought claims as "mine"?
They don't need to disappear.
But do they require a separate "I" to make them happen?

There is nothing to get rid of, Elle. Not the thoughts, not the contractions, not even the feeling of being a separate self. We're simply examining whether the entity those experiences seem to point to can actually be found.
So stay with that grippy sensation and tell me: what exactly makes it feel like an "I" rather than simply a sensation?
Please describe what you actually experience, rather than what you think it means.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

I appreciate the time you take with my responses. It feels like I might be moving closer to a change of perspective. I wonder if it will feel like learning how to draw felt for me: like I learned a whole new way to see. Nothing really changed, but the world looks a lot different.

Do the sensations themselves tell you where they are, or is their location known through something learned?

The sensations occur in different spots, but their locations are known through a thought.

When attention shifts from hand to foot, what actually happens? Does something travel between two locations, or does a different sensation simply become noticeable?

The attention feels like it focuses on one sensation then focuses on the other sensation because a thought said so.

Does a thought have to appear before attention shifts? Can you find anything actually directing it?

Thought appeared before attention focused on first my hand, then my foot. It seems like there was an intention thought to focus, then the focusing of attention. But attention also picked up on ambient sounds without a thought "directing" it. The sounds were heard and noticed.

Does the sensation itself contain an "I"? Does it actually grasp anything? Or is there simply a sensation accompanied by thoughts about "me" and "mine"? Can you find something doing the grasping, or only the experience of contraction?

The sensation just is, with no I in it. There is the thought "my," then tensing, but the tensing muscles don’t grasp anything. The thought precedes the muscle contraction, but a thought cannot grasp. Stomach muscles can't grasp either! Contraction is just experienced.

When a dislike appears, does that mean there must be a separate "I" doing the disliking?

Liking and disliking things seems so personal yet automatic. I don’t even know. Ok. No, there doesn’t need to be an I doing the disliking, but it somehow feels personal. I think it’s the same as the “my” muscle contraction, like there is a sensation and an interpretation “me.” But then what is doing the liking and disliking? Are those just sensations with thoughts? I'm thinking of things I like:

my cat: many thoughts/memories and a feeling of softness in my stomach
coffee: memories, thoughts, a sort of chest tension
my car: a sort of warm feeling in my chest, lightness, a whole story
my kids: a full sensation, stories and stories

or dislike:
the president: a very tight feeling throughout my torso, a raw feeling in my chest, heat in my throat, stories and stories
licorice: a flipping feeling in my stomach and tightness in my throat, memories
hives: vague skin crawling feeling, memory

And there doesn't seem to be any entity beyond my thoughts and my body reacting, yet I still feel like I am the one feeling these things, it's elle who dislikes and feels the sensations, but what is this "elle?" Where is the kernel or center of the generation of all this nonsense? I can't find an elle.

When trying happens, is a trier actually found?

I’m trying to answer these questions with only direct experience (I'm not entirely succeeding, but I am trying) and the trying feels challenging. What entity is feeling challenged? Does there have to be an entity to feel the challenge? Is challenge just another thought/sensation cycle? My hands hover over the keyboard, then they start typing what I think to say. I feel like “I” am trying. But where is that I? In my head, it’s thoughts arguing with thoughts. And a bracing feeling in my stomach. But not a different entity.

ASIDE:
I had this experience one time during some physical therapy. It was like a dream. I was standing in front of an oncoming train, and instead of getting out of the way, I leaned towards it. It went right through me. After I was done with PT, I kinda interpreted it to mean that I was sort of standing in my own way and I need to surrender more.

Or are these simply more happenings that thought claims as "mine"?

“Mine” is so sticky. Mine mine mine.

Do they require a separate "I" to make them happen?

I’m at work and I’m getting tripped out because I’m choosing to type right now, and Lucas is choosing to talk to Sydney, and that looks very much like three selves volitionally doing things, but if there are no selves here, how is all this operating?

what exactly makes it feel like an "I" rather than simply a sensation?

The grabby feeling feels like pulling something towards my person. Pulling TOWARDS or pushing AWAY makes it feel like there’s something real pulling/pushing, a force or energy. But. If I try. Again. To look. Without thoughts distracting me. the only thing I can directly find is the thought and the sensation. Not a thinker or a sensor.

Love,
elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle
There is some really lovely looking happening here! :)

I can't find an Elle.

The only thing I can directly find is the thought and the sensation. Not a thinker or a sensor.

Wonderful! Stay with what you've actually discovered here. Notice how thought keeps coming back with "But HOW is all this happening if there's no self?"
Does knowing HOW something happens change WHAT is actually happening? Do you need to understand how breathing happens for breathing to happen?

The sensations occur in different spots, but their locations are known through a thought.

Interesting! :)
If their locations are known through thought, what makes them different "spots" before thought labels them?
Close your eyes and notice two different sensations, perhaps what you call "hand" and "foot."
Without referring to the familiar mental body map, can you actually find a distance between them? How big is it? Does either sensation come with a location attached to it?
And that spaciousness you mentioned earlier — is there an actual space in which sensations appear, with measurable boundaries? Or is "spaciousness" another description of what is being experienced (aka sensation)?
Don't try to make the sensations lose their distinctness. Just look at what is actually there and what thought adds. What is sensation and what is thought? Is there anything else besides sensation and thought?

I wonder if it will feel like learning how to draw... Nothing really changed, but the world looks a lot different.

