The Gate

Good evening Floris,

Okay, could you elaborate? What does that mean 'I is still here'? Are you talking about a sense of self?

Well the sense of an "I" is definitely here, and in particular whenever I interact with someone else. But I can't figure out if there is a difference between an actual "I" and a sense of "I". Is there one? If "I" consists of belief patterns, action patterns, memories, etc... then that kind of "I" exists, right?

The sense of self is exactly that: a SENSE of self. But it's by no means a real separate self, is it?

No, the sense is not separate, it is lived by... "me"?! Aha! Here's the subject/object thing again... I thought I had seen this through, but I caught myself right in the middle of it!

What does need to go in order for there not to be a you/self?

I was about to say that there is no "I" when there is no thoughts. But sometimes thoughts are wordless and the sense of I persists.

Is there an entity searching to see this no-self thing, or do we just find a bunch of thoughts accompanied with feelings, that happen without any choice?

"a bunch of thoughts accompanied with feelings": oh yeah, big time.
"that happen without any choice": this one I tend to forget. But whenever I tell myself "I can choose to think of something else", I see that I didn't choose that very thought...

The seeker being an activity, rather than an entity?

... that rings a bell... I mean, when I go about my day to day life and I'm not in "seeking mode", no entity (e.g. 'I') is being added or dropped. Only environment (including what I'm doing, that is activity) has changed. I'm gonna have to ponder that!

Thanks,
Nil

Hi Nil,

Well the sense of an "I" is definitely here, and in particular whenever I interact with someone else. But I can't figure out if there is a difference between an actual "I" and a sense of "I". Is there one? If "I" consists of belief patterns, action patterns, memories, etc... then that kind of "I" exists, right?

Not sure what you mean. There is no real 'I' at all, there is the sense of I, there is identification with feelings and thoughts, but that's it, nothing underneath it at all.
When children believe in Santa it may feel very real for them, they hear all kind of stories, can get very exited about any santa related. So they may really believe there is a santa somewhere, but there isn't, the stories don't point to anything.. Where does Nil point to?

No, the sense is not separate, it is lived by... "me"?! Aha! Here's the subject/object thing again... I thought I had seen this through, but I caught myself right in the middle of it!

Is there something experiencing this sense of separation, anyone it happens to?

"a bunch of thoughts accompanied with feelings": oh yeah, big time.
"that happen without any choice": this one I tend to forget. But whenever I tell myself "I can choose to think of something else", I see that I didn't choose that very thought...

If there is no choice made for a thought or action, what control is there?

... that rings a bell... I mean, when I go about my day to day life and I'm not in "seeking mode", no entity (e.g. 'I') is being added or dropped. Only environment (including what I'm doing, that is activity) has changed. I'm gonna have to ponder that!

Yes good one.

Floris

Hello Floris,

When children believe in Santa it may feel very real for them, they hear all kind of stories, can get very exited about any santa related. So they may really believe there is a santa somewhere, but there isn't, the stories don't point to anything.. Where does Nil point to?

The analogy with Santa Claus bugs me a little bit. If Santa points to anything, it points to stories like you said. But those stories are external in the sense that they are experienced second-hand while the stories of "I" are experienced first-hand... The concepts of Santa are shared among everyone, but my memories are experienced only by "me". See what I mean? You and I can have similar views of Santa, but I can't in any way experience your "I".

Is there something experiencing this sense of separation, anyone it happens to?

Save for thoughts, that are themselves impersonal experiences but state otherwise, no...

If there is no choice made for a thought or action, what control is there?

And that's a really tough one to swallow because of all the conditioning. I've been taught ever since I was born that I have control... but under scrutiny it doesn't hold up. But "I" tries and hangs to its belief system.

In the end, I guess it all revolves around beliefs... most of them are cherished but probably false. Ouch!

Cheers,
Nil

The analogy with Santa Claus bugs me a little bit. If Santa points to anything, it points to stories like you said. But those stories are external in the sense that they are experienced second-hand while the stories of "I" are experienced first-hand... The concepts of Santa are shared among everyone, but my memories are experienced only by "me". See what I mean? You and I can have similar views of Santa, but I can't in any way experience your "I".

Not completely following you. Your memories/stories are less shared then the stories of Santa, but what makes your memories more you than the stories of Santa? Are memories owned, or do they belong to anything? If I share the stories of Floris with you, why wouldn't those stories be just as much yours, as they would be mine?

And that's a really tough one to swallow because of all the conditioning. I've been taught ever since I was born that I have control... but under scrutiny it doesn't hold up. But "I" tries and hangs to its belief system.

Yes exactly. Do you feel resistance to no control? How would you feel without holding on to that belief?

