Who Am I?

[Xain]

I don't see why it is a problem to say that thought has effects.

It isn't a 'problem' but it is a duality and has a basis in time.
It also implies a medium of some-sort in which it acts.

Thought is informed by thought; not as an entity informing it, but as a chain reaction.

Again, providing what I mentioned above is realised, the statement is fine.

The structure is a complex woven illusion made from thought which appears to direct life and does direct life within its own illusory reality.

But you still insist there is some 'thing' directing life. This is simply 'shifting the goalposts'.
'I' don't do things, but 'thought' does things. It is another duality.
You are suggesting that there is something called 'thought' which actively effects something separate (which is not thought) called 'life'.

The writing seems to be part of a cause and effect of thought' a response to your writing and this discussion thread or not?

Ok, let's examine this.
We can take 'thinking' and we can take 'writing' - You are suggesting that one causes the other.
What agency is responsible for thought?
What agency is responsible for writing?
Cause and effect must apply to an inherently existing object or 'thing' in order to manifest.
What is that? What agency is responsible for applying /linking the one (thought) to the other (writing)?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

I can only say that intuitively I sense you are right, but I am not seeing it yet.

Can I just check: Are you really saying there is NO cause and effect?

Thanks Andy

[Xain]

Can I just check: Are you really saying there is NO cause and effect?

(A good question).
No. I am suggesting that cause and effect are empty . . . that cause and effect have dependencies . . . that cause and effect have no inherent reality.

I discussed our conversation with an ex-buddhist friend of mine, who suggested that Buddhists have a very strong belief in cause and effect as part of their teaching which might be the issue we are having here.
Let me assure you I am not suggesting there is NO cause and effect. It is more about the nature of it, and hoping you get something from my suggestions.

I may be 'guiding beyond what I need to' here, and I apologise to you for it.
Also, I tend to try to give my clients the strongest basis to go forward and examine other beliefs, and again this is why I am spending time with you here on this.
If you are 100% clear that cause and effect are 'empty' then we need not discuss this area further.

To me, a 'thought' is empty. It has dependencies. It lacks inherent existence.
Therefore to me, thoughts causing things is purely descriptive only (and I did suggest there is no problem in talking about such things). Hence we can say 'I had a thought about making a cup of tea, and that thought caused me to go into the kitchen and put the kettle on'.

My only concern with you here is that the 'cause' is something separate which may be a subtle hiding place for an 'I' belief (hence I am going in to more depth with you than I normally do).
Or that cause and effect that you are referring to has a link to the body - that the body has a thought and the body produces the corresponding effect - This is a subtle belief that 'I am the body' and a duality.

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

My only concern with you here is that the 'cause' is something separate which may be a subtle hiding place for an 'I' belief (hence I am going in to more depth with you than I normally do).
Or that cause and effect that you are referring to has a link to the body - that the body has a thought and the body produces the corresponding effect - This is a subtle belief that 'I am the body' and a duality.

I think you are right - in some way there is still a belief in an I hiding in thought. I will need some time to look at this much more deeply before I respond to your various points.

Thanks Andy

[Xain]

Ok.
Can you describe exactly the process whereby a thought (cause) causes an effect?
Also, speculate on the medium in which this process takes place.
Is the medium something in which the process is apparent through actually witnessing it happen, or is it through speculation only.

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

I discussed our conversation with an ex-buddhist friend of mine, who suggested that Buddhists have a very strong belief in cause and effect as part of their teaching which might be the issue we are having here.

Buddhists of course talk about karma: a subtle law of cause and effect. But they especially talk about how nothing exists inherently; instead everything is a dependent relationship. The Gelugpa Tsongkhapa once claimed the entire Buddhist path could be summed up in 3 words: "This produces That", suggesting that cause and effect is in fact a direct pointer to emptiness. If something can cause an effect in something else, both must be empty of inherent existence. Something that exists inherently could not in anyway interact with anything else.

The creme de la creme of Tibetan Buddhism is Dzogchen. This is the path beyond cause and effect. Everything is recognised as being a projection of our essential empty but cognizant nature. Beyond cause and effect because time is a thought based projection and without time there is no cause and effect. This isn't to say that cause and effect is not recognised on a relative level, but I wonder if this is what you are pointing me to?