Maybe. Maybe not. Notice if there's an expectation that something should shift or feel different before this seeing can be trusted. Is that expectation anything more than another thought? Is that even your expectation? Are you the author of that thought or is it just appearing on its own?

I'm choosing to type right now, and Lucas is choosing to talk to Sydney, and that looks very much like three selves volitionally doing things.

Look at your own experience of typing. There are thoughts, fingers moving (sensations), words appearing on the screen (seeing).
But where is the one making all this happen?
Can you find an actual moment when "Elle" chooses a word, sends a command to the fingers, and makes them type?
Or is there thinking, typing, and then perhaps a thought saying "I'm doing this"?

We can look at the DE of “others” (Lucas and Sydney) in more detail if you want…

'Mine' is so sticky. Mine mine mine.

Yes! But does the stickiness prove an owner?
You've already noticed thoughts about "me" and "mine," contractions, feelings of pulling towards and pushing away.
When all of that is present, can an actual owner be found? Or is it the familiar feeling of “ownership”, without anyone owning it?
We aren't trying to get rid of the feeling of "me." It can be as sticky as it likes. :) And we don't need to explain how everything operates.
Is a separate Elle actually missing from experience, or was she only ever assumed to be there?
Don't answer from what makes sense. Look at ordinary life as it's happening, and tell me what you find.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

Does knowing HOW something happens change WHAT is actually happening? Do you need to understand how breathing happens for breathing to happen?

No. I don’t understand the physics around how airplanes work, but I still use them to visit other cities. I don’t know a conscious thought to breathe, but every time I check, breathing happens.

If their locations are known through thought, what makes them different "spots" before thought labels them? Without referring to the familiar mental body map, can you actually find a distance between them? How big is it? Does either sensation come with a location attached to it?

I’m sitting quietly. The sensations are hearing crowing, feeling my soft hoodie on my skin, the weight of the laptop on my lap, the fuzzy cat against my leg, tingling in my feet–using words–but it actually feels like all one thing, not like the parts I broke it into. A unified experience, whole. And I guess it feels unbound? Not any size at all.

And that spaciousness you mentioned earlier — is there an actual space in which sensations appear, with measurable boundaries? Or is "spaciousness" another description of what is being experienced (aka sensation)?

Now I don’t know how to define spaciousness! Spaciousness is just “here, now.”

What is sensation and what is thought? Is there anything else besides sensation and thought?

Sensation is wordless, or pre-verbal. At a basic level, thought is a labeling system, an interpreter, a pattern detector, a summarizer, directly experienced but also commenting on direct experience. Besides sensation and thought…I don’t know. I mean, like. Action, but action is known through sensation and thought. Emotions, but those are experienced through sensations and thoughts. Attention? Seems to be self-guiding like breathing is, where I can have a thought to direct it, but it ultimately goes on its own.

Is that expectation anything more than another thought? Is that even your expectation? Are you the author of that thought or is it just appearing on its own?

With drawing, it felt like learning to see what really is. Seeing through labels to raw visual data. I suppose it is an expectation, which is just a thought, seeking to make connections to something familiar. It’s information remembered–thought–which. Appears on its own.

But does the stickiness prove an owner?

The stickiness does not prove an owner. It’s like gum on a shoe.

You've already noticed thoughts about "me" and "mine," contractions, feelings of pulling towards and pushing away. When all of that is present, can an actual owner be found? Or is it the familiar feeling of “ownership”, without anyone owning it?

There is merely a feeling of tension, and thoughts. But how is that feeling of tension known/experienced? What IS knowing/experiencing? I know how doesn’t change what…i think i’m tangled in a deep semantic habit. Knowing is just happening without a knower?

Is a separate Elle actually missing from experience, or was she only ever assumed to be there?

Elle seems to be a label for a collection of a body and stories, which constantly change depending on context. There is no stable entity “in” here.

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle
Lovely! There is some really clear looking happening here! :)

It actually feels like all one thing, not like the parts I broke it into. A unified experience, whole. And I guess it feels unbound? Not any size at all.

Beautiful! Notice that the divisions only appeared when you started describing the experience. The labels are useful for communication (icons), but do they actually divide what is experienced?

Spaciousness is just 'here, now.'

Exactly. No need to define it further. Just notice what is actually here. The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is felt, such as touching a cup or a feeling of spaciousness. The feeling of spaciousness is a plethora of sensations happening in quick succession, making it seem and feel spacious. But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought.

Elle seems to be a label for a collection of a body and stories, which constantly change depending on context. There is no stable entity 'in' here.

Let's look closely at that. You say there is no stable entity.
Is there an unstable one? A temporary one? Any separate Elle at all, anywhere in actual experience?
You have found sensations, thoughts, preferences (thoughts), contractions (sensations), intentions (thoughts), actions (colours and sensations), and the familiar feeling of "mine" (sensation).
But have you ever found an actual Elle or any other entity owning or directing any of them?
And when the thought "I am experiencing this" appears, is that thought evidence of an experiencer, or simply another part of whatever is happening?
No need to figure out how it all works. The mystery of how life happens can remain a mystery. :)

Knowing is just happening without a knower?

