Got self...?

[biisuto]

Hi!

Tired of sitting in the audience and ready see firsthand what all the fuss is about?

Allow me to assist you.

Regards,
Michael
(-/|\-)




"Watch out for that first step, doc. It's a doozy!" - Bugs Bunny

[knabo]

OK, I am prepared to discover the fuss. I hear the water is fine.

There is a little trepidation, but there is nothing left for me to do but jump in.

I have read the book, lurked the forum discussions a bit, read various other books.

I am prepared to post at least daily, I am in the Western US.

Whats next?

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

I’m in Western Australia. Good on you for jumping in. If we can focus and maintain our honesty, the “water" will never feel the same again. There’s literally nothing to lose.

So let’s clarify a few points before we get into it. Please read and confirm that we are on the same page:

1. My role is not to teach but to guide. I will try to keep you focused on your function, which is looking and reporting.
2. In general, I will ask questions, for further clarification of things you write or redirect activities if we get off track. You are to respond to these, including anything you believe to be relevant to the work at hand.
3. You’ve already agreed to post at least once a day, even if it’s just to let me know you’re still alive. I am also able to post daily.
4. Responses are to be from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers about direct experience are best avoided and may even hinder progress, but try to balance this by including enough that you feel your responses are in full.
5. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.
6. Please learn to use the quote function; instructions are located in the link below this line:
"http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660”

Will that work for you?

If so, then let’s continue directly:

Next, let's focus on any expectations you’ve brought with you:

What brought you to the forum? Why have you stayed ? What is it you are seeking?
Examine the "little trepidation" you mentioned. What is it regarding?
I mentioned above that there’s nothing to lose. What, if anything, do you expect to gain?
What other expectations are there about this process?

And, finally for today:

"There is NO ‘me’. ‘I’ do not exist." ...What comes up when you internalise that statement?

"When you say "I", what does that refer to in direct experience? Does it have a shape? A size? A quality? Please look closely and describe in detail what arises in response.

Regards,
Michael

[knabo]

Hi Michael,

Will that work for you?

I understand your role is to guide. I will keep my responses to direct experiences as much as possible and try not to use too many run on sentences. I will also suspend my seeking.
This is all acceptable.

What brought you to the forum?

I found it in my path. I don’t recall exactly, but likely some reference from a Jed McKenna search or similar.

Why have you stayed ? What is it you are seeking?

I read the Gateless Gatecrashers and found something of interest there. I read some of the forum threads but not too many. I do not know exactly what I am seeking. Sometimes I call it the truth. But the Gateless Gate seems to be in my way so I feel the need to go there.

Examine the "little trepidation" you mentioned. What is it regarding?

There is a small bit of anticipation. Similar to opening a present. I hope it’s not socks.

I mentioned above that there’s nothing to lose. What, if anything, do you expect to gain?

Actually I am hoping I don’t gain anything. I am looking to lose things I am holding on to.

What other expectations are there about this process?

After reading the book, I am somewhat familiar with the process. It seems pretty straight forward. I guess I just wanted to try it for myself.
So on to it then…

"There is NO ‘me’. ‘I’ do not exist." ...What comes up when you internalise that statement?

So I am just going to type what comes up without over thinking it.
There is a me that exists. It is the physical self that exists in the world of objects. Other perceived entities acknowledge the uniqueness and separateness of the self. When I say good morning to someone, I acknowledge them as a separate entity in the world of things. I know there is a façade of actions and experiences we use to fully flesh out the entity that is “me”
When I consider that “I” do not exist, this comes back as true. There is no substance behind the thought of I.

"When you say "I", what does that refer to in direct experience? Does it have a shape? A size? A quality?

When I consider “I” (eye) I attach that label to the awareness. Although language does not always bear that out. There are no dimensions or labels I can place on awareness. I only call it awareness as a convenience of conversation. I don’t think I can know “I”

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

I got hallway through my response and something has come up. I will finish it up tonight an it will be a more useful response because of it, I'm sure.

Regards,
Michael


"Watch out for that first step, doc. It's a doozy!" - Bugs Bunny

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

I got back too late last night to do anything but read your post. I actually fell asleep holding my iPad...

I found it (LU Forum) in my path. I don’t recall exactly, but likely some reference from a Jed McKenna search or similar.

...Not that I was bored, just tired. This is good, what I’m reading. I’m also studying Mckenna’s work, so I trust this will be useful to us both.

