A tough nut to crack?

[aubergine99]

Good work! Francis

Life's good, thanks.

Although there is a sense that the sensations are happening relative to some other sensations happening elsewhere. Wait. No, that is subtle body image also. This illusion fades if “I” open up to the sensations more fully. (Easier in context of meditation.) Then there really is only amorphous sensation arising. Is it possible to exist with all these labels removed?

Although there is a sense that the sensations are happening relative to some other sensations happening elsewhere. Can you explain what you mean by this? Where is elsewhere in DE?

Can you find an ‘I’ that can open up to the sensations more fully?

Is it possible to exist with all these labels removed?

Labels are thoughts layered onto experience. Reality is there with or without thought labels.

This begs a question, in fact. Yesterday I decided to meditate for the first time since beginning this dialogue. In that sit there was just this hole in experience where the “meditating Francis” usually resides. It was suddenly clear the extent to which meditation was habitually performed to refine “me”; to make “me” calmer, happier. Basically for “me” to get something, achieve something… When it is revealed that “me” is only an idea, not an actual person, the goalposts shift somewhat, don’t they? What now? What is meditation really for, then? The refinement of “me” is clearly a red herring of some kind! However, the historical Buddha, who was fully enlightened, clearly set great store by meditation and performed it throughout his life. Why? This will have to remain a mystery for the moment. But for the present meditation seems totally redundant. Do you have any advice/input about this?

There is a story about Buddha being fully enlightened and having endorsed meditation, but I have no real knowledge of this, so cannot give you any answers. Meditation happens or it doesn’t. Is there an 'I' that can choose to meditate anyway? Look and keep looking.

This dialogue is proving exhausting. No complaint btw :) I can't believe it's been less than a week. Like being put through a mangle several times. Fear arising in the night, staying with the fear, watching it try to attach to a story about something in the future, seeing that it is just a bunch of physical sensations arising, and pouf! if disappears. What is all that about?

Take a look at the fear arising and look to see what is behind it. See that fears are just thoughts. Is there fear in DE? Is there future in DE? Can thoughts attach to a fictitious ‘me’ or is that a thought?

How do you feel this enquiry is going? Are you seeing through the illusion of ‘I’? Are there any sticking points?

Love Brigitte x

[FrancisP]

Hi there Brigitte
It has taken all day to realize that this dialogue now runs to a second page! Hence this post now, rather than much earlier in the day! Ha ha !

“Although there is a sense that the sensations are happening relative to some other sensations happening elsewhere. Can you explain what you mean by this? Where is elsewhere in DE?”

Well, when still employing an idea/visual memory of a “body”, i.e. when not looking purely at direct experience of sensations arising, there is a tendency to say “sensation X is apparently ‘higher up in the body’ than sensation Y.” This is still to be involved with thinking. But when looking deeper, at direct experience of sensations arising without labels and thoughts attached to them, this comparison disappears. It is only possible to say that all sensation is arising “here.” There is no elsewhere in DE.

“Can you find an ‘I’ that can open up to the sensations more fully?”

Oh, interesting. Thanks for pointing this one out. Ha ha. No, this is just a thought, designed in order to claim an illusory agency. “I” can’t “do” anything about opening up to sensations more fully. Awareness of what is arising simply deepens when thoughts about experience are dropped. It’s tempting to say there is an allowing or surrender to experience but that also sounds like a doing. And it’s not being done by anybody anyway.

“Is it possible to exist with all these labels removed?
Labels are thoughts layered onto experience. Reality is there with or without thought labels.”

There is a view here that labels are necessary in order to negotiate our way in the world, to recognize things and act accordingly. But evidently it is not necessary to articulate ‘that’s a large blue juggernaut approaching at approximately 70 mph’ to get out of its way at the appropriate time. Labels encourage thinking. It takes a lot of trust to drop labels. There’s some work to do here :)

“Meditation happens or it doesn’t. Is there an 'I' that can choose to meditate anyway? Look and keep looking.”

Ah. This is just another example of so-called “choice” isn’t it? But meditation either happens, or not, based on conditions. The illusion of choice is most convincing in a situation when “I” don’t feel like meditating, but then, despite not wanting to, “I” “decide” that I “ought to” and then get up and meditate. It seems that “I” changed the course of what was naturally going to happen. But actually, looking closely, it is seen that this is still all just happening by itself, based on certain conditions that are already in place.