Notice the question mark. :) There is stuff happening. That much is undeniable.
But does that require a separate experiencer?
When a sound is heard, is there hearing AND someone hearing? Can you find the dividing line between them? Where does the hearing end and the hear-er begin? Is there even a separate sound apart from hearing? Is there a subject doing something on an object, or is that just language?
Don't turn "knowing happens without a knower" into another explanation. Check whether a knower can actually be found.
If awareness/knower is found, how is it found/known? Can awareness be seen? Can it be felt? Can it be smelled? Can it be tasted? Can it be heard?
Can awareness itself be found? Or is there simply whatever is appearing, plus a thought saying "I am aware of it."
Is there any evidence for a separate knower/awareness/ consciousness/ expeirncer/ the Universe /etc besides the undeniable fact of whatever IS happening? Is there even a separate knowing apart from what IS happening?? Where does knowing ends and where does whatever is happening begin? Where is the boundary?

Let’s have a proper look at an attention/focus… Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does.

Can the thing called “attention”/”focus” be found?
Does attention have a shape, location, or boundary? Do you see a "torch" being pointed at things sitting around in the dark waiting to be illuminated?
Can you see anything moving from one image to another, or from one thought to another?
Or is one image simply appearing, then another image is simply appearing, and thought says “Attention moved from this image to that image”?
Can you choose what will be noticed next?
Sit quietly for a few minutes. Notice sounds, sensations, colours, and thoughts.
What decides which one becomes clear? Is there an entity moving it? Do you move it? Can you decide what it will land on next? Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?
Hold focus on breath - see how focus moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control? Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

What is looking/noticing/attention made of? There is what IS happening and the description of it. Is looking/ focusing any different from the commentary over what is the most prominent (the bold font) at the moment?
Try this now. Sit quietly and notice what becomes prominent next. A sound may stand out. Then a sensation. Then an image. Then a thought.
Was there a controller choosing the sequence?
Could the next focus be known before it happened?
Now look at the labels themselves.
“Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words (DE labels) for describing experience.
But are three separate things actually found with a clear boundary between them?
At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?
Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?
Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?
Without any labels is there anything to be focused on? Or is there indivisible, undescribable (but experiecable) happening?
Take your time with this. Please answer each question individually using the quote function, and stay with what is directly found rather than explaining how attention works.

Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for your questioning! This set of questions was the most challenging so far. There is some resistance and some frustration. I'm finding it especially difficult to translate my experiences into accurate language, while sticking to the direct experience.

Is there an unstable one? A temporary one? Any separate Elle at all, anywhere in actual experience?
You have found sensations, thoughts, preferences (thoughts), contractions (sensations), intentions (thoughts), actions (colours and sensations), and the familiar feeling of "mine" (sensation).
But have you ever found an actual Elle or any other entity owning or directing any of them?

There is no separate entity, only life? or an animating force that ends when a body no longer breathes. Maybe it is just breath?

And when the thought "I am experiencing this" appears, is that thought evidence of an experiencer, or simply another part of whatever is happening? But does that require a separate experiencer?

When I look, I don’t find a separate experiencer. I find thoughts. A lot of thoughts. And frustration, which is thoughts plus sensation. A feeling in my chest and a thought I. Thoughts and sensations.

When a sound is heard, is there hearing AND someone hearing? Can you find the dividing line between them? Where does the hearing end and the hear-er begin? Is there even a separate sound apart from hearing? Is there a subject doing something on an object, or is that just language?

When a sound is heard, there is hearing and then pretty quickly there is thought, “car,” “cat,” “helicopter,” “heater.” The sounds just appear in hearing. There’s not any hearing no sound; hearing sound is a single event. I can’t find a hearer, just a subjective experience hearing.

If awareness/knower is found, how is it found/known? Can awareness be seen? Can it be felt? Can it be smelled? Can it be tasted? Can it be heard? Can awareness itself be found? Or is there simply whatever is appearing, plus a thought saying "I am aware of it."

I don’t smell or taste or hear awareness. I only think I am aware because I identify with the sensory experiences that arise– “I” hear, etc. I feel really stuck here, high frustration. It feels like there are two things–a sense object, and a sensing presence. So like if I’m in a crowd at a basketball game, for instance, the sights, the smells, the sounds are being perceived by different individuals. One sensory explosion happening, many receptors with different hearings, seeings, and smellings.

Is there any evidence for a separate knower/awareness/ consciousness/ expeirncer/ the Universe /etc besides the undeniable fact of whatever IS happening? Is there even a separate knowing apart from what IS happening?? Where does knowing ends and where does whatever is happening begin? Where is the boundary?

I can’t see consciousness itself, just evidence of it. A body alive–evidence of life, breathing, moving, sleeping, thinking–vs being dead–the body no longer has consciousness.

Can the thing called “attention”/”focus” be found? Does attention have a shape, location, or boundary? Do you see a "torch" being pointed at things sitting around in the dark waiting to be illuminated?

Attention is a specific way of thinking. It doesn’t have a shape, location, or boundary, but thought can direct focus to some degree. It's thought.

Can you see anything moving from one image to another, or from one thought to another?
Or is one image simply appearing, then another image is simply appearing, and thought says “Attention moved from this image to that image”?

Thought says attention moved. I’m sitting in my living room, looking at my cat. Now I am looking at the heater, now I’m looking at the laptop. Looking in different places. Thought says attention moved.

Can you choose what will be noticed next?

We already talked about there being no chooser, so it’s not really a choice, plus stuff just happens and gets noticed completely independent of my direction. No. I can’t choose what will be noticed next.

Sit quietly for a few minutes. Notice sounds, sensations, colours, and thoughts.
What decides which one becomes clear? Is there an entity moving it? Do you move it? Can you decide what it will land on next? Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?

There’s nothing I can find that’s deciding what becomes clear. I hear birds, cars, the hum of the fridge. I see sun, leaves falling, my cat. I taste this tea. Things become clear then a thought says attention moved.