?..the "little trepidation" you mentioned. What is it regarding?

There is a small bit of anticipation. Similar to opening a present. I hope it’s not socks.

LMAO, beautiful!

…but...what if it is socks…? What if it is something infinitessimally more … banal or obvious... than even socks?

I mentioned above that there’s nothing to lose. What, if anything, do you expect to gain?

Actually I am hoping I don’t gain anything. I am looking to lose things I am holding on to.

Fantastic…but while expectations can only mess with the process of direct experience, that particular expectation (about losing things) seems it should be amenable to being lost. :)

And while we’re at it: what is it that could possibly be holding onto anything?

What other expectations are there about this process?

After reading the book, I am somewhat familiar with the process. It seems pretty straight forward. I guess I just wanted to try it for myself.

Quoting McKenna here, it is literally "that which could not be simpler”. It is merely to look and see for yourself, to verify by direct experience and without deference to external authority, prejudice, belief or dogma what is true. This process exists for that sole purpose and no other.

When I consider that “I” do not exist, this comes back as true.

I don’t want to pick on language too much, but you write, “when I consider that…” which seems to indicate a process of thinking, and NOT looking directly in order to witness, firsthand. This would seem to indicate that you thought your way through it, resting on mental conception without pause or space to see for yourself what’s actual real. How do you respond to this possibiity?

There is no substance behind the thought of I.

And what conclusion (if any) can you draw from this?

I’m also not sure if I understood you in part here. In light of what you wrote above, I deleted my original response to the parts above that, the “There is a me that exists..” part. You were just reporting on passing thoughts, right? Not drawing conclusions?

"When you say "I", what does that refer to in direct experience? Does it have a shape? A size? A quality?

When I consider “I” (eye) I attach that label to the awareness. Although language does not always bear that out. There are no dimensions or labels I can place on awareness. I only call it awareness as a convenience of conversation. I don’t think I can know “I”

So, are you saying that you are a self and it is the field of awareness within which all the ‘selfing’ phenomenon occurs?

Why can’t “I” be known? Is that because “I” is mysteriously, unfathomably unknowable or because it just doesn’t exist to be known? Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor?

…now there’s something I don’t get. Your responses seem to indicate an apparently unfettered understanding …it’s like you and I are looking at the same space…except, apparently, you don’t recognise it as a space. Which means one of two things in the context of our discussion:

1. you mustn’t be actually looking.
2. you’ve done the math but don’t realise the implications of your own answers, ie., you’re waiting for some recognisable sign or signal that you’ve seen through the illusion of self. ...Something to go “click” perhaps?

Which is it?

Even though your writing seems quite clear and I enjoyed reading your response, I must confess that I’m not completely confident I understood it that well in some bits. Apologies if there’s some gap there and don’t be shy letting me know. I’m hoping your next post will make things clearer to me.

Warm regards,
Michael

[knabo]

…but...what if it is socks…?

I don’t think I knew what this process really was until I read your reply. I read the book and it seemed that each and every story was missing some key element when the tone of the posts would change. I did not see what it was until now.

Did I read somewhere that this is also called mirroring?

Why do some people not like to have their picture taken or their voice recorded or looking in a mirror? Maybe it is because without that feedback you can continue to pretend that your perceived ideas are true.
I am going to jump to the end here:

…now there’s something I don’t get. Your responses seem to indicate an apparently unfettered understanding …it’s like you and I are looking at the same space…except, apparently, you don’t recognise it as a space. Which means one of two things in the context of our discussion:

1. you mustn’t be actually looking.
2. you’ve done the math but don’t realise the implications of your own answers, ie., you’re waiting for some recognisable sign or signal that you’ve seen through the illusion of self. ...Something to go “click” perhaps?

Which is it?

I think a lot. Somehow I am now realizing that the thinking process reinforces the idea of a thinker. Even if I am thinking about the idea of no self, the fact that I am thinking seems to contradict the subject matter of the thought.

Is it funny that I have been noticing a lot of contradiction in the words that people say of late?

I probably thought I was being clever to separate my definitions of “I” and “me”. Now I can see that it does not matter how good or bad my labels are they are still just labels. Every word I type is a limited box of meaning that I can only hope we share so that I am understood.
In the above quote I think you are correct for both one and two. I don’t know what looking is. I can think about things, maybe label things. But, ok, this is not enough. How do I look without thinking?

Now back to your other questions:

what is it that could possibly be holding onto anything?