"Take a look at the fear arising and look to see what is behind it. See that fears are just thoughts. Is there fear in DE?"

This is all really helpful. Yes, fear is only a thought that triggers certain physical sensations. In DE the experience is only of physical sensations! This mean that actually there is a big nothing behind the fear? It’s just a thought. This is huge.

“Is there future in DE?”

No. This is just a concept. There is never fear of something in the past or even in the present. Fear is ALWAYS projected into the future. Fear that something that will happen, or is about to happen. This means that fear is always based on a concept. So fear can never exist in DE. To experience fear is necessarily not to be in DE.

“Can thoughts attach to a fictitious ‘me’ or is that a thought?”

This is just thought. Doesn’t it happen the other way around? In other words, if there is identification with a fear thought, there is a suturing effect that predicates identification with the “I” thought, and “me” arises. And then the thought “I am afraid” arises and is believed.

“How do you feel this enquiry is going? Are you seeing through the illusion of ‘I’? Are there any sticking points?”

There have been some big shifts here. “I” is certainly only a thought. At the start of this conversation I said that there was “intellectual understanding of no self” and a “learned belief” in the truth of it. It is now clear that that ‘understanding’ was very superficial because the looking had been very superficial. The ‘learned belief’ has now been completely dropped. There is no longer a “belief” in the truth of no self. That, too, is simply a thought.
I don’t “believe” that the lights are on in this room. The lights are on. That is all.
The fear thing is huge and needs looking into more, so thanks for helping to clarify that here.
The current sticking point is that, although there is a calm stillness that pervades everything, there is still a sense of “is this it?” It’s actually quite subtle. There is a view that there should be more buzzers and bells going on. There is a sense of waiting for something more exciting to happen. Basically, doubt. Clearly there were ideas about what was going to happen and the reality has not kept to the script. So there’s a not-quite-accepting of the moment. Waiting for a better moment….
Does any of that make sense?

Love Francis.

[aubergine99]

Good afternoon,

Good work but I sense there is a tendency to overcomplicate matters and your answers seem to reflect this in overthinking. Just keep it simple.

There is a view here that labels are necessary in order to negotiate our way in the world, to recognize things and act accordingly. But evidently it is not necessary to articulate ‘that’s a large blue juggernaut approaching at approximately 70 mph’ to get out of its way at the appropriate time. Labels encourage thinking. It takes a lot of trust to drop labels. There’s some work to do here :)

There is absolutely no need to drop labels at all. Who could do this? As you say, we use them all the time to aid communication. Just notice that labels are an overlay to experience, that’s all.

Meditation happens or it doesn’t. Is there an 'I' that can choose to meditate anyway? Look and keep looking.

Ah. This is just another example of so-called “choice” isn’t it? But meditation either happens, or not, based on conditions.

'Based on conditions' is a thought. Keep it simple, Francis. We are looking at direct experience only – are there conditions? Yes or no?

Is there future in DE?

No. This is just a concept. There is never fear of something in the past or even in the present. Fear is ALWAYS projected into the future. Fear that something that will happen, or is about to happen. This means that fear is always based on a concept. So fear can never exist in DE. To experience fear is necessarily not to be in DE.

Yes, good noticing!

Can thoughts attach to a fictitious ‘me’ or is that a thought?

This is just thought. Doesn’t it happen the other way around? In other words, if there is identification with a fear thought, there is a suturing effect that predicates identification with the “I” thought, and “me” arises. And then the thought “I am afraid” arises and is believed.

It’s all thinking! No need to try and figure this out.

There have been some big shifts here. “I” is certainly only a thought.

Great! Bear in mind that the purpose of this enquiry is looking to see if a separate ‘I’ exists. You say you clearly see this. What more enquiry is needed then? Once ‘no self’ is seen, there are further paths of enquiry to follow, should this interest you, but this is not what we do here.

At the start of this conversation I said that there was “intellectual understanding of no self” and a “learned belief” in the truth of it. It is now clear that that ‘understanding’ was very superficial because the looking had been very superficial. The ‘learned belief’ has now been completely dropped. There is no longer a “belief” in the truth of no self. That, too, is simply a thought.

