advaita vedanta lead me to solipsism - please help!

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Here is a thought experiment on free will by Sam Harris, please watch it and use it for investigation. (Not for analysing, but for looking at your immediate experience).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwjD4hf ... K1dj580YDU

Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Outside of time? Is there such thing as inside and outside of time?

Time exists in thought only. By saying outside of time, I am saying outside of thought. But you’re right, there is no inside - outside.

What is the experience of time in this very moment?

Frankly, there is no experience of time in this very moment.

What is it exactly that is posing this very question?

So in crudest terms, the question is appearing on my screen.

Is there a person called Vivien behind this question?

Reason/thought tells me so. But again in crudest terms no.

Is there someone giving questions to another person Robbie?

The same as above. Without thought, there are just questions. Or how far back do we need to go? Could we just say there is writing? Or further still, black squiggles on a white background? Or further still, just colours? Or further again, just thisness?And again, just isness? And this is where the I-that-I-cannot-find is struggling. What pieces in all together? Or do we just have to say it happens?!!!!! Ahhhhhh....

What are the experiences of these two apparent persons?

No, there are no experiences of these 2 persons. Until thinking starts in response to the question. The thoughts just come randomly? We have to believe it just happens.

What is the immediate experience of the questioner, Vivien?

Thought only.

And how is Robbie, the seeming answerer, experienced?

Thought only.

Sorry this must be so boring for you. Again, I cannot find ‘me’. This is clear. The rest of it though is a complete muddle again.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Have you seen my second post yesterday with a youtube video? It’s on the top of this page.

Time exists in thought only. By saying outside of time, I am saying outside of thought. But you’re right, there is no inside - outside.

But how could there be a time in thoughts? Look very closely. There is no time in thoughts either, since there are only thoughts ABOUT time. Can you see this?

V: What is it exactly that is posing this very question?

R: So in crudest terms, the question is appearing on my screen.

V: Is there a person called Vivien behind this question?

R: Reason/thought tells me so. But again in crudest terms no.

Please dig deeper here.

It’s one thing to say that ‘in crudest terms’ there is no person asking the questions, and it’s a totally different thing to actually, really see it.

Go beyond entertaining the idea that there is no person asking the questions, and really investigate this.

If there is no separate self or center inside the body called ‘Robbie’, then can there be selves, inside other bodies?

What is other person other to?

In order for to be others, there has to be a personal-me that others are other to.

So if reading these questions comes with a feeling of I’m comprehending these words and I am choosing to answer them, then it means that there is a belief not just in a personal me as Robbie, but also in others, like a person, called Vivien

Can you see that the belief in a me comes in hand in hand with a belief in other selves?
As soon as one is taken to be real, automatically the other is also accepted as a fact?

No, there are no experiences of these 2 persons. Until thinking starts in response to the question. The thoughts just come randomly? We have to believe it just happens.

Do you need a belief to know that thoughts just happen?
Does the knowing of thoughts happening on its own without a doer or a thinker requires a belief?
Or it is seen PRIOR to any belief?

Sorry this must be so boring for you. Again, I cannot find ‘me’. This is clear. The rest of it though is a complete muddle again.

As long as there is no utter clarity without any doubt that under no circumstance is there a thinker, doer, decider, or a recognizer, the I - which is a separate self-, is not fully seen through. So more digging is needed.

Reason/thought tells me so.

Are thoughts talking to someone or something?

Is there someone listening to thoughts? Or there is no listener whatsoever, since the listener is ONLY suggested by thoughts?

Is there someone comprehending the meaning of thoughts? Or comprehension just happens on its own?

Please don't reply quickly. Stay with these questions for at least 2 days, and investigate them repeatedly.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Have you seen my second post yesterday with a youtube video? It’s on the top of this page.

Yes, I watched it last night. Thank you for sending it. It made quite an impression. It explains a lot. What to say?! If you trace the steps back as far as you can, you end up with something coming from nothing.

But how could there be a time in thoughts? Look very closely. There is no time in thoughts either since there are only thoughts ABOUT time. Can you see this?