Patterns of behavior occur and repeat. Some of these are not so useful. Is there anything to do about them?

This would seem to indicate that you thought your way through it, resting on mental conception without pause or space to see for yourself what’s actual real. How do you respond to this possibiity?

I would say this is accurate. My investigation usually ends with thought. Where else can I place my awareness besides thoughts or senses? Which of these can I trust?

I have a strange idea that thoughts only arise when the world does not meet your expectations. If everything went as expected you could just flow, no thoughts required. When the external world does not match the expected world thoughts happen. Problems occur and thoughts happen, new ideas are presented and thoughts happen. Once again, how do I look?

[biisuto]

Hey Knabo,

I did not see what it was until now.

What is the fundamental difference between looking at a map and actually walking the terrain?

...Why do some people not like to have their picture taken or their voice recorded or looking in a mirror? Maybe it is because without that feedback you can continue to pretend that your perceived ideas are true.

Nice theory! ..now, how does it play out under direct observation?

I think a lot. Somehow I am now realizing that the thinking process reinforces the idea of a thinker.

That "thinking reinforces the idea of a thinker" is just one thought about another cluster of thought. Follow thoughts back as far as you can and tell me, where is this thinker? Are they even traceable to a source, or do they just arise? Is the thinker there, or is it just inferred from observing thought?

Even if I am thinking about the idea of no self, the fact that I am thinking seems to contradict the subject matter of the thought.

How do you think about something that is not there? Do you picture a Knabo-shaped space? I think that just to conceptualise such a search would baffle even the Buddha. The key here is not to try looking for nothing or an absence or something, because it presupposes there be something not to find. ...I’m getting woozy just writing about it!

Instead, you are turning all your very real powers of observation and detection inward, in the search for even the tiniest tangible whiff of what could be called a self. Not thoughts about “me” or “I”, but the object that is referenced by those ideas.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are ideas that, as adults, we have no challenge understanding as mythology. Even though any number of people act out the roles to entertain children, season after season, they are ideas with no real-world counterpart. How do they differ to the idea of “me”?

Now I can see that it does not matter how good or bad my labels are they are still just labels. Every word I type is a limited box of meaning that I can only hope we share so that I am understood.

Nicely put and quite true: “hope” seems pretty well the best-case scenario to me too. Your “limited box of meaning” is also a beautiful metaphor for a universe made entirely of thought....could it also be a metaphor for ‘ego'? Let’s question the structure of that box: is it energised from somewhere outside, to keep the meaning in? Or, is it energised from within, to keep out the unknown, that seems to threaten it with meaninglessness?

I don’t know what looking is. I can think about things, maybe label things. But, ok, this is not enough. How do I look without thinking?

You’re right, thinking and labeling are processes of deconstruction…of destruction.

Why must looking occur without thinking? Imposing such a requirement when you haven’t proven that “you” exist or that “thinking” is even within your control seems unnecessary at this point. You merely need discern the difference between looking and thoughts about looking. Can you pay ever-so-close attention and try to see if there is a difference? To find even the tiniest loose thread here is to begin unravelling a tapestry the size of the universe.

Also, isn’t what you wrote here perfect evidence that you are not the thinker? That thinking just ‘happens’, independent of a thinker? Do you control your thoughts?


Try thinking something, then choke it off, half-thought. …Did it work?

Try a couple of simple action experiments. Pay close attention all phenomenon involved, including thoughts that arise and report on each experience.

1. get up… walk slowly… Is there a controller that controls walking?
or
Is there just walking?

2. Without pre-meditation, count to three and then raise one hand in the air. Reflect on this: what in experience chose which hand to raise?
or
Did choosing just happen?

Pay very close attention to what is actually occurring. Look straight through any thought phenomenon that wafts in front of the ‘doing’ and ask yourself, does the body experience sensations and thought?
or
is the "body" just a label for the place where sensations and thought intersect?

The quintessential point often overlooked in this enquiry process is that being unable to conclusively answer such questions is just as significant as unequivocal certainty one way or the other, if you recall here that we are sincerely attempting to locate and identify this mysterious and elusive “self” we collectively bang on about. We don’t actually require proof of non-existence- if that is even possible. All we are looking for is proof that it does exist, because that would immediately dismiss the original claim of this forum.

