This is it

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

I'm doing fine thanks, except my dear old cat Percy that we (my wife and I) have had for 18 years is fading fast, so that's a bit sad.

Anyway, it doesn't seem as if you've been able to find in direct experience any self that does, causes, directs or controls thinking in any way. It's often a really tricky aspect for people to see, so that's good. There were, however, a couple of points that I'd like to clear up with you.

Q: Can you stop a thought from coming?

A: No, although when looking for them they seem to not come so much and when they do come it's in the form of barely noticeable "whispers".

Could you say a little more about this.

What do you think gives rise to this lessening and quietening down of thinking? Are you aware of any self-entity doing this?

Q: Can you stop it in the middle? A: Yes

This seems to link in with the reducing and quietening to a whisper of thoughts referred to above.

Where in direct experience is the "you" that stops thoughts? If there isn't one, what actually happens?

"I" seems to be there to create me and "table" seems to point to something more concrete although both seem to point to concepts really. But I'll give you that it's a lot easier to find an actual table :)

Spot on. That made me laugh!

Ok, while we're clearing those bits up, let's move on to the (other) senses/sense arisings, and the self as experiencer (or not):

When you look at something, an orange, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing?

If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

You can do the same with hearing, birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill whatever, and similarly tasting, feeling and smelling.

It's going well. How is it for you?

P x

[Kim S]

Hi Pete, I'm sorry to hear about your cat. I'm sure it lead a good life in your family. As you are preparing to say goodby, we are expecting a new member of our family in a couple of weeks. Both aspects of the same process I guess.

Anyways, here it goes:

What do you think gives rise to this lessening and quietening down of thinking?

Not sure. It's like the thoughts don't "like" to be observed, as if they thrive in the shadows and hide or wither away when the "light" of awareness shines on them. I know this is a poetic description, but it's the best I got.

Are you aware of any self-entity doing this?

No, but it some how seems like the same phenomenon that happened when I first started meditating by observing the breath. The feeling arose that the breath couldn't flow naturally when I observed it and that I was disturbing it or controlling it somewhat. This persisted for years and was a great hindrance for me to build a regular meditation practice as it felt very uncomfortable.

Q: Can you stop it in the middle? A: Yes
This seems to link in with the reducing and quietening to a whisper of thoughts referred to above.

Yes!

Where in direct experience is the "you" that stops thoughts? If there isn't one, what actually happens?

No "me" that stops the thought but some sense of an observer is there. I notice the thought and then focus on it. That stops it and tension arises or builds in the stomach.

When you look at something, an orange, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing?

If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

Slippery stuff. Sometimes there just seems to be the seeing. At other times there seems to be some kind of background plane somewhat aligned with the back of my head that I identify with although it's just a plane and seems too impersonal to be me, so it doesn't really stick.

It's going well. How is it for you?

Thanks. A bit calmer today. When we started this it was like you poked a hornets nest and a lot of aggressive, confused and scared thoughts flew around in my mind in my defence. I sense that you noticed that and gave me a few calming attaboys so we could work with this from a less direct angle :) then I felt proud that I noticed that and yada yada yada....I'm getting really tired of this and longing for a resolution.

Hopefully /Kim

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

Yes, Percy the cat was a lovely old chap. Gone now.

Many congratulations on your impending addition to your family. I'm happy for you. All part of life, always just living itself, right now.

Q: What do you think gives rise to this lessening and quietening down of thinking?

A: Not sure. It's like the thoughts don't "like" to be observed, as if they thrive in the shadows and hide or wither away when the "light" of awareness shines on them. I know this is a poetic description, but it's the best I got.

I recognise what you are saying, and have noticed the very same thing myself many times. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't saying, or hinting, that you are aware in direct experience of a subtle self that could control or influence the breath in some way, rather than it being conditions and awareness.

It seems clear that you can't see a self doing this at all. Am I correct? Just need to be sure that's all.