I am sorry, I should have explained myself better because I agree with you. Time does not exist. It is entirely conceptual.

Please dig deeper here.

It’s one thing to say that ‘in crudest terms’ there is no person asking the questions, and it’s a totally different thing to actually, really see it.

Go beyond entertaining the idea that there is no person asking the questions, and really investigate this.

Yes, I agree. I know there are just questions. But I do not REALLY see that there is no one asking them. I will see how to investigate this further. The question is 'how' though?

If there is no separate self or center inside the body called ‘Robbie’, then can there be selves, inside other bodies?

No, the idea of separate selves is seen through. They are appearances. Their body is an appearance in the same way 'my' body is an appearance or the tree is an appearance. Their words are appearances in the same way 'my' thoughts are appearances or the noise of a bird is an appearance.

What is other person other to?

I wondered if this was a typo for a while, and then I understood what you're asking!! I am sure this is not right but... the other person is other only to other appearances.

Can you see that the belief in a me comes in hand in hand with a belief in other selves?

Yes, this is a good point. Something I had realised before and sort of forgotten. There is only just existence with 'no one' driving it or experiencing it.

As soon as one is taken to be real, automatically the other is also accepted as a fact?

Do you need a belief to know that thoughts just happen?

No, Sam Harris 'did for me' on this. Even when you think you are picking between your thoughts, you can retrace your steps and find that these thoughts come from nothing. There is no belief needed anymore :)

Does the knowing of thoughts happening on its own without a doer or a thinker requires a belief?

No.

Or it is seen PRIOR to any belief?

This is emphatically seen and without any doubt, I promise!

Are thoughts talking to someone or something?

No, they do not talk to someone or something. They are just known.

Is there someone listening to thoughts? Or there is no listener whatsoever, since the listener is ONLY suggested by thoughts?

Not someone, no. But the thoughts are known. By what? Just knowing it seems but perhaps I need to spend some more time with this.

Is there someone comprehending the meaning of thoughts? Or comprehension just happens on its own?

Is comprehension not just more thoughts? No one births thoughts and no one comprehends them. There is just thoughts about thoughts and just the knowing of them. Does comprehension presume a comprehender?

That Sam Harris film really helped, thank you!!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

That Sam Harris film really helped, thank you!!

I’m glad to hear that :)

V: What is other person other to?

R: I wondered if this was a typo for a while, and then I understood what you're asking!! I am sure this is not right but... the other person is other only to other appearances.

Another person can only ever be other to ME. Without me, there is no other.
Just notice that when there is a belief in me, there is automatically a belief in not-me.
So if there is a me, then there is a not-me too.
Like the body is me, and everything outside of the skin in not me.
But if there is no me inside the body, then the duality of me and not-me collapses.
Both me and not-me lose their meaning.
Just as me and others become meaningless.
There cannot be others without a reference that they are other to.
And another could only ever be other to ME.
If there is no me, they cannot be other to anything. So they stop being other.
Can you see this?

Please look at these very carefully, sentence by sentence.

No, the idea of separate selves is seen through. They are appearances. Their body is an appearance in the same way 'my' body is an appearance or the tree is an appearance. Their words are appearances in the same way 'my' thoughts are appearances or the noise of a bird is an appearance.

Yes. So if both the seeming me and the seeming others are just appearances, then there is no otherness. They are the same, just appearances

Since there is nothing to be other to. Can you see this clearly in experience?

Does comprehension presume a comprehender?

Only if you believe so :)

Look carefully… Does comprehension needs a comprehender?
Or comprehending is just happening on its own, unbidden, just as raining or digestion is happening on their own?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Another person can only ever be other to ME. Without me, there is no other.
Just notice that when there is a belief in me, there is automatically a belief in not-me.
So if there is a me, then there is a not-me too.
Like the body is me, and everything outside of the skin in not me.
But if there is no me inside the body, then the duality of me and not-me collapses.
Both me and not-me lose their meaning.
Just as me and others become meaningless.
There cannot be others without a reference that they are other to.
And another could only ever be other to ME.
If there is no me, they cannot be other to anything. So they stop being other.
Can you see this?