Floris

Hey Floris,

Your memories/stories are less shared then the stories of Santa, but what makes your memories more you than the stories of Santa?

The belief of ownership in those memories...

Are memories owned, or do they belong to anything? If I share the stories of Floris with you, why wouldn't those stories be just as much yours, as they would be mine?

Good point. And in which case I become Floris-ish. Identity seems relative. "I" isn't absolute.

Do you feel resistance to no control? How would you feel without holding on to that belief?

To be honest I don't feel resistance anymore. Rather, I feel despair, hopelessness, boredom. I feel like I was fooled all along, not only by the illusion of control, but by everything. Including all that I was ever taught. Only things verifiable are: seeing, hearing, etc... And again doubting. I don't think reaching this point was the goal of this inquiry on LU. Maybe I'm not cut for it. Control/choice and so on being non-existent, I don't really have a say in it, do I.
Oh well...

Nil.

Hey Nil,

To be honest I don't feel resistance anymore. Rather, I feel despair, hopelessness, boredom. I feel like I was fooled all along, not only by the illusion of control, but by everything. Including all that I was ever taught. Only things verifiable are: seeing, hearing, etc... And again doubting. I don't think reaching this point was the goal of this inquiry on LU. Maybe I'm not cut for it. Control/choice and so on being non-existent, I don't really have a say in it, do I.
Oh well...

Control and choice being non-existent, yes, but perhaps it's more important to see that there is no-one that could exercise these things.
How did it happen that things have been seen as choice or control? And how could seeing that there is no control change how you feel and relate to the world?

To come back on something you wrote earlier:

Nil wrote: Well the sense of an "I" is definitely here, and in particular whenever I interact with someone else. But I can't figure out if there is a difference between an actual "I" and a sense of "I". Is there one? If "I" consists of belief patterns, action patterns, memories, etc... then that kind of "I" exists, right?

In this, we have 2 different aspects:
1. The regular familiar physical experience - that you call: the sense of an "I".
2. The belief in a separate "I" entity.
Do you expect that when the belief in a separate "I" entity falls away, that also the sense of an "I" should go along with it? And if that is so, do you see how you see these two different aspects as one, which they actually aren't?

Floris

Hi Nil,

Change this line:
And how could seeing that there is no control change how you feel and relate to the world?

to this one:
And how could seeing that there is no one in control, change how you feel and relate to the world?

Why even care for the question of control, if there isn't even some "I" that could possibly exercise it
:)

Good morning,

How did it happen that things have been seen as choice or control?

I imagine that the very definition of choice and control can't really exist without some kind of identification to an "I", "you" etc... As for how it happens we yet see them as existing things, to that I say indoctrination and reinforcement?

And how could seeing that there is no one in control, change how you feel and relate to the world?

Perhaps change is just an expectation and nothing will in fact ever change. On the other hand, without some sort of a change, say from a "I" way of life to a "no-I" way of life, how can there be any kind of realization? Or is it again some concept again? Maybe realization can exist on its own without anything else? And that again in itself is some other concept, blah blah... catching myself thinking too much again!

In this, we have 2 different aspects:
1. The regular familiar physical experience - that you call: the sense of an "I".
2. The belief in a separate "I" entity.

I'm going to go ahead and change the order of the next couple of points you made.

And if that is so, do you see how you see these two different aspects as one, which they actually aren't?

Touché. I see indeed these two aspects as one and the same thing! And you are telling me these aren't the same... Hum... It reminds me somehow of our last exchange where I said something about my memories versus someone else's. That "mine" and "yours" thing creates separateness and I now see that the belief of a separate "I" entity stems from (yet again) a sense of ownership which is ultimately B.S. Where's ownership in direct experience? Thoughts only. Are thoughts owned by anything? For an answer, more thoughts to the rescue coming up!
I can see I still have this concept of inner world and outer world. Which relies upon "mine" vs "yours". I thought I had seen it before but I still get caught in it apparently.
So you say the "sense of I" and "belief of separate I" are two different things, but isn't that belief included within the sense? Doesn't the sense actually come from that belief?

Do you expect that when the belief in a separate "I" entity falls away, that also the sense of an "I" should go along with it?

I would've said yes and still believe so to some extent... but I'm not sure. To be honest, I'm not sure of anything as of lately. Once no-"I" is seen (or not seen, or whatever), that much is crystal clear, right? Otherwise, I'm just swapping beliefs.

Why even care for the question of control, if there isn't even some "I" that could possibly exercise it

To make life spicier? "Human drama" as Jed McKenna would say?
More seriously, I suppose the question doesn't even arise if the concept of "I" is seen through. If that's the case, that should be a good hint. But I'd be relying on hearsay... which I should avoid.