Because it would be ludicrous to claim there is no cause and effect on a relative level. Very clearly, absolutely everything that happens in the world is dependent relationship with direct and random cause and effect taking place (even without the concept of karma).

Can you describe exactly the process whereby a thought (cause) causes an effect?
Also, speculate on the medium in which this process takes place.
Is the medium something in which the process is apparent through actually witnessing it happen, or is it through speculation only.

The process - not sure what you mean. If you were to mean how does a thought cause an arm to lift? It could be explained neurologically with brain neurons interacting with motor neurons which I understand is quite well scientifically documented. I go back to my earlier example of imagining sucking the lemon and then salivating; we can observe in our own experience the absolute obviousness of cause and effect and of thoughts impacting upon a physical reality (whatever that is).

But none of that is to say that there is an agent (an independent Self) directing that behind the scenes is it. Thought effecting thought and thought effecting reality does not imply a free will. In fact psychology has pretty well demonstrated there is no free will and hence no Self.

The medium in which this takes place? Interesting question. I notice in this forum the absolute refusal to discuss "awareness or knowing" - again something which it would seem we can notice with direct experience. But not as a "thing" but as the cognizant empty space of being. So we could say that is the medium, though certainly not in a conventional way as we are still talking about an emptiness, just as we can say the medium of a room is the empty space without which there could be no furniture.

As I have contemplated where I seem to be stuck with this inquiry, I notice I am having difficulty with the idea that everything is just happening. When I notice the lack of I in my sensory experience, it seems that everything is just happening; it is true that it is happening without an apparent I agent doing it. But it is not just randomly happening: it is part of an endless chain of cause and effect surely?

Best Wishes

Andy

[Xain]

The creme de la creme of Tibetan Buddhism is Dzogchen. This is the path beyond cause and effect. Everything is recognised as being a projection of our essential empty but cognizant nature. Beyond cause and effect because time is a thought based projection and without time there is no cause and effect. This isn't to say that cause and effect is not recognised on a relative level, but I wonder if this is what you are pointing me to?

Yes, it is.
But I am going to stop here, as I don't think it helps our current dialogue regarding self.
It is only 'cause and effect relating to a seperate self' that I am interested in at the moment.

It could be explained neurologically with brain neurons interacting with motor neurons which I understand is quite well scientifically documented.

Is this from what you've found in your experience or from memory/ideas?

I notice I am having difficulty with the idea that everything is just happening.

We will investigate this.

If you were to mean how does a thought cause an arm to lift?

Yes, but I was not meaning your current beliefs about such things. I mean, actually do it as an experiment / experiential contemplation and tell me what is found.
Sit down. Think a thought suggesting 'Arm raise into the air'. This would be the cause.
Now raise that arm into the air. This would be the effect.

What is the 'I' having the thought?
What caused the thought to occur? (It must be had a cause of course). What did you FIND causing it.

What is the 'I' causing the arm to rise / muscles to contract?
What is the 'I' causing the thought to result in the action?
If the thought is the causal agent, and the arm raising is the effect describe what the link is . . . not from science, not from buddhist doctrine . . . what you can actually find in the experience of doing this.

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

I have spent a number of days very confused about this.

Yesterday I woke up and the confusion was gone. It was as if I had been "chasing my tail" for a while.

Sit down. Think a thought suggesting 'Arm raise into the air'. This would be the cause.
Now raise that arm into the air. This would be the effect.

What is the 'I' having the thought?
What caused the thought to occur? (It must be had a cause of course). What did you FIND causing it.

What is the 'I' causing the arm to rise / muscles to contract?
What is the 'I' causing the thought to result in the action?
If the thought is the causal agent, and the arm raising is the effect describe what the link is . . . not from science, not from buddhist doctrine . . . what you can actually find in the experience of doing this.

All I can say in response is that no I is found. The I was just imagined. So what is left is just reality as it is, and it seems to just be happening. Cause seems to be another creation of thought. This is how it seems and feels when this is seen.