Yes. I absolutely know this to be true and I feel a small shift in this regard. But I am a long way from it being my living reality. It will take time. I will keep looking at your words over the weekend.

Since there is nothing to be other to. Can you see this clearly in experience?

I can see this clearly but not in all experience. It is coming though. Everything is known from nowhere. The nature of the appearances differ but the fact that they are known from nowhere means that everyTHING appears in the same space. There is no me and them separation. Just them. Just knowing of everyTHING within a single space. It is difficult to explain this. Does it make sense?

Look carefully... Does comprehension needs a comprehender?
Or comprehending is just happening on its own, unbidden, just as raining or digestion is happening on their own?

Ah ha! Yes. Okay. Then everyTHING (literally whatever appears whenever and wherever) just happens and is known from nowhere. It somehow seems more this way now. Who know how it will seem next?!

Have a great weekend.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Yes. I absolutely know this to be true and I feel a small shift in this regard. But I am a long way from it being my living reality. It will take time. I will keep looking at your words over the weekend.

Yes, please do so.

Let’s go back to the notion of something comprehending these words (or anything else).

Go to a mirror and look at the face you can see there.

What is it exactly that is recognizing this face?
What is it that is calling it as MY face?
Can you actually pin down anything that is doing the recognizing?
Can you identify anything separate from what is seen (face in the mirror) recognizing it?

Notice, that there is only an assumption that there must be something doing it.
But can this assumption stand up to scrutiny? Or it turns out to be false?

Please repeat this many times before replying. Make sure that you are certain with your reply.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi,

What is it exactly that is recognizing this face?

There is nothing recognising this face. It is recognised or known but by what? Nothing.

What is it that is calling it as MY face?

Ah yes. This is a thought. There is a very discernable gap and difference between the pure knowing/recognition of the face and the thought 'this is my face'.

Can you actually pin down anything that is doing the recognizing?

No. But to say it is nowhere is not right because it is here. It's just that it cannot be more specifically located than this.

Can you identify anything separate from what is seen (face in the mirror) recognizing it?

No. Because there is no specific location from which this recognition is happening, it is like everything knowing/recognising itself.

Notice, that there is only an assumption that there must be something doing it.

Yes, this is so clear now. The knowing of the face and then the thought relating to it being my face are two very different appearances in experience. There is an assumption that the 'me' to whom the thought refers must be the same 'me' that is knowing 'my face'. But in experience, this is not true.

But can this assumption stand up to scrutiny? Or it turns out to be false?

Yes. This really is an assumption. The 'me' to whom the thought refers by suggesting 'this is my face' is not the recognising/knowing element in the actual experience. It is more like the experience is recognising itself.

So, in conclusion... there is the experience of knowing the face and all aspects around it, then there is thought (which is an ENTIRELY different experience) saying 'this is my face'. An assumption is then formed that it is 'me knowing my face'. But this is not true. The knowing of the face happens before any thought relating to the experience. And the thought relating to the experience is an entirely different experience in an of its own. So knowing happens and then thoughts come with words incorrectly relating to that experience and there is a subtle assumption that stems from the thought. This is how it seems at the moment. It is deeper than I had thought it would be!!! I will play around with it a bit more today...

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

You did a nice investigation :) well done :)

I will play around with it a bit more today...

Yes, please do so. Please be thorough and let me know what you find.

Here is a lovely experiment to really see if thoughts are the instigator of a decision, if self is via thoughts the decider and chooser.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

Here's what’s needed - a chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Warmly,
Vivien

[robbiemac]

Morning!

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

They just come There is no knowing what will come or when.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

'I' did not choose when the counting began. It just began.

I read the steps. Then, the first step began. Then, the second one took over. And so on... I cannot remember whether a thought appeared before the action or not. Sometimes, perhaps there is the thought followed by the action. Sometimes, there is a thought followed by no action. Sometimes, action followed by thought relating to the action. And sometimes, just action unaccompanied by thought. Ah but this is just is supposition! In this experiment, there were thoughts and actions...