I don’t “believe” that the lights are on in this room. The lights are on. That is all.

Haha – No doubt here then! Yes, beliefs are not required.

The current sticking point is that, although there is a calm stillness that pervades everything, there is still a sense of “is this it?” It’s actually quite subtle. There is a view that there should be more buzzers and bells going on.
There is a sense of waiting for something more exciting to happen. Basically, doubt. Clearly there were ideas about what was going to happen and the reality has not kept to the script. So there’s a not-quite-accepting of the moment. Waiting for a better moment….
Does any of that make sense?

Yes make sense. You are not alone in this expectation of buzzers and bells.

‘So, there’s a not-quite-accepting of the moment.’ Who is not accepting? Do you see that again is only a thought? Can there be someone, separate from life, not accepting anything? Can life not accept itself? Reality is what it is!

Love Brigitte x

[FrancisP]

Hi there Brigitte

Thanks for your challenging responses here :)

“...I sense there is a tendency to overcomplicate matters and your answers seem to reflect this in overthinking. Just keep it simple.”

Great advice. Thank you! It is never about thinking. Only about what is in DE.

“There is absolutely no need to drop labels at all. Who could do this? As you say, we use them all the time to aid communication. Just notice that labels are an overlay to experience, that’s all.”

That’s a relief. :) Labels foster thinking, and therefore create distance from DE.

“Meditation happens or it doesn’t. Is there an 'I' that can choose to meditate anyway? Look and keep looking. Ah. This is just another example of so-called “choice” isn’t it? But meditation either happens, or not, based on conditions. 'Based on conditions' is a thought. Keep it simple, Francis. We are looking at direct experience only – are there conditions? Yes or no?”

You’re right. “based on conditions” is only a thought, a concept. This is hilarious. In DE there is no experience of conditions. So in DE, things either occur or not, that’s all. Wow.

“Can thoughts attach to a fictitious ‘me’ or is that a thought?" This is just thought. Doesn’t it happen the other way around? In other words, if there is identification with a fear thought, there is a suturing effect that predicates identification with the “I” thought, and “me” arises. And then the thought “I am afraid” arises and is believed. It’s all thinking! No need to try and figure this out.”

Oh yes! It’all just thinking. Again. Ha ha. Again, a BIG relief to know that understanding the mechanism is not required. Just the label “this is thinking” is adequate. Phew!

“You are not alone in this expectation of buzzers and bells”

This comes of having a preconceived idea of what the view would look like from here.

“‘So, there’s a not-quite-accepting of the moment.’ Who is not accepting? Do you see that again is only a thought? Can there be someone, separate from life, not accepting anything? Can life not accept itself? Reality is what it is!”

This is really helpful. Thank you. Of course! It’s just another story! Nobody is ‘not accepting.’ There is just what is happening.

This is the first day back at work since this enquiry began. There has been a great feeling of connection with others, and love, today. Very pleasant. It’s as if Francis was acting in a play, in which he was “being a really nice version of Francis.” Really engaged with things, but at the same time disinvested. Knowing that really it’s all a play. Strange and interesting.

Love
Francis.

[aubergine99]

Hi,

This is the first day back at work since this enquiry began. There has been a great feeling of connection with others, and love, today. Very pleasant. It’s as if Francis was acting in a play, in which he was “being a really nice version of Francis.” Really engaged with things, but at the same time disinvested. Knowing that really it’s all a play. Strange and interesting.

So glad you had a pleasant work day. Life will continue to churn out good days and bad days. When looked at, ‘bad days’ can often signify being lost in thought stories about an illusory ‘I’ that is suffering is some way. Just check in DE whether this is actually so.

I feel presently there is a lot more clarity in your answers, although there is a need to keep re-focussing your attention on DE before thoughts start trying to over analyse. It might be beneficial if you re-read this whole thread, (it often is), in case points that may have been initially overlooked, which will now seem clearer. See what comes up with that.

Brigitte x

[FrancisP]

Hello there Brigitte,

As suggested, I have read back over our whole conversation. What a journey! Thanks.
What comes up is a clearer seeing that thought complicates everything, obscuring the fact that it is all actually very simple. Almost as if the mind needs to justify its existence by MAKING everything complicated so it can then sort it all out!