Logically this makes no sense as it would seem conventionally everything obviously has a cause. Yet, when it is seen that there is no I, it has to be said that things just seem to be happening.

So in lifting the arm in the air there is most certainly no I responsible for any part of it, including the thoughts or intentions that arise. I can still notice that before the arm raises there is a thought and an intention but there is no I related to that so they are just happening too it would seem

Andy

[Xain]

Cause seems to be another creation of thought. This is how it seems and feels when this is seen.

Yes.

I can still notice that before the arm raises there is a thought and an intention but there is no I related to that so they are just happening too it would seem

Yes :-)
This is one observation - But consider how many times in a day that the arm moves or raises without a thought being experienced beforehand.

Could it be that what links 'thought (cause)' to 'action (arm raises)' is simply another thought / belief / idea?
Or in other words the 'cause and effect' relationship is only relative.
The relationship is dependant on a thought arising that suggests or describe it to be that way.
Without thought, what and where is 'cause and effect'?

When I suggested 'science or Buddhist doctrine' this was not to dismiss such things. Merely to (attempt to) make you see that these things are thought based. Does this make sense or ring true for you?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

At this stage the belief in the I no longer seems to be there. It seems quite natural just to notice so called "reality" taking place without an I to experience it.

But consider how many times in a day that the arm moves or raises without a thought being experienced beforehand.

Yes, I can observe this, though if I watch with extreme mindfulness I can notice subtle intentions at the level of the subconscious. It is generally clear that through observing bodily processes that there is an an ongoing cause and effect in the body that does not require a "doer"

Could it be that what links 'thought (cause)' to 'action (arm raises)' is simply another thought / belief / idea?
Or in other words the 'cause and effect' relationship is only relative.
The relationship is dependent on a thought arising that suggests or describe it to be that way.
Without thought, what and where is 'cause and effect'?

I don't buy it. Seems like a theory to fit a doctrine of no cause and effect. It is easily observable that there is a cause and effect between intentions and actions. Take driving for example. If it were really so random we would all be crashing. I do understand that ultimately there is no cause and effect because cause and effect are dependent upon time which in turn is dependent upon thought. Again that can be seen and experienced directly. But conventionally speaking, in terms of every day interaction with the world there is cause and effect and that does not contradict there not being a "Self".

But again Xain, I of course respect your judgment and perceptions and I imagine you can not possible be saying what I think you are saying; that instead there is a misunderstanding on my side: I just can not see it yet. From your last pointer I haven't been able to see any more clearly.

Best Wishes

Andy

[Xain]

The relationship is dependent on a thought arising that suggests or describe it to be that way.

I do understand that ultimately there is no cause and effect because cause and effect are dependent upon time which in turn is dependent upon thought. Again that can be seen and experienced directly.

Then we are in agreement. :-)

Take driving for example. If it were really so random we would all be crashing.

What is in control to prevent crashing?
Or, if you prefer, what is in control which could deliberately cause a crash if wished?

Xain ♥

[Xain]

Let's just look into this, and let me fully explain where we still have issues.

I am not a Buddhist, but I have great respect for the buddhist path and I am trying to guide you as best I can in this vein.

We are looking into the first fetter:
1. Sakkaya-ditthi is translated as "personality belief." This is the belief that we are solid beings, which leads to the illusion of a separate self, egoism, or individuality. This is a major obstacle to spiritual progress. Not only are we attached to the idea of self, we even glorify it.

If I simply this with our current examination, it is the belief that what we essentially are is something separate from life itself. (This is usually a belief that 'I am this body, and I have this mind)

We make progress, but you seem to keep coming back to the same belief/issue:

Take driving for example. If it were really so random we would all be crashing.

So clearly here, there is a belief that there is something separate to the car which is causing it not to crash.
What is that? Can it be found? Or can you only find beliefs about such a thing which require time in order 'to be'?

Notice you are making a division here - EITHER it is being controlled OR it is random. Why?
Both these beliefs still require someTHING which is separate to the car in order to be.
Either something separate is in control over the car OR there is something separate which has no control over the car and it's movement is 'random'.