...But we also must accept the ramifications of any inability to locate it, should it come to pass that we decide to call off the search, empty-handed. Such is it with all enquiry into truth, where there is no hopping from ‘truth' to ‘truth' towards some 'end-Truth', but rather a process of peeling away layer upon layer of untruth as the only way forward.

what is it that could possibly be holding onto anything?

Patterns of behavior occur and repeat. Some of these are not so useful. Is there anything to do about them?

How do you determine utility? If they make you uncomfortable, maybe they are helpful, who knows? Embrace, examine and question them until they are fully exhumed. Does this process reveal what is doing the holding?

This would seem to indicate that you thought your way through it, resting on mental conception without pause or space to see for yourself what’s actual real. How do you respond to this possibiity?

I would say this is accurate. My investigation usually ends with thought. Where else can I place my awareness besides thoughts or senses? Which of these can I trust?

What is it that has awareness? Or, is awareness just aware? How much simpler do things become when you remove the need for a mystery agent you can’t even identify?

I have a strange idea that thoughts only arise when the world does not meet your expectations. If everything went as expected you could just flow, no thoughts required. When the external world does not match the expected world thoughts happen. Problems occur and thoughts happen, new ideas are presented and thoughts happen. Once again, how do I look?

Wow, I love this! Could it be true? What an amazing treasure you’ve unearthed here! Can you see the leading edge of it, shining there, right out in the open?

Can you loop back to the top of this post and feed the idea of ‘map’ vs. ‘terrain’ into the equation as ‘expectation’ vs. ‘eventuality’ and tell me what you get?

What are expectations? Where do they come from?
What is it that experiences expectations and how is it determined they have/have not been met?

Have you heard the joke, "The brain is the most important organ in the body - according to the brain!"

Well, what is it that believes the thought that even more thought is required when thoughts about non-thought are thought to be unaligned?

[knabo]

Nice theory! ..now, how does it play out under direct observation?

Direct observation seems to be a very thin line. I can notice the inputs from my senses. This provides only a small amount of data. Light enters the eye but rapidly gets broken up into the world of things. I have been observing my senses and looking for the self and I and me. These are not to be found. Then I was looking for any other object, I could not find these either. What I found is that my thoughts and judgments about things had very little to do with the thing. I found that I could not really consider any separate object by itself. The only way I have of discerning things is by their relationship to other things. I have no way to describe something that is not a direct comparison to another thing. I could not find any direct knowledge of any separate object.

When it came to the concept of me/myself/I I found that the concept of self changes with the surroundings. It is as easy as walking from the bathroom to the kitchen. I am literally a different self from room to room. I am a different self when interacting with different people. In actuality it is not the person but the concept of a separate person. How can I like or dislike the concept of a person? I can only describe the relationship of the concept of self to the concept of the other person.

What are expectations? Where do they come from?
What is it that experiences expectations and how is it determined they have/have not been met?

Well, let’s see. I have a fabricated concept of self that has been partly built out of experience. I have a concept of others that might also be built on my experience. In my thoughts about relationships I imagine how the interaction will go, I rehearse it. When the information from the senses does not match rehearsal then thoughts get generated then the concept of me changes to adapt to the new information. It is like when G.I. Joe wants to hang out with Ken and Barbie but there is only room for two in the Corvette. It’s frustrating.

So I’ve been living in a dream world. The word Expectations describes the differences between my dream and my senses.

To directly answer your question of what experiences or how is it determined; there is no what or how. The expectations arise in the space between the senses and the concept of relationships between objects. I want to say something like cause or effect could not exist without the other. They arise together. We add words to try to describe the relationship. The difference between my concept of a thing and the experience of a thing results in a change to my concept of self to balance the end result.

The same would be true for all doing. Doing arises out of the separation of cause and effect. Doing isn't a separate thing actually. Doing is an aspect of my concept of self. My concept of self always changes based on the distance between cause and effect. We call that doing.

That’s as close as I can get.

[knabo]

I reread my post and I feel compelled to make a small correction.

When there is a cause/effect occuring and some kind of doing results, THEN I update my sense of self. I adjust my definition as someone who is doing or has done something. The way I wrote is made it sound like there was something in control of doing.

My self concept is always updating based on what I observe is happening, how else could I pretend that there is a me?

Also, I am able to observe two types of thoughts. One type happens quickly. Sometimes so quick it almost goes unnoticed. After that the "thinking" happens. This thinking interprets the quick thought into language and disects its meaning. The quick thoughts are unstopable. There is no control of their arrival or their content. The chatty thinking I can pretend to stop, then the disecting and defining continues...