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Actually, the action did not follow the thoughts. Thoughts clearly preferred A but then 'I' picked up B. 'I' did not feel to be the chooser. I witnessed A LOT of thoughts 'chatting' about what 'I' should do. But I had no more control of what thought was coming or when it was coming. They just came and went.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Yes, I get this. But the only way to substantiate a 'chooser' is through identification with thought. When this identification folds, even if there are thoughts suggesting that 'I' must choose to do something and 'I' do that thing... it is not 'I' that chose to do it. In retrospect, there might come the thought 'I decided to do that'. This is a thought bound by the idea that 'I' birth thoughts so 'I' was the one to decide (with thoughts) to something in the first place. Goodness, I am explaining this really badly!!! Basically, there is no one birthing thoughts so there can be no chooser. I don't feel myself to be a chooser anymore. But I know the thoughts relating to the choice before and/or after action. I hope this is a bit clearer.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

I witnessed A LOT of thoughts 'chatting' about what 'I' should do. But I had no more control of what thought was coming or when it was coming. They just came and went.

I would like to ask you to repeat the exercise with again, choosing between 2 objects, but this time focus on the witnessing part of thoughts chatting about which to choose.

Is there a witness separate from the witnessed (thoughts)?

Is there a witness which is independent of and prior to sense perception?

I don't feel myself to be a chooser anymore.

Great! :)

But what is this I that doesn’t feel itself to be the chooser anymore?

Is there something standing apart from the choosing-thoughts, which is no longer feels itself to be the chooser?

Please spend a whole day investigating this. Look again and again. Play around with different scenarios. Go to the bottom of this.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Is there a witness separate from the witnessed (thoughts)?

This has been really strange! I cannot find anything behind the witnessed. It must have been presumed. Can this be?

It is quite disorienting. The thoughts are known. But by what? And that’s the point. There is nothing knowing these thoughts. Everything is known by nothing

Is there a witness which is independent of and prior to the sense perception?

No. As above. There is no knower to anything that is known. There is just that that is known. In trying to find a knower for the knower. There is only the known. A knower is presumed. A knower is a thought.

But what is this I that doesn’t feel itself to be the chooser anymore?

This I that does not feel itself to be a chooser is a thought. I cannot find me. I can only find things that are known. There is no subject to this world of objects. There is just a world of known objects. But to call them objects is not technically correct...

Is there something standing apart from the choosing-thoughts, which is no longer feels itself to be the chooser?

No! This is presumed. Another thought. But I cannot actually find a chooser, a subject. And of course I can’t. It is impossible!

I think I have been here before. But this realisation feels quite profound for some reason.

Good weekend.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

I think I have been here before. But this realisation feels quite profound for some reason.

Great! I would like to ask you to stay with this until we talk on Tuesday, to let it really sink in.

Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Here are the same questions again. Please don’t try to give an intellectual explanation how things are, rather just write about your current experience, how you perceive it now (even when the question asks for an explanation, just write how it is for you now in simple terms). You can even compare how it was before our dialog, and how it is now.

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

2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different 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) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

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

No. There is no separate self and there never has been.

2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

It shows up via thought. It is created by thought. Now, there is the recognition that everything is temporal and all this is known by no one nowhere.

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.

Honestly, it was quite disorienting at first. Now though... there is calmness, lightness and spaciousness.

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

Looking for the I that was frustrated. And then, looking for the I before/behind the thoughts relating to choice.

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

These are ideas founded upon the belief in an I. But really there are just thoughts and actions. Thoughts might suggest that there is an I deciding, intending, choosing etc. But in reality, there is no one thinking or doing.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

There is no me that is responsible for anything. There are just thoughts, sensations, actions etc. So, giving any examples of this seems moot. Things are. They happen. They are known but by no one.

6) Anything to add?

I cannot be found and this is clear. However, this is the beginning of 'experience' that just happens and is known.

RM