Example: While out walking today there was SO MUCH thought about the identification process, and how it works, and about the nature of “awakeness”, that a kind of anguish arose. For whole periods there was no real awareness of the present (surroundings, the beauty of the scene, the sunshine, etc). Utterly lost in thought. Not identification with it in the sense of thinking the thought was “me” or “mine” – just entirely lost in abstraction. Lost in thought happening. As if it were possible to think my way out this hole. Heavily ironic, no? There was a thought that this should stop after seeing that “I” is only a thought form. Then up comes doubt (or cynicism) to argue that this shows that seeing hasn’t really happened. However, this makes no impact on the knowledge that “I” really is only a thought form. It’s an argument with no real force behind it. Just another thought. Interesting.

This has revealed that there was an expectation that after seeing, after getting “it”, experience would be somehow seamless – not always pleasant, obviously – but seamlessly in the moment. Never lost in thought. And heaven forbid actually being identified with thought! (Surely that would never happen again? Ha ha ha). But now it is clear that being lost in thought, or even identified with it, is as much “it” as not being lost in thought. If that’s what is arising in awareness, then that is what is happening. It’s already too late to “not accept”. It’s what is happening. I have read/heard people say this in the past an always found it incredibly confusing and frustrating (giving rise to a reaction of ‘well what’s the point of it all, then’) But it makes sense now. :)

There needs to be a letting go of investment in particular outcomes here. Or is that just a story? Actually, either that will occur in time, or it won’t… Oh this never ends, does it.

Love
Francis

[aubergine99]

Hello Francis

There needs to be a letting go of investment in particular outcomes here. Or is that just a story? Actually, either that will occur in time, or it won’t… Oh this never ends, does it.

Yes,’ needing to let go’ is more story! Are you quite clear you have seen through the illusion of ‘I’?

There are a few more questions we ask here to finalise the process. Are you ready for them, Francis?

Brigitte x

[FrancisP]

Good evening Brigitte

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, "I" is a label that points to nothing. This is clear. Nothing to do and nobody to do it. What remains is an open gentleness in which things happen.

Please ask the remaining questions when you are ready.
Love
Francis

[aubergine99]

Hi Francis,

Has this nut been cracked? Let's see.

Here are the final questions:

1)Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2)Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3)How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4)What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5)Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

6)Anything to add?

Take your time and answer as fully as you can.

I wait to hear from you.

Brigitte.

[FrancisP]

Hello again Brigitte

Here are some reflections

“Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?”

No. Self is not an entity that exists separately, anywhere. It is not the doer, the chooser, the thinker, the controller, the experiencer, or even the observer. “Self” or “me” is just a thought that points to nothing real. It is an imaginary signifier. In the course of this process, “Self” has not died, or disappeared. It becomes clear that Self was never present. It was just an idea that was believed in because never properly examined.

“Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.”

The illusion of a separate self is the belief in an entity, an agent, who is known as “Me” and who believes him/herself to be the owner and author of all experience that happens to “him”. This entity can apparently do things, apparently makes choices, and generally believes himself to have agency in the world. This illusion comes about through identifying with thought. Confusing the thought “I” with a concrete referent. There seems on the face of it to be good evidence for this assumption. For example, “I” “decide” to “do” something, and then it happens. Therefore “I” must have made it happen. QED. Thus Francis used to think, “I am writing an email” rather than “writing an email is happening.” However, the “I” is merely an assumption predicated on language, and acquired very early in life. The illusion of “I” may actually become viable with the acquisition of language, when the child learns to differentiate between “this” and “that”, me” and “you”, “self” and “other”. It is not seen that “I” in this sense refers only to a somatic reality – a body. It is believed to refer to a non-material entity that somehow animates and controls the body/mind. Culture and society collude in fostering this spurious “I” thought.

“How does it feel to see this?”

At first it was a bit freaky, but then it began to feel rather funny. How could “I” have been so completely believed-in? Why did it seem so necessary, when in fact it is a pointless add-on! It is all so very simple, really. So there is relief to find this simplicity. A relaxing into life happening without the responsibility of all that “doing”.

“What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.”