[knabo]

I just finished rereading this thread. In some places I don't recognize my own posts. What I read is about someone who wants a better definition of reality, something called the truth. But to define is to limit and encapsulate.

Funny thing about truth. Truth is equivalent to something you can disregard. You no longer have to seek out or pay attention to the truth, it is solidly defined.

One thing I have held as a truth is that I can only place my awareness on my senses or my thoughts. Bah! My awareness? The self is a concept. How can a concept be aware? My truth ends up being just another layer of imagination.

You asked me what is it that holds on to things. The process of holding on describes concepts that you have accepted as truth. Things you disregard because you "know" them. I no longer have to look into things that I believe are true. Because of that I am free to feel powerless against these concepts.

I am realizing that I know nothing.

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

Must go to bed. Please allow me to get back to you tomorrow.

Regards,
Michael


"Those who danced were thought insane by those who couldn't hear the music." - F. Nietzche

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

I feel I want to just sweep away your entire response here, but I haven’t found the elevation from which to effectively do so without seeming dismissive. I’m not being dismissive at all, so will plough through the middle for now. It will come.

Direct observation seems to be a very thin line. I can notice the inputs from my senses. This provides only a small amount of data. Light enters the eye but rapidly gets broken up into the world of things. I have been observing my senses and looking for the self and I and me. These are not to be found. Then I was looking for any other object, I could not find these either. What I found is that my thoughts and judgments about things had very little to do with the thing. I found that I could not really consider any separate object by itself. The only way I have of discerning things is by their relationship to other things. I have no way to describe something that is not a direct comparison to another thing. I could not find any direct knowledge of any separate object.

Is that real for you, or did you float away on the content of a thought-cloud...?

When it came to the concept of me/myself/I I found that...I can only describe the relationship of the concept of self to the concept of the other person.

And being just mental constructs, why focus any longer on “what-isn’t”?
Where’s the “what-is” part?

Well, let’s see. I have a fabricated concept of self...I have a concept of others ... In my thoughts about relationships I imagine ... thoughts get generated then the concept of me changes to adapt to the new information. It is like when G.I. Joe wants to hang out with Ken and Barbie but there is only room for two in the Corvette. It’s frustrating.

LOL. Yes, yes…but where’s the beef?!

So I’ve been living in a dream world.

…And when did this stop? If it hasn’t, then when will it stop?

The word Expectations describes the differences between my dream and my senses.

Do you know where the boundary between dreams and reality lie?

To directly answer your question of what experiences or how is it determined; there is no what or how. The expectations arise in the space between the senses and the concept of relationships between objects. I want to say something like cause or effect could not exist without the other. They arise together. We add words to try to describe the relationship. The difference between my concept of a thing and the experience of a thing results in a change to my concept of self to balance the end result.

It seems from here as if you are merely moving the dividing line between cause and effect further down the experiential track. Isn’t “your” newly modified self-concept just another thought bubble?

The same would be true for all doing. Doing arises out of the separation of cause and effect. Doing isn't a separate thing actually. Doing is an aspect of my concept of self. My concept of self always changes based on the distance between cause and effect. We call that doing. That’s as close as I can get.

Can you flatten that idea into a 2D projection for a moment? Your concept of self is (a) real or (b) unreal. If (a) then twisting and turning it in your hands like a rubiks cube, looking for the right alignment of disparate, contradictory concepts appears to be a worthwhile game.

...But haven’t you acknowledged that experience actually supports a (b) conclusion?

If that’s true, then why all the rumination? What do you want here? When do you say, “enough of this confusion in the thought stream!”? When do you lay that down, open your eyes and just LOOK?

I reread my post and I feel compelled to make a small correction.

…Why is that not surprising? ;) So, tell me: what is it that feels compulsion here? ..or is there just a sensation being labeled to make what happens next seem intelligible?

When there is a cause/effect occuring …

Look, prove causation first, then let’s have this discussion again.

Also, I am able to observe two types of thoughts.

Oi! again…?

I reread my post and I feel compelled to make a small correction.

When there is a cause/effect occuring

Prove that causation is real! Get your feet against something solid before you start pushing…otherwise you will continue to sink into the quicksand of thoughts.

I may sound exasperated here, but I am anything but that. This is exciting, because it looks very much to me like a bubble has formed. Keep up the pressure. You are so close, but are still so tangled up in thoughts!