No "me" that stops the thought but some sense of an observer is there. I notice the thought and then focus on it. That stops it and tension arises or builds in the stomach

I recognise that at times there is a sense of a witness/observer, but is there really one there in any form? Can you see one in direct experience, or is it awareness awareing?

Slippery stuff. Sometimes there just seems to be the seeing. At other times there seems to be some kind of background plane somewhat aligned with the back of my head that I identify with although it's just a plane and seems too impersonal to be me, so it doesn't really stick.

You say that sometimes there seems to be seeing. What happens the other times? What happens in direct experience then? Also, seems gives me the impression that you're not sure there is just seeing. Are you? Have you also "looked" at hearing, touching, tasting and smelling?

A bit calmer today.

I'm glad that things have settled down a bit as you've progressed with this investigation.

I'm getting really tired of this and longing for a resolution.

Again, and I'm not saying this merely to encourage you, your tiredness and longing for resolution just show that you are deep within the looking process and are really making good progress. Just keep looking, looking, looking in direct experience whenever "you remember". Stick with this: seeing the truth that there's no self is just such a wonderful gift.

Let's move on to the self as doer/controller:

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no "I" involved, but how is it for you when walking?

Just get up... walk slowly... is there a controller that controls walking? Or is there just walking?

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing?

Is there any "I" there for any of these actions, or are they just like "automatic"?

Look to see whether, when "you" do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, "I did that."

Are all actions "automatic"?

P x

[Kim S]

Hi. Thank you for your well wishes Pete.

It seems clear that you can't see a self doing this at all. Am I correct? Just need to be sure that's all.

You are correct. No doer, it just happens.

I recognise that at times there is a sense of a witness/observer, but is there really one there in any form? Can you see one in direct experience, or is it awareness awareing? You say that sometimes there seems to be seeing. What happens the other times? What happens in direct experience then?

At first there is just the seen. Then identification with sensations around the eyes. When looking for that identity it really feels like I'm chasing my own tail as it shifts around and is always where I'm not looking and always just out of reach. At one time identification then happened with the field that contained all of sensations and then with the sensations. I was the room i was seeing. At that time identification with separate self seemed arbitrary.

Also, seems gives me the impression that you're not sure there is just seeing. Are you?

You are correct as there's an vague identity pulsing into existence.

Have you also "looked" at hearing, touching, tasting and smelling?

I have, but can't see clearly at the moment. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no "I" involved, but how is it for you when walking?

Just get up... walk slowly... is there a controller that controls walking? Or is there just walking?

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Is there any "I" there for any of these actions, or are they just like "automatic"?

Look to see whether, when "you" do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, "I did that."

There's some identification when I'm not looking and the thoughts you are talking about, but it all appears automatic when I observe. No doer.

Love /Kim

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

Q: It seems clear that you can't see a self doing this at all. Am I correct? Just need to be sure that's all.
A:You are correct. No doer, it just happens

Excellent. Good to be sure.

At first there is just the seen. Then identification with sensations around the eyes. When looking for that identity it really feels like I'm chasing my own tail as it shifts around and is always where I'm not looking and always just out of reach. At one time identification then happened with the field that contained all of sensations and then with the sensations. I was the room i was seeing. At that time identification with separate self seemed arbitrary.

You start with At first there is just the seen. And that "at first" is when experience is raw, unfiltered, i.e. direct experience. Then identification with sensations around the eyes. etc etc strongly indicates that thoughts kick in, which isn't just looking into "your" direct experience is it? So, please have another look at my question about a witness/observer and let me know whether you can actually see one one in direct experience.

Q: Also, seems gives me the impression that you're not sure there is just seeing. Are you?
A: You are correct as there's an vague identity pulsing into existence.

So this appears to be part of the same aspect as the one above. Again, look at your immediate, direct experience to see whether at any time that you LOOK there is anything more than seeing. If so, what on earth can it be? What is it?