Hold focus on breath - see how focus moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control? Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

I can’t hold my attention on my breath for long even though I’ve been trying to train attention for months. I have NO control over it. But there is still the thought that “I” am doing it. Ha! That makes no sense.

What is looking/noticing/attention made of? There is what IS happening and the description of it. Is looking/ focusing any different from the commentary over what is the most prominent (the bold font) at the moment?

Is attention just made of what is happening? But attention feels like something, things come to it. Like it is there, and it notices whatever arises/happens. But I don’t know WHAT is there. Receptivity.

Try this now. Sit quietly and notice what becomes prominent next. A sound may stand out. Then a sensation. Then an image. Then a thought.
Was there a controller choosing the sequence?
Could the next focus be known before it happened?

If I close my eyes especially, there’s no controller, and the next focus could not be known. When I open my eyes, it feels like there is some control over about where I aim them, but not about what I see.

Now look at the labels themselves.
“Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words (DE labels) for describing experience.
But are three separate things actually found with a clear boundary between them?
At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?
Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?
Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?

I’m feeling my hoodie, hearing traffic, seeing what I’m typing. It’s all happening here now.

Without any labels is there anything to be focused on? Or is there indivisible, undescribable (but experiecable) happening?

Without any labels/concepts, everything just is being. Here. Now.

Love,
Elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
Thank you for your thoughtful replies! :)
I notice something that may be contributing to the frustration you're experiencing. You seem to be spending quite a bit of time contemplating the questions and trying to make sense of them, rather than simply LOOKING at what is happening. For example, you wrote:

We already talked about there being no chooser, so it’s not really a choice.

But what we previously discussed doesn't matter here. What matters is what you can actually find NOW.
Each question I ask is a separate pointer. It is designed to direct looking towards something specific that may otherwise go unnoticed.
So please take your time with EACH question individually. Don't group questions together or summarise what you think you've understood. Like this:

I can’t see consciousness itself, just evidence of it. A body alive–evidence of life, breathing, moving, sleeping, thinking–vs being dead–the body no longer has consciousness.

That is not an observation/report of direct looking but explanation/interpretation of all that you know (assumptions) layered over the new evidence (e.g. not seeing consciousness).
Is being dead directly experienced right now? Or ever? Have you ever been dead? Or is that an assumption? Is a body not just a label pointing to sensations and colours? Where is the evidence that consciousness is responsible for what is happening right now? Do you see any levers being pulled, or any other means or mechanics that make experience appear??? Or is all of that "effect" an assumption/an aquired spiritual nowledge? Yes, what is happening is undeniably here, but where is the evidence for "consciousness"?
Drop the story and stick to just DIRECT EXPERIENCE
(summaries = thought contemplation, not reports of direct looking)
Also... seems like, feels like = thought content
Nothing is seems/feels like in DE, it's either here plain as a day or not
Sorry to be so blunt, but what you’re saying is concept upon concept upon concept.
Where have all these concepts got you to date? Would you be here if they have worked??
Read one question, put the computer aside if necessary, and actually investigate it. Spend some time looking. Then describe exactly what you discovered before moving on to the next question.
There is no need to explain HOW or WHY anything happens. And there is no need to arrive at the conclusion that there is no self. Just report plainly what you SEE.
Frustration comes when old ideas crash with new ideas, but we are not here to replace one set of beliefs with another. We are here just to see what is real and what is not.
If an "I" seems to be doing something, tell me! That's exactly what we want to investigate.
If you find nothing, describe what was actually present instead.
And if you don't know, that's absolutely fine too. :)
Remember, we're not trying to construct a new understanding of life. We're examining assumptions about what is already happening. The answers aren't nearly as important as the looking that happens while investigating each question. The shift happens in looking not in contemplating…
Let's slow down and give each pointer the attention it deserves. Please revisit my last questions and write a new report of each investigation
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hello Rali,

Please be blunt! I understand directness much more easily than gentlesness--not that you can't be both direct and gentle, but anyway. Thanks for your assessment of my 'thoughtful' response. I have a habit of overthinking despite whether it's efficient or effective. Or healthy.

So here's attempt #2!

Is there an unstable one?

No

A temporary one?

No

Any separate Elle at all, anywhere in actual experience?

No

You have found sensations, thoughts, preferences (thoughts), contractions (sensations), intentions (thoughts), actions (colours and sensations), and the familiar feeling of "mine" (sensation).
But have you ever found an actual Elle or any other entity owning or directing any of them?

No

And when the thought "I am experiencing this" appears, is that thought evidence of an experiencer, or simply another part of whatever is happening?

It sounds like evidence of an experiencer, but I can’t find an experiencer

But does that require a separate experiencer?

No

When a sound is heard, is there hearing AND someone hearing?

No

Can you find the dividing line between them?

No

Where does the hearing end and the hear-er begin?

There is only hearing happening.

Is there even a separate sound apart from hearing?

No

Is there a subject doing something on an object, or is that just language?

No, it’s language.

If awareness/knower is found, how is it found/known?

I don’t think I know what awareness is at all.

Can awareness be seen?

No.

Can it be felt?

No

Can it be smelled?

No

Can it be tasted?

No

Can it be heard?

No

Can awareness itself be found?

No

Or is there simply whatever is appearing, plus a thought saying "I am aware of it."

I can only find what appears.

Is there any evidence for a separate knower/awareness/ consciousness/ expeirncer/ the Universe /etc besides the undeniable fact of whatever IS happening?