Are.they.true?

If not, then just drop them for a moment and LOOK!

[knabo]

where’s the beef?!

Where is the beef? I can’t find any. I can observe that stuff happens. That’s it. Any more details are made up. I can (obviously) go on and on describing my concept of how things might work. That is all imaginary. So what is solid? Events occur.

Do you know where the boundary between dreams and reality lie?

Actually, no. When does my sense that something has occurred turn into a dream? I think it is immediate…

Can you flatten that idea into a 2D projection for a moment? Your concept of self is (a) real or (b) unreal. If (a) then twisting and turning it in your hands like a rubiks cube, looking for the right alignment of disparate, contradictory concepts appears to be a worthwhile game.

...But haven’t you acknowledged that experience actually supports a (b) conclusion?

If that’s true, then why all the rumination? What do you want here? When do you say, “enough of this confusion in the thought stream!”? When do you lay that down, open your eyes and just LOOK?

Lol. It is more correct to say that my experience supports (b) concepts cannot be real. Yet without the rumination, what is there to talk about? Someone would ask, “What did you do today?” I would reply, “I looked at my cat, its eyes were aligned in my direction.”
Actually most of that writing was not for you, it was information in my brain spilling onto the screen.
It seems my replies have been describing how my fantasy world is organized.

what is it that feels compulsion here? ..or is there just a sensation being labeled to make what happens next seem intelligible?

There is no what. I notice the feeling, I notice the doing, I notice the writing. I have a feeling that what I am writing is not correct. But I don't know if that feeling is true or the writing is true but not what I think you want to hear.

Prove that causation is real! Get your feet against something solid before you start pushing…otherwise you will continue to sink into the quicksand of thoughts.

Is causation real? I don’t think so. But it appears like it is. If something can be made to seem real or seem solid, how can I prove that anything is real or solid?

[biisuto]

Hi Knabo,

... without the rumination, what is there to talk about?

Stated expectations at the start of this process mentioned you weren’t seeking to add anything but rather to subtract. Do you see any conflict with what you wrote above? ‘Thoughts about' is not 'experience of'.

You are yet to sustain any ‘experience of’ and keep falling back into ’thoughts about'. What have you to report from the direct experience of the two simple ‘doing’ exercises prescribed a few posts back?

Actually most of that writing was not for you, it was information in my brain spilling onto the screen.
It seems my replies have been describing how my fantasy world is organized.

Mate, none of what you write is for me and you also seem to be confusing ‘data’ with ‘information’. You can tell the difference, because information is useful. What you are playing here is not helping you see but papering over what is apparent to honest observation and only serving to maintain the illusion of that false self you claim to want to lose. And this is happening as quickly as you get clear, keeping you shrouded in a web of thought.

Please understand that I’m not scolding you at all, but trying to shake you so you open your eyes more than just to blink.

I notice the feeling, I notice the doing, I notice the writing. I have a feeling that what I am writing is not correct. But I don't know if that feeling is true or the writing is true but not what I think you want to hear.

What is this “I” that has a feeling of incorrectness? How is it related ot the “I” that doesn’t know if the feeling is true or not, or the “I” that can know what a projected “you” wants to hear? Those are apparently separate, conjured beings and none of them exist.

What arises when you consider the amount of shadow boxing in evidence here?

What you write is not correct, naturally. “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao,” and all that. Best we can muster is to identify the false - and move on, NOT spin speculative webs about the nature of illusion. Get clear of it first. Then -and only if it is still relevant or of interest- by all means look back and write your thesis on it.

It should be clear that I’m looking for indication that you are seeing through what is untrue- and then moving on instead of lolling around and marveling about the nature of untruth itself and getting stuck back in it. Why be content remaining with mere thoughts about other thoughts, when the real treasure is not that?

Is causation real? I don’t think so. But it appears like it is. If something can be made to seem real or seem solid, how can I prove that anything is real or solid?

Causation is verifiably a process of selective inclusion. My point was not about causation, but in using unproven generalisations as a basis for further deduction, in that it can only take one deeper into an empty rabbit hole and away from the light.

Let us return to the core process from now:

"There is no separate self in real life at all in any shape or form and there never was."

What thoughts and feelings come up in response to the statement? How does the body react? What happens?

I’m also interested what do you mean when you are using words like “I”, “me”, “myself”, “mine”, etc…

What are those words pointing to in reality? What do those words represent?