Nil

Good evening,

Perhaps change is just an expectation and nothing will in fact ever change. On the other hand, without some sort of a change, say from a "I" way of life to a "no-I" way of life, how can there be any kind of realization? Or is it again some concept again? Maybe realization can exist on its own without anything else? And that again in itself is some other concept, blah blah... catching myself thinking too much again!

Actually I meant my question in a different way, like ´how would you feel if you let go of the illusion of control?'. Sorry sometimes I write unclear :)

I can see I still have this concept of inner world and outer world. Which relies upon "mine" vs "yours". I thought I had seen it before but I still get caught in it apparently.

If we take sounds, they are only vibrations in the air, the the ear translates it into nerve impulses that travel to the brain and the brain creates the sound and the illusion of where it thinks it comes from.
It's the brain that creates this "outer world" and the "subject" that goes through it. What do you think of this?

So you say the "sense of I" and "belief of separate I" are two different things, but isn't that belief included within the sense? Doesn't the sense actually come from that belief?

They can come and go together to a certain degree, but they are definitely not the same thing. You can feel the sense of I, but you don't need to believe this is a real separate I.

More seriously, I suppose the question doesn't even arise if the concept of "I" is seen through. If that's the case, that should be a good hint. But I'd be relying on hearsay... which I should avoid.

Isn't the illusion of I that there is a separate I here which observes the world, and can do things, etc.? But is there such a thing? If you eat or drive, don't the movements just happen?

Floris

Hey Floris,

Actually I meant my question in a different way, like ´how would you feel if you let go of the illusion of control?'.

Well, I'd have to actually let go of the illusion to know how it felt. That being said, whenever I'm not thinking about it, I still do things and things happen and it feels what it feels at that moment. Nothing special. It's only when I'm trying to rationalize stuff happening that the illusion of control creeps in. So there's either a feeling of control or no feeling of control, in which case nothing particular to control is felt.

Sorry sometimes I write unclear :)

Hey, that's totally cool. Look at what I'm writing! It's a lot worse ;-)

If we take sounds, they are only vibrations in the air, the the ear translates it into nerve impulses that travel to the brain and the brain creates the sound and the illusion of where it thinks it comes from.
It's the brain that creates this "outer world" and the "subject" that goes through it. What do you think of this?

I think it makes total sense... as long as I cling onto my beliefs of sound, physiology and neuroscience theories. But in direct experience, there's no such theories except in thought.
Now, let's consider the expression "in my world". "In my world" means in fact experiences and especially thoughts that I perceive. As opposed to "your world" being others' experiences that I don't perceive but take for granted that they exist. Coming back to a physiological point of view, the brain generates thoughts that maintain that separation continuously. If for a moment, those thoughts don't show up, then only "my world" remains. And since there is only "my world", there is no other and so there is only "the world" that is experienced...
I'm getting lost in my own contemplation here... Okay, let me say this: the brain generates stuff in reaction to its environment. Human societies "program" it (for functionality purpose presumably) so that there is a subject/object concept. It's fully automated and as such I can't decide to drop that belief even if I think I decided to drop the belief.
... how unclear is that? :-D

They can come and go together to a certain degree, but they are definitely not the same thing. You can feel the sense of I, but you don't need to believe this is a real separate I.

Agreed. But even when I try to see this, and can see it to a point, I still get caught in the illusion.
Maybe it's because I'm not seeing it at all... How could the belief be sustained if it is seen through for real?! Darn! Thoughts of disillusion that are illusion themselves. How fun.

Isn't the illusion of I that there is a separate I here which observes the world, and can do things, etc.? But is there such a thing? If you eat or drive, don't the movements just happen?

Movements, events, etc. happen indeed... But my only proof is tainted by thoughts.
For example, thoughts are telling me that all these nonsensical paragraphs above are actually the product of my action. Proof? Some thoughts/memories. Authorship is as always embedded in them. Now when I drive to work and arrive at work an hour later, I'll have recollection of say 5% of the whole trip and I'll have an authorship/memory thought to thank for that. What about the 95% missing? So things seem to happen on their own indeed, but as soon as I'm pondering that, that's a thought telling me a story: "things just happen".
Bottom line: whether it be the illusion of control or the impression of things happening, all of it is thoughts. How can I belief in any of it?
Okay, I'm confused again...

Cheers,
Nil

Good evening,

Now, let's consider the expression "in my world". "In my world" means in fact experiences and especially thoughts that I perceive. As opposed to "your world" being others' experiences that I don't perceive but take for granted that they exist.