There is only what happens.

Is there even a separate knowing apart from what IS happening??

Knowing seems to happen as things arise.

Where does knowing ends and where does whatever is happening begin?

Knowing arises with what happens; knowing doesn’t exist prior to what happens or after.

Where is the boundary?

There is no boundary.

Can the thing called “attention”/”focus” be found?

Attention cannot be located; it’s a filter.

Does attention have a shape, location, or boundary?

No.

Do you see a "torch" being pointed at things sitting around in the dark waiting to be illuminated?

No.

Can you see anything moving from one image to another, or from one thought to another?

No.

Or is one image simply appearing, then another image is simply appearing, and thought says “Attention moved from this image to that image”?

Images appear and thought narrates.

Can you choose what will be noticed next?

No.

Sit quietly for a few minutes. Notice sounds, sensations, colours, and thoughts.
What decides which one becomes clear?

Nothing I can find. Things arise. There is sensing.

Is there an entity moving it?

No.

Do you move it?

No.

Can you decide what it will land on next?

No.

Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?

Things happen, sensing happens. What’s prominent changes moment to moment.

Hold focus on breath - see how focus moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?

No.

Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

No.

What is looking/noticing/attention made of? There is what IS happening and the description of it. Is looking/ focusing any different from the commentary over what is the most prominent (the bold font) at the moment?

I don’t understand this chunk.

Try this now. Sit quietly and notice what becomes prominent next. A sound may stand out. Then a sensation. Then an image. Then a thought.
Was there a controller choosing the sequence?

No.

Could the next focus be known before it happened?

No.

Now look at the labels themselves.
“Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words (DE labels) for describing experience.
But are three separate things actually found with a clear boundary between them?

They don’t all occur in the exact same moment. I don’t know if they are separate things or one thing happening over an instant.

At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?

No.

Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?

No.

Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?

They are descriptions for an instantaneous process that is experienced.

Without any labels is there anything to be focused on?

No.

Or is there indivisible, undescribable (but experiecable) happening?

It’s all being here now.

Love,
Elle

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

Some clarifications.

And when the thought "I am experiencing this" appears, is that thought evidence of an experiencer, or simply another part of whatever is happening?
It sounds like evidence of an experiencer, but I can’t find an experiencer.

What I’m trying to say is that when I look into the experience, something arises, there is awareness, then thought, “something arises.” And then it seems like something must be receiving this, or it wouldn’t be known, but I can’t find anything. Does nothing happen without a knower?

Can the thing called “attention”/”focus” be found?
Attention cannot be located; it’s a filter.

What I mean by a filter is that one thing becomes prominent then another thing becomes prominent, but the whole scene is still perceptible, there’s just one element in the spotlight.

Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?
They are descriptions for an instantaneous process that is experienced.

What I mean by process is I experience these in quick succession, not all at once.

Love,
Elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
Thank you for going through the questions again!
You've now given me lots of No answers, but that's not quite what I'm asking for either. Each question is an invitation to LOOK, not a question to answer. The important part is what you discover while looking. A simple No doesn't tell me what actually happened during the investigation. For example, when you say there is no controller, what was actually experienced when you looked for one? Was there a thought, a sensation, an urge, movement? What was present that might have been mistaken for a controller?

Now, let's look at your clarification:

And then it seems like something must be receiving this, or it wouldn’t be known, but I can’t find anything.

This is interesting! Notice the difference between what you actually find and what thought insists must be there. One way to definitely spot a thought disguised as an experience:
Seems like, feels like, sounds like… = thought content (not experience)
There is nothing like seems/feels/sounds/tastes/smells LIKE, it’s either here plain as a day or not. To find out whether something is actually seen and heard, or only thought of, simply check… Can it clearly be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted? If not, it’s a thought.

OK…There is experiencing. Then thought says that something must be receiving it.
But is that receiver actually experienced? Or is the necessity for a receiver itself just another thought?
So if there is nothing seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt and there is a claim for awareness/knowing, that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something. This “feeling” could also be called aliveness, presence, being, or I AM, but even that is a label, is it not? Is there anything here that is not the senses?
The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching an apple or a feeling of presence/aliveness/awareness. The feeling of presence is a combination of sensations happening in quick succession (a process as you call it), making it seem and feel “present”. It’s important to differentiate the label from the actual experience. It's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought. So when you say there is nothing but it feels like something, I want to question it, because you are reifying something that isn't there.

Without the label presence, do you notice that these are also sensations? What is stopping you from dropping the concept of awareness? Explore the resistance to this? Is there any fear of letting go? Be honest with yourself! Is there any “truth’ worth fight for?
Calling yourself Awareness and not I or Elle....changes nothing. There is still a someone/something that is seeking and that life is happening to. There is still a desire to identify as a something.

There is awareness, then thought, something arises.

Look again. Is awareness itself something you actually find BEFORE the experience? (you should be able to provide a description?) Or is there simply just the experience, with thought describing it as being known?

Where does awareness stop and the thoughts start, is there a visible border? Are there ”solid” or with any shape thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? Can there be awareness without thoughts (or any other object: sound, colour…)? Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction?

Take a sound, for example. Close your eyes and listen.
Is there first a receiver waiting for the sound, and then the sound arrives?
Or is there simply hearing?
Are hearing and knowing of it separate or are they one and the same? ? Is there a border between a sound and the knowing of it? Is there a distance between a sound and the knowing of it or is that just an imaginary distance?
How is awareness/knowing of something different from the labelling of that something if all is inseparable?