Q: Have you also "looked" at hearing, touching, tasting and smelling?
A: I have, but can't see clearly at the moment. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

I look forward to more detail.

There's some identification when I'm not looking and the thoughts you are talking about, but it all appears automatic when I observe. No doer.

You got it.

Finally, moving on a bit from doing to deciding/choosing (although the border between these is, to say the least, a little hazy) try this exercise:

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea “i just chose to (not) raise my right arm” come after the event itself?

Believe me, you're doing well. You're getting "there".

P x

[Kim S]

Hey Pete!

You start with At first there is just the seen. And that "at first" is when experience is raw, unfiltered, i.e. direct experience. Then identification with sensations around the eyes. etc etc strongly indicates that thoughts kick in, which isn't just looking into "your" direct experience is it? So, please have another look at my question about a witness/observer and let me know whether you can actually see one one in direct experience.

I can't see the witness. I see that sensations are claimed (identification) that give the impression of a witness but as I'm now able to observe these sensations the identification drops.

Q: Have you also "looked" at hearing, touching, tasting and smelling?

So, the same stuff happens as with seeing.

Finally, moving on a bit from doing to deciding/choosing (although the border between these is, to say the least, a little hazy) try this exercise:

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea “i just chose to (not) raise my right arm” come after the event itself?

As you wrote, it's linked with doing. The choosing just happens. I can observe some kind of push and pull between the alternatives sometimes, but no me there involved in the choice.

Believe me, you're doing well. You're getting "there".

I've chanced into most of this stuff earlier in my life, just out of curiosity about my consciousness. We are now finally moving into territory that's somewhat new to me. So that helps me a bit with accepting that I might actually be making some kind of progress and not just going through the motions.

I have a question about choice that's been bothering me since we began this play of guiding and looking. What happens to responsibility if there is no chooser? And ethics?

Take care /Kim

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

I have a question about choice that's been bothering me since we began this play of guiding and looking. What happens to responsibility if there is no chooser? And ethics?

First of all,to maintain perspective, the core task here is for you to look to see for yourself whether there is a self anywhere to be found, and for me to point out where to look. That's it. So, strictly, speculation or discussion falls outside that, and can easily become a distraction, and I want to avoid that, obviously. However, your question is one I asked myself during the guiding process and clearly deserves a response, albeit, of necessity, fairly brief. I'll let you have my thoughts on this, but please be aware that this is just my take, no one else's.

We don't need any self to learn things. From when we are very young we start to learn; it just happens; it's automatic. Among the things we are taught by our parents, schools, from our culture etc., is how to behave ethically, responsibly and with consideration for others. This clearly varies somewhat from person to person depending on their conditioning etc, and varies from culture to culture. Some of this behavioural "programming" may well also be innate, I don't really know. However, this sense of responsibility and ethics has to compete with the incessant demands of the apparent self-entity for security, fixity, improvement, more of what "I" desire, less of what "I" don't want. Greed, hatred and delusion, on and on. When I became a Buddhist quite a long time ago, I was told that the five (later ten) ethical precepts that I was required to undertake as training principles were reflections of how an enlightened person would behave, and that I should aspire to live by them. I learned them and tried to live by them with varying degrees of success. I didn't know at the time that there was no "me" to control my behavior. After the self is seen to be a total illusion (and I'm not trying to suggest that this is enlightenment, but it's a fundamental step) the incessant demands of the ego are seen for what they are, just thoughts with no substance to validate them in any way, and behaviour autmatically becomes more ethical and ""responsible" of its own accord. So,there's no self, no "I" to choose to be ethical, responsible, or to take responsibility, and there never was; but, after it's seen that there is no one that needs to be constantly placated, that's seen to be really of no consequence at all. I hope that I've helped to clarify this for you.

So, let's move on to the body:

Does the body experience sensations and thought?

or

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

Finally, let me know how you think you're doing with all of this. How's it going? Let me know so that we can focus on any areas of doubt or uncertainty.