Can you find the you who perceives this all?

... how unclear is that? :-D

Well it got me scratching my head :D
So what do we have, all (well most..) of humanity lost into their me-worlds, generated by the brain. Separation only being a construction

Agreed. But even when I try to see this, and can see it to a point, I still get caught in the illusion.
Maybe it's because I'm not seeing it at all... How could the belief be sustained if it is seen through for real?! Darn! Thoughts of disillusion that are illusion themselves. How fun.

Can you go to what you call the sense of I, let go of all labels, and describe the feeling or sensations as accurately as possible?

For example, thoughts are telling me that all these nonsensical paragraphs above are actually the product of my action. Proof? Some thoughts/memories. Authorship is as always embedded in them.

Who's thinking is it? And for who is the thinking?/who is thinking informing?

Floris

Hello.

Can you find the you who perceives this all?

Without going into thinking, there is perceiving and... that's it... up until stuff gets interpreted and thoughts sneak in with a "me". Something I'm noticing lately is that there are a lot of nonverbal thoughts but they are not as obvious as verbal ones. So when I'm looking at direct experience, I'm under the impression I don't have thoughts but I do and they perpetuate the "I" story.

So what do we have, all (well most..) of humanity lost into their me-worlds, generated by the brain. Separation only being a construction

From an interpretation standpoint, sounds accurate!

For example, thoughts are telling me that all these nonsensical paragraphs above are actually the product of my action. Proof? Some thoughts/memories. Authorship is as always embedded in them.

Who's thinking is it? And for who is the thinking?/who is thinking informing?

Excellent question! Who's doing the thinking and for whom is it? A thought will say that I'm doing the thinking for myself... for reflection if you will.
But without going into thoughts, thoughts are just appearing and disappearing.

Can you go to what you call the sense of I, let go of all labels, and describe the feeling or sensations as accurately as possible?

This one should be easy and yet I'm having a hard time figuring out what kind of feelings and sensations define my sense of I. I can't pinpoint anything. Sometimes it's just some verbal thought with an "I" thrown in. Sometimes it's some visual thought such as some memories. Also, I tend to have more "I"-ness when I'm sick for some reason.
But I really can't describe anything more. It's very vague.
Heck! This whole thing is vague!

Nil.

Good evening,

Excellent question! Who's doing the thinking and for whom is it? A thought will say that I'm doing the thinking for myself... for reflection if you will.
But without going into thoughts, thoughts are just appearing and disappearing.

So it's clear that I consists of thoughts ?
..and you have a clear experiential result that only thoughts can be found that indicate the existence of a Self? ..and that loop can be described as a self perpetuating SENSE of Self. Is that accurate ?

Furthermore, do you have any doubts about this no-self thing?

Floris

Hey Floris,

So it's clear that I consists of thoughts ?

Yes, that much seems clear to me. Nothing else in direct experience says "me" or "I"!

...and you have a clear experiential result that only thoughts can be found that indicate the existence of a Self?

Yes, and there is a situation when it's very obvious. And that is whenever someone calls my name while I'm not expecting it. There's sound, name recognition and reaction. Upon recognition of my name, self appears. Everything is clearly automatic, at least up till the "hey someone's calling your name". My reaction has lots of thought noise with a strong sense of self that without them would not be there.

..and that loop can be described as a self perpetuating SENSE of Self. Is that accurate ?

Self is self-sustained through feedback and feedforward loops. It works very similarly to a foot-in-the-door.

Furthermore, do you have any doubts about this no-self thing?

Not really a doubt, but I still get caught up in self. It comes in wave. Once in a while I somewhat step back and see thoughts creating a subject. When doubt about it arises, it's again brought up by thoughts like a survival thing. It doesn't really have any contents to it.

I do have a question though, what's the difference between attention, mindfulness, looking and the like?

Cheers,
Nil

Hi Nil,

Yes, and there is a situation when it's very obvious. And that is whenever someone calls my name while I'm not expecting it. There's sound, name recognition and reaction. Upon recognition of my name, self appears. Everything is clearly automatic, at least up till the "hey someone's calling your name". My reaction has lots of thought noise with a strong sense of self that without them would not be there.

This "self" that appears, is it an actual self, or is it the illusion of self ?
Is it the IDEA of a self, with some accompanying feelings, that give you a SENSE of a self ? ..but not an actual self ?

I do have a question though, what's the difference between attention, mindfulness, looking and the like?

Needed to ask someone else to give an answer here!
attention, is when thoughts are focused on something. mindfulness, is when thoughts are focused on the attention thoughts. In other words, mindfulness is thoughts looking at the thoughts that are happening.

Floris