Don't answer immediately. Stay with the actual hearing for a while and notice what happens when thought introduces a receiver.

What I mean by a filter is that one thing becomes prominent then another thing becomes prominent, but the whole scene is still perceptible, there’s just one element in the spotlight

That's a useful description, but can an actual spotlight or a mechanism/filter selecting what becomes prominent be found? Or is prominence itself simply changing?

What I mean by process is I experience these in quick succession, not all at once.

Yes, things may appear one after another. Does succession require an entity organising or receiving them?
We don't need to explain HOW experiencing happens. We are checking whether the entity thought says MUST be there can actually be found.
For now, let's stay with just the hearing experiment. Please describe what you actually noticed, including any sense of a receiver, rather than giving me the conclusion that there is no hearer. And if a receiver seems to be there, describe exactly what makes it seem so.

Here is an interesting video for your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=18&t=8s

Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

I tried to post earlier, but the site was down. Thank you for your questions. I'm still wrestling the compulsion to answer "thoughtfully;" hopefully I've made a little progress.

For example, when you say there is no controller, what was actually experienced when you looked for one? Was there a thought, a sensation, an urge, movement? What was present that might have been mistaken for a controller?

When I look for a controller, I find an impulse to act followed by an action. The impulse is a thought with a sensation that I don’t know how to describe, it feels maybe closest to a push from behind, and the thought and sensation are very close together. The thought is self-referential or commanding– “Do this,” or “I’m gonna do this.” And it is followed quickly by the action named. For example, “Ask,” followed by, “Audrey, do you want x?”

But is that receiver actually experienced? Or is the necessity for a receiver itself just another thought?

If there’s no receiver, there’s no way receiving can be happening. Sensing happens and then a thought happens.

So if there is nothing seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt and there is a claim for awareness/knowing, that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something. This “feeling” could also be called aliveness, presence, being, or I AM, but even that is a label, is it not?

Breathing is happening. It is felt. It is heard. It is sometimes smelled. Breathing is a label, but the action is happening.

Is there anything here that is not the senses?

The body is the senses. That feels more physical than semantic. The body/parts of the body.

Without the label presence, do you notice that these are also sensations?

I notice that sensations are sensed and thoughts arise and actions happen.

What is stopping you from dropping the concept of awareness?

The senses sense and there is perception/interpretation thought and the body responds.

Explore the resistance to this? Is there any fear of letting go? Be honest with yourself! Is there any “truth’ worth fight for?

I don’t want to fight. I don’t know any truth. I’m just trying to understand.

Is awareness itself something you actually find BEFORE the experience? (you should be able to provide a description?)

Do you mean that the senses don’t exist until they’re activated? Or that the ability to sense is not realized until sensing happens?

Or is there simply just the experience, with thought describing it as being known?

There is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching, and there is thought. The senses sense, then thoughts are interpretations. But even senses are interpretations.

Where does awareness stop and the thoughts start, is there a visible border? Are there ”solid” or with any shape thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”?

Maybe there is no awareness?

Can there be awareness without thoughts (or any other object: sound, colour…)? Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction?

Breath is always present.

Take a sound, for example. Close your eyes and listen.
Is there first a receiver waiting for the sound, and then the sound arrives?
Or is there simply hearing?

Hearing is there and first it hears quiet. Then sound.

Are hearing and knowing of it separate or are they one and the same??

Hearing is all I can find.

Is there a border between a sound and the knowing of it? Is there a distance between a sound and the knowing of it or is that just an imaginary distance?

There is only hearing.

How is awareness/knowing of something different from the labelling of that something if all is inseparable?

I don’t understand? Awareness is different from labeling.

can an actual spotlight or a mechanism/filter selecting what becomes prominent be found? Or is prominence itself simply changing?

What I meant was that the prominence changes, but the rest is still perceptible. Thought is able to filter.

Does succession require an entity organising or receiving them?

No.

Love,
Lauren

[poppyseed]

Hi Lauren

I'm still wrestling the compulsion to answer "thoughtfully;" hopefully I've made a little progress.

Yes, there is some progress but there is still a lot of contemplation rather then simple reporting. I ask a question and instead of reporting what is observed you give me contra arguments :)
Let's look at a few assumptions that keep appearing in your replies. :)

The body is the senses.

And:

The senses sense, then thoughts are interpretations.

But is that what you actually experience, or is it an explanation of how experiencing works?
Close your eyes and listen to a sound.
What is actually present? Can you find an ear doing the hearing? Can you experience a sense organ receiving a sound? Or is there simply hearing?
I'm not asking whether ears exist or whether they're necessary for hearing biologically. That's not our investigation. I'm asking whether a separate hearer, even one called a sense organ, is actually found in the hearing itself?

If there's no receiver, there's no way receiving can be happening.

That's a logical assumption (if - then), not something you've discovered by looking.
Let's investigate it rather than believe or reject it.

Now this:

Breath is always present.

You gave this as an answer when I asked whether awareness can be experienced.
Does that make breathing awareness? Is the sensation labelled "breath" evidence of a separate entity that knows it?
And:

Breathing is happening. It is felt. It is heard. It is sometimes smelled. Breathing is a label, but the action is happening.