P x

[Kim S]

Pete, thank you for sharing your take on responsibility and no self. It's inspirational for me and eases my worries somewhat.

Does the body experience sensations and thought?

or

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

The body is a concept/label for some of the sensations from all sense doors. Like seeing "the body", feeling "the body" or smelling "the body" and so on. Sensations labeled as the body don't experience thoughts but thoughts and other sensations are interrelated by cause and effect.

Finally, let me know how you think you're doing with all of this. How's it going? Let me know so that we can focus on any areas of doubt or uncertainty.

The only thing that I'm not sure about among the things we looked at so far is regarding the observer. I earlier wrote this:

I can't see the witness. I see that sensations are claimed (identification) that give the impression of a witness but as I'm now able to observe these sensations the identification drops.

I believe that might give you the impression that I'm certain there is no witness but I'm not. Sure identification drops, but it also almost immediately reappears somewhere else and so it goes. Chasing my own tail. And also about the "claiming of sensations" is more like my best guess than something I see very clearly. Today I believe I started to see quick "I" creating image-thoughts conveying a sense of witness but that's also like my best guess and description of what appeared to happen. Not something I'm very sure of.

Bundles of love /Kim :)

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

Pete, thank you for sharing your take on responsibility and no self. It's inspirational for me and eases my worries somewhat.

I'm pleased that you say that.

I can't see the witness. I see that sensations are claimed (identification) that give the impression of a witness but as I'm now able to observe these sensations the identification drops.

I believe that might give you the impression that I'm certain there is no witness but I'm not. Sure identification drops, but it also almost immediately reappears somewhere else and so it goes. Chasing my own tail. And also about the "claiming of sensations" is more like my best guess than something I see very clearly. Today I believe I started to see quick "I" creating image-thoughts conveying a sense of witness but that's also like mhy best guess and description of what appeared to happen. Not something I'm very sure of.

I'm not sure why, if you can see identification for what it is, i.e. thoughts attaching/clinging to awareness - "that" which is always effortlessly awareing/witnessing/observing - the fact that this illusion tends to quickly reappear can make it any more valid, convincing or credible. Surely, once you've seen that there is no witness to be found in direct experienice, but simply witnessing, "Chasing my own tail" and "the claiming of sensations" are just other ways of saying thoughts are continually creating a story. That's really not a problem if you're not fooled by this, but see it for what it is. Essentially, it is only looking in direct experience that is going to show you that, just as there is no seer, hearer, chooser, thinker or doer, there is no witnesser, only witnessing. Thoughts can tell you there is a discrete entity witnessing but, as your senses will tell you every time, there just isn't. All I can say is look, look and look again, and see your doubts for what they are, merely thoughts trying to hang on to the illusion of "I/me/mine", and just see the truth in "your" direct experience.

P x

[Kim S]

Hi Pete

"Chasing my own tail" and "the claiming of sensations" are just other ways of saying thoughts are continually creating a story.

You are correct, they are afterthoughts reaffirming the story of "I". Without them there is only the seen and the witnessing.

So should I just keep observing until....? Until what? Not sure what I'm waiting for.

Love /Kim

[Kim S]

Hello again,

"I" toughts (all thoughts for that matter) have largely disapeared during the last hour. The ones that arise don't cling. Resting In the moment to a large extent. Could this be it?

[Kim S]

Hi Pete.

You earlier wrote:

Rest assured, that when you see that there is and never has been a "you", a self-entity, with my guiding to help you see that fact for yourself, you'll just know. In exactly the same way that you know that unicorns aren't real, Batman doesn't exist. There's no Santa Claus.

So I guess I'm not done yet. It's not obvious there's no me. Something did change yesterday, but it still takes effort to look and see that.

Take care. /Kim

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

You are correct, they are afterthoughts reaffirming the story of "I". Without them there is only the seen and the witnessing

This is so.

"I" toughts (all thoughts for that matter) have largely disapeared during the last hour. The ones that arise don't cling. Resting In the moment to a large extent. Could this be it?