What if there was nothing separate to the car anyway and the entire thing was 'just happening' . . . but conditioned thoughts / beliefs presented the illusion that something was in control?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

thank you for staying with me on this.

Again, I intuitively sense you are right. I have spent many hours in recent days looking at this. There is an incredulity that perhaps everything really is just happening without any control, yet at the same time, whenever I get an inkling of this there is a great sense of excitement.

Intuitively I know that this inquiry is nearly complete and that the implications are enormous.

I need to take the time to sit with your last post and deeply look into this. I think you presented it very clearly.

Best wishes

Andy

[Xain]

Thank YOU for sticking in there, Andy. I think your intuition is good.

Take a leaf falling from a tree.
What is controlling it's decent? What caused it to begin falling at that precise moment?
I would assume your answers would be 'nothing it all, it just happened' because there is nothing separate to the leaf which is assumed to be in control / there is no BELIEF that something separate is in charge of it.

Now take a car driving along a straight road.
What is causing it to drive in a perfectly straight line? What is causing it to travel at that exact speed?
Examine your assumptions. Compare your beliefs with what you can actually find (or what you found when we did the exercise on choice and control over choosing and raising the arm).

It really is that simple . . . and utterly amazing.

But consider the current moment . . .
What is in control over what you are going to reply?
Whatever chose or had the slightest control over any of this entire guidance?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

Back to basics for a moment. Is there a real separate self having an experience of life and directing life?

NO. When one it looked for it can not be found. There is only ever the experience of what is happening in that moment.

If I raise my hand, is someone directing that? NO, there is no one there to direct it. Therefore, it is just happening.

All of the above is quite clear. Not clear to the point that I am like someone who has profoundly realised that the whole of life was just a dream and has woken up. Clear to the point that when the I is searched for it is not found and a dawning is happening that a profound misunderstanding has been going on. Also clear that the dawning is just happening , as in there is not actually anyone there to realise it. This can all be experienced directly.

BUT ....

It is still like in a dream when you start to realise you are dreaming. You develop some doubt, but you don't wake up. Someone points out that things are not so solid, that you are actually are just part of a dream. That everything that seems to be happening and is therefore part of the cause and effect, actually is not happening at all. None of it is happening and none of it ever really happened. It just appears to have done. That is the trick of the mind.

Take a leaf falling from a tree.
What is controlling it's decent? What caused it to begin falling at that precise moment?
I would assume your answers would be 'nothing it all, it just happened' because there is nothing separate to the leaf which is assumed to be in control / there is no BELIEF that something separate is in charge of it.

What is controlling it's decent? Clearly there is no AGENT controlling it. Causes and conditions are controlling it; the fact that it is autumn, a certain level of decay has taken place, the the falling of the leaf is part of that continuous movement of cause and effect. No agent is required. Why at that precise moment. Because all of the causes and conditions have come together. BUT no, of course there is nothing separate in charge of it.

Now take a car driving along a straight road.
What is causing it to drive in a perfectly straight line? What is causing it to travel at that exact speed?
Examine your assumptions. Compare your beliefs with what you can actually find (or what you found when we did the exercise on choice and control over choosing and raising the arm).

I am still with what I said previously. The illusory I is controlling it. I understand of course, that given that there actually is no I there, in real terms nothing is controlling it. Part of the problem here is that this inquiry is about the the emptiness of the self. IT seems we can not separate the emptiness of the self from the emptiness of the rest of life. The car, the speed, the straight line are all empty too; all just part of a mind created existence which can not be found upon examination.

This is why Buddhism speaks of ultimate reality and conventional reality. The ultimate is the emptiness of everything. Everything is discovered to be no more real than a dream. Yet, we can not say it does not exist. It clearly does on some level; that level is by mere imputation and mere convention. Within the dream there would seem to be cause and effect. When it is seen that is is a dream and we wake up, there never was anything happening, there was no time and hence no cause and effect.

But consider the current moment . . .
What is in control over what you are going to reply?
Whatever chose or had the slightest control over any of this entire guidance?

I can not find anything in control. IT is just something playing itself out.

Andy