Look carefully here!
You recognise that breathing is a label, but then you turn breathing into something that exists independently of the sensations, sounds and smells as an action - it can be heard, smelled, and felt.
Is there actually a separate thing called breathing that is doing something?
Or are there simply sensations, sounds, smells and thought/label of this combination “breathing”?
Don't turn breathing into another thing/entity! And let's go even further.
You say breathing is felt, heard and smelled. But look at what this language suggests. It makes it sound as though there are TWO things — a sensation AND something feeling it.
In direct experience, is there a sensation AND a feeling of that sensation? Or is there ONLY sensation (labelled "breathing") happening?
Where is the supposed feeler? Is there anything apart from sensation itself?
And the same with smell. Is there a smell AND something smelling it? Or just SMELL?
Notice how language introduces a subject doing something to an object. But can that division actually be found?
And when thought says "awareness knows this", has anything new actually appeared, apart from another thought (i.e. about awareness)?
We are not trying to explain how experiencing works, Lauren. We are investigating whether the divisions that language suggests are actually there – what is real and what is just a label / an icon (a mailbox on your desktop).
Is there anything apart from what is experienced, or does thought keep adding an experiencer to it?

And finally this:

Hearing is there and first it hears quiet. Then sound.

Notice what you've done here! You've turned hearing into something that exists on its own and HEARS "quiet", then hears "sound".
But is that actually experienced?
When there is what you call quiet, is there a separate HEARING sitting there waiting for a sound to arrive? Or is there simply whatever sound (or absence of noticeable sound) is present?
Hearing “quiet” is also a sound – a vague and undistinguishable (not labelled as something), but still sound labelled “silence”/”quiet”. Like you said there is always "breathing" and also "heartbeat" :). So is there a separate hearing waiting to hear or just a sequence of sounds – “quiet” then a “sound” (e.g. “birds chirping”)
All of this is happening when thought is describing "hearing". Check:
Do you always observe "quiet" or only in relation to "sound" and "hearing"?
If it happens only when you are talking/thinking about hearing then an indepedent hearing doing stuff exists only in thought :)
Don't imagine what happens between sounds. LOOK at what is actually present.
And notice that this is the same assumption we keep encountering: that something must exist to receive or experience whatever appears.
First it was the body, then awareness, and now hearing itself.
But is any separate receiver actually found?
Please stay with this and describe what you discover in the actual experience of listening. Don't answer from what you know about hearing.
Take each question individually and spend time LOOKING before replying. I want your reports/observations, not contra arguments and conclusions about what must be happening.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hello Rali!

I tried really hard to stick with direct experience. I think I might understand now.

Close your eyes and listen to a sound.
What is actually present?

Hearing is happening. I don’t hear a source and I don’t hear a hearer. Only sound. Thought identifies sounds: the heater, traffic, talking.

Can you find an ear doing the hearing? Can you experience a sense organ receiving a sound? Or is there simply hearing?

I don’t hear an ear. I don’t hear a sense organ. There is hearing. And thinking. So much thinking.

I'm asking whether a separate hearer, even one called a sense organ, is actually found in the hearing itself?

I don’t find anything separate in hearing. Hearing is one unified experience.

Does that make breathing awareness? Is the sensation labelled "breath" evidence of a separate entity that knows it?

Breathing is not awareness. When I close my eyes and try to experience the experiencer, all I find is breathing.

Is there actually a separate thing called breathing that is doing something?
Or are there simply sensations, sounds, smells and thought/label of this combination “breathing”?

Yes! That’s what I meant. The combined sensations is breathing, and it is happening.

In direct experience, is there a sensation AND a feeling of that sensation? Or is there ONLY sensation (labelled "breathing") happening?

In direct experience, there is only experiencing happening, sensing, thinking.

Where is the supposed feeler? Is there anything apart from sensation itself?

I don’t find a feeler, just sensations and thoughts.

And the same with smell. Is there a smell AND something smelling it? Or just SMELL?

Just smell.

Notice how language introduces a subject doing something to an object. But can that division actually be found?

In direct experience, I only find what is happening now. Hearing. Seeing. Neither subject nor object.

And when thought says "awareness knows this", has anything new actually appeared, apart from another thought (i.e. about awareness)?

When a thought says I am aware, it’s just a thought. I can’t find awareness outside of sensing and thinking. But the thought I am aware is very convincing.

Is there anything apart from what is experienced, or does thought keep adding an experiencer to it?

I can only find experiencing. Sensing, happening now, thinking and thinking and thinking.

When there is what you call quiet, is there a separate HEARING sitting there waiting for a sound to arrive? Or is there simply whatever sound (or absence of noticeable sound) is present?

I can’t find hearing separate from sound.

But is any separate receiver actually found?

No

Love,
Elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
Much better! :) Wonderful looking! This time you're describing what is actually found, rather than trying to explain how it all works. You looked for a hearer, a feeler, a receiver, and found only hearing, sensations, and thoughts.
Now something caught my attention:

The thought I am aware is very convincing.

Let's look at that!
What makes this thought so convincing?
When the thought I am aware appears, is there a sensation accompanying it? Perhaps a feeling of being located somewhere, a contraction, or a sense of presence/sense of self?
Look at what actually gives the impression that there is an I behind experiencing.

Let’s explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?
Also:
[b]What[/b] discerns it, distinguishes it, filters it out from "not self", etc.?
If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?
When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me"/experienced)?
And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

What you can do is to solate a feeling/sensation, only one at a time. For example, focus on the sensations of the head that feels like a “me”. Keep the focus on the sensation itself and ask:
Is this sensation aware? Does this sensation know anything? Does it know whatever is seen?
Does this sensation perceives the sounds in the room? Does this sensation aware of thoughts?