After seeing this, life seems both very different and exactly the same. Life goes on – work happens, relationships and conversations happen, thoughts happen. But they happen to nobody.
Previously there was a belief in a “me” that needed to get rid of the self, transcend the self. There was an intense seeking. This has completely dropped. There is no seeking now. In fact, the “me” who was seeking was never even there. That’s why it’s all so funny. There was never anyone there who could do the seeking, or “do” the getting rid of self. There was never anything to be done at all. There is an opening of the heart here, a gentleness. Love even.

“What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?”

There have been a few moments. Firstly the realization that any thought “I” could possibly have about “me” is just that – a thought. So “I” am a mental construct. Thoughts about “me” are not “me” and never have been. Secondly, seeing (finally) that there is no chooser was huge. But finally, seeing that there is no one to do the “letting go” nobody to do the “acceptance of the moment.” Nobody to see through the illusion of “me” or take the journey further. That was the kicker.

“Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.”

What a relief to see that none of this is true! Life happens, does itself. Things happen, certainly. Francis “does things” but Francis does not make them happen. They arise, that’s all. And it all works just fine. There is no agency here. A thought arises and is acted on, or not. (This can be mistaken for a “decision” or “choice”.) That’s all that is ever happening. There are certain habits that are acted out (going to work, preparing meals, going to bed etc). But there is no “doer”. At every moment something happens, that’s all.

“Anything to add”
Just a massive thank you for your time and your brilliant, brilliant questions, which were always so well timed. At one point you said “Can you see that there is just direct experience and “your” thoughts about it.” That was the turning point.
Love Francis

[aubergine99]

Beautiful response. Thanks Francis.

Q2: “It is not seen that “I” in this sense refers only to a somatic reality – a body. It is believed to refer to a non-material entity that somehow animates and controls the body/mind. Culture and society collude in fostering this spurious “I” thought.”

Is there a body/mind in DE that can be controlled?

Q5: Please could you give me examples of how control or decision occur from ‘your’ experience.

Love Brigitte

[FrancisP]

Hello again, Brigitte


You ask

"Is there a body/mind in DE that can be controlled?"

Absolutely not. Belief in all that is part of the illusion of a separate self. Actually, there are just sensations and thoughts arising.

"Give examples of how control or decision occur from "your" experience"

This is unanswerable. There is nobody controlling anything. And things just happen. A thought arises and is acted on. Or not. That's all. "Control" and "decision" imply agency. There is no agency here. Hands have been removed from the imaginary steering wheel of Francis's life.

Love
Francis.

[aubergine99]

Hello again,

Thanks for your reply. I will check to see if other guides have any questions for you.

Will be in touch soon.

Brigitte x

[aubergine99]

Hi,

Some questions for you from another guide:

1. You say "There was an intense seeking. This has completely dropped." Is this significant? Could seeking return? Would that signify anything?

2. You say "A thought arises and is acted on, or not." Who or what takes the action? Are you the observer of this? By what means do you know that there is a causal or even a serial relationship between thought and action?

Brigitte x

[FrancisP]

Hello Brigitte
Thanks for these questions. Here is the response.

“You say ‘There was an intense seeking. This has completely dropped.’ Is this significant? Could seeking return? Would that signify anything?”

Right now, seeking in the form of the attempt to see through the illusion of self has dropped because it has been seen through! There is nobody here to be a seeker. Perhaps other forms of seeking may occur, (right now that seems unlikely) but there will be never be a seeker ‘doing’ the seeking. Seeking would just be what is happening (if that is what is happening). Seeking (if it is happening) is just as much “it”, just as much ‘just what is happening’ as not seeking.

Would that signify anything?

Perhaps the playing out of an old habit… ? If there seemed to be a seeker doing the seeking, it would signify identification with a thought form.

“You say ‘A thought arises and is acted on, or not.’ Who or what takes the action? Are you the observer of this? By what means do you know that there is a causal or even a serial relationship between thought and action?”

What a great question! To clarify: Nobody - nothing - takes any action. Nothing is ever done. And no, nobody observes it taking place. Things just happen. Nobody can say if thought ‘leads to’ action (or inaction). This would be an assumption. It is not possible to say that things happen this way at all, in fact. In DE all that can be said is that things just happen. Life happens.
Hope that is clearer : )
Lots of love
Francis