It certainly sounds like you're close, or "there". As I said at the beginning of this thread, seeing no self can come with a definite "pop" or gradually, or in some kind of combination. It's different for everyone. Also, it's a realisation of fact, like there is no Santa, that can't be unseen and that isn't dependant on any particular mental state. That said, what you say about thoughts, particularly their lack of clinging, is typical of what many people say when they are at the Gate-that-isn't-there.

In your latest post, received after I drafted the above, you say that it still isn't obvious that there's no you, so please explain in how it isn't obvious. Either you know something or you don't, so I'd be interested to know what you mean.

I reckon that now's a good time for some sweep-up questions:

In direct experience

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

There's quite a bit here but the answers can be brief unless, of course, there's something you want to examine some more. Basically, we just need to tidy up and identify anything that needs to be looked into a bit more deeply, or clarified.

Great stuff Kim.

Love,

Pete

[Kim S]

Hi Pete

It certainly sounds like you're close, or "there". As I said at the beginning of this thread, seeing no self can come with a definite "pop" or gradually, or in some kind of combination. It's different for everyone. Also, it's a realisation of fact, like there is no Santa, that can't be unseen and that isn't dependant on any particular mental state. That said, what you say about thoughts, particularly their lack of clinging, is typical of what many people say when they are at the Gate-that-isn't-there.

When you say it can happen gradually, what exactly are we talking about here. Days, weeks, months or even years?

Today there has been a lot more thoughts and they are not letting go nearly as easy as yesterday.

In your latest post, received after I drafted the above, you say that it still isn't obvious that there's no you, so please explain in how it isn't obvious. Either you know something or you don't, so I'd be interested to know what you mean.

I guess I was expecting something else. Everything seems pretty much the same. The concept of "I" is empty but I thought that would make a bigger impact on my life. Don't really see any big difference in levels of anxiety or how I experience pain and suffering.

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

No

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

No

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

No

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

No

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Yes

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

What self? :) (no)

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

There is no self so the question doesn't make sense to me.

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

No

Getting the feeling I'm missing the point. /Kim

[moondog]

Hi Kim,

When you say it can happen gradually, what exactly are we talking about here. Days, weeks, months or even years?

What I'm here for is to point out to you all the areas of experience where a self-entity can possibly be found, and to get you to look to see whether this "I" is to be found anywhere. From what you have said, particularly your latest answers, you have seen that there there is no self, anywhere. There hasn't been a "pop", it has been gradual, although pretty quick, less than two weeks since we started in fact.

Today there has been a lot more thoughts and they are not letting go nearly as easy as yesterday

There is no guarantee that the volume or rapidity of thoughts will suddenly diminish once the truth is seen. Indeed, on seeing no self, many people experience an upsurge of thoughts and emotions as a consequence of them having no "anchor" in the form of the previously imagined self to attach to; so there's a release. The main point to bear in mind in this connection is that I-thoughts no longer have their previous potency because their whole basis has been undermined by being seen to be unreal, and there is no "you" as controller. Life just happens.

I guess I was expecting something else. Everything seems pretty much the same. The concept of "I" is empty but I thought that would make a bigger impact on my life. Don't really see any big difference in levels of anxiety or how I experience pain and suffering.

Everything is pretty much the same! Exactly the same in fact, except you've seen that there is no "I" and never was one. Incidentally, I notice you say that the concept of "I" is empty. This is true, of course, and I'm sure this is just semantics (and on my part, pedantics), but isn't your principal point that there is no "I" in reality, rather than merely conceptually? Just need to be clear as it's crucial here.

"I" is just a thought..so it can't be a thinker, doer, witness or anything at all.

Can you see that this is true?

Given your comments, and before we move towards the final questions, I'd like you to look at all of this from a different perspective; to help you to reveal to yourself, and to me, what you have seen so far during this process.

As always, from direct experience:

With "you" revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

P x