Do this until the sensation doesn't feel like a “me” anymore, until it's just a sensation. When you are done with one sensation, go to the next. When you are done with the body/sensations, do the same with mental images/memories, and also with thoughts.

And notice something else.

I think I might understand now.

Understanding is not what we're after. :)
The question is whether the assumption of a separate Elle has actually been seen through.
In ordinary life, when thinking, talking, choosing, or reacting happens, can you find an actual Elle doing any of it?
Or is there still a feeling of being Elle, even though no separate entity can be found?
Don't try to make that feeling disappear. Just examine what it's made of and whether it proves the existence of anyone.
What exactly makes the thought I am aware feel true?
Take your time with this one. I want to hear what you discover, not what you've concluded. ;)
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

Thank you! When I said I think I understand, I meant I think I finally understand how to make myself look instead of trying to explain--in this batch of questions, I did some meaningful looking; some of what I noticed surprised me. There's still one bit of explaining, but you can ignore it. It's just me still grappling with the process.

What makes this thought so convincing?

I don’t know. Because when sensing happens, I think instantly that I know the sound, the smell, etc. It feels even more instant with visual information, “I see the monitor, mug, fingers typing.” Like it happens instantly, there is a visual experience and then immediately a thought, “I see.” Then there are thoughts, random thoughts that arise for nowhere, and the content of those thoughts is known. It seems like a process "I perceive."

When the thought I am aware appears, is there a sensation accompanying it? Perhaps a feeling of being located somewhere, a contraction, or a sense of presence/sense of self?

I notice, like, blankness/blackness. I don’t notice any other sensation–except hearing, touching, seeing. And then the thoughts, I am hearing, feeling, seeing. And then the thoughts naming the sensations. And then the thought “I am aware of these things.”

Does the sense of self have a location?

I manage from my head. (Probably not a surprise I feel that way, heh). Thoughts thoughts thoughts.

When I think “I,” or “me,” all I find is the thought “I am me.” But I can't find a self in the thought. When I think what is my self, I think stories, body, social connections. And that sense feels like a warm fullness, like a warm water balloon in my chest. But when I think “my” thoughts, that feels like a pulling or a grabbing in my chest. So the sense of possessing is a feeling of contraction.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

A chest-sized water balloon.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

The sense of self is just a sensation. When I pay attention to thoughts, I can’t find a self making them. They just arrive. They don’t have a self. They don’t seem to be from a self. Are they to a self? They contain content, how do I know it? That’s where awareness seems like it’s there, knowing the content. Thoughts can’t know? I know I’m using logic here, I know, I know, and I’m trying hard to stick with just looking. I really am trying. I'm looking at thoughts. I'm looking at thoughts and they are appear and are known. They don't seem to come from anywhere. I don't find any entity knowing them. This is going to be the hardest shackle to break. Because if I am not aware of them, what is? I experience thoughts. That is real.

If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

The sense of self is a sensation, and sensations communicate–for example, pain can communicate that you should stop touching the hot stove.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

It’s a sensation?

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought? What is found?

The sense of self is made up of a feeling and a lot of thoughts and my body.

What discerns it, distinguishes it, filters it out from "not self", etc.?

The physical limits of my body seem like one distinction between self and not self. But. The body is not the self. And the self is not in the body. And I don't think there is a self out of the body. Nothing is self and nothing is not self?

If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?

Nothing? Whoa. I think thoughts create it and notice it. BUT THOUGHTS CAN'T CREATE OR NOTICE. Thoughts can't DO anything. I don't know. There is nothing creating the sense of me and nothing noticing it. This is where awareness seems to fit. There is thought and there is awareness of thought. Not some mystical Awareness, just a plain, like, state of knowing.

When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me"/experienced)?
I don’t understand this one?

And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

I’m interpreting identifying with as a parallel kind of experience. So I might say, I identify with people who’ve gone through divorce. Identifying as is more like, I might say, I identify as an English teacher, so a role/story you perform. Is that how you mean it?
Having experienced a me my whole life….I think it’s because I tend to identify as whatever character I’m playing. At any given moment that could be a number of things: mom, peer counselor, cat owner, friend, queer person. I’m a word person. I like a label. But that reifies a sense of “I am.”

focus on the sensations of the head that feels like a “me”. Keep the focus on the sensation itself and ask:
Is this sensation aware?

The sensation is not aware.

Does this sensation know anything?

No

Does it know whatever is seen?

No

Does this sensation perceives the sounds in the room?

No

Does this sensation aware of thoughts?

No

In ordinary life, when thinking, talking, choosing, or reacting happens, can you find an actual Elle doing any of it?

I haven’t found an elle. But… In certain things, I identify with the story of will or ownership.

Or is there still a feeling of being Elle, even though no separate entity can be found?

When I make some kinds of choices or when I think possessive thoughts (my kids, my friends, my cats, my house in particular), I still feel a strong sense of an elle. It’s less at other times, like right now typing.

Don't try to make that feeling disappear. Just examine what it's made of and whether it proves the existence of anyone.

It doesn’t prove the existence of anyone separate, and I feel convinced that me, I, myself is a label for a collection of things and ideas that only functions as it does based on numerous factors obviously out of anyone's individual control. Which is not looking, it’s explaining. again. Sorry. I’m not even answering a question. Just the sensation of self doesn’t prove there’s a self, and in fact indicates exactly that there is no self because sensations, like thoughts, appear and go away.

What exactly makes the thought I am aware feel true?

It feels true because thoughts arise and the content is known. It seems like awareness is what knows the content.