Guidance please?

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

I'm good thanks.

I have practiced looking and can find no sign of “self” in my current experience. My fingers are typing, the words are appearing on the screen in front of me and I can clearly “see” there is no “self” necessary for all this to happen. It’s just happening. I practice the looking all day long. From the moment I wake up to the moment I fall asleep. My experience is both deeply familiar and strange at the same time. That’s the best way I can describe it. I feel very absorbed with the looking.

Brilliant! You're doing just what's required and it's clearly paying off. Once you've looked everywhere there is to look and can clearly SEE without a doubt that there's no self anywhere , and never has been, that's it, you'll always know that, no matter what your mental state is at the time. Keep up the good work!

I don’t talk about it to anyone at home or work. I don’t think they would understand and I don’t want to talk about it anyway. The experience feels too new to talk about.

That's the best approach, because, unless they've done this too, they wouldn't understand. Same for me, I didn't want to talk about it either. Just let it unfold as it will.

And this definitely feels like a radically new way to approach life. As you said I am still having strong negative emotions at home and work but I find I’m quickly able to discharge a lot of the emotional sting out of it by dropping the I story, which is just a fiction anyway. It’s actually hard to write about because I feel the experience is very fluid and I’m still getting used to being able to flip from the “I” perspective and then dropping the “I” and opening into raw experience. It’s certainly made meetings at work more bearable by having this looking to practice. If I leave the process now I feel I am leaving with something worthwhile.

Again, great to hear this. When you look you are seeing that these strong negative emotions aren't personal, not you, just passing 'through' awareness like everything else. Finally seeing through a sense of self means that emotions don't attach, they're less 'sticky' don't hang around as much and seemingly create mayhem. And it's not even a way to approach life, not even 'you' being life, just life living itself, lifeing even.

However, I know I am not free. Freer certainly, but not free.

Who is there to be free if there's no you? If there are insistent thoughts telling you you're not free, can you find a thinker of those thoughts? Or is it some kind of protection reaction that the mind produces spontaneously?

I feel strong ego grasping at times mainly out of fear. I don’t know what I am frightened off. Fear of letting go maybe. As I write that I can feel the subtle tensioning in my chest and guts. A cold icy grip. I think I will have to practice a lot with this fear. It’s like a deep instinctual grabbing in my body. Like a jolt. I don’t feel free from the fear. My mind is full of doubts. All thoughts I know, and thoughts are not real, but it’s the fear behind those doubts that binds me. The fear creates a strong ego contraction and the I story becomes real again.

I’ve noticed it happens with anger too. I am deeply identified with anger and fear still. At least I have someway of working with them now. Or at least a new way. In the heat of the emotional moment the I story becomes very strong again. Perhaps it’s a survival reflex. Fight or flight. When it kicks in I feel very me and separate. And it feels powerful and convincing.

This slightly contradicts the impression I got from what you were saying earlier:

I find I’m quickly able to discharge a lot of the emotional sting out of it by dropping the I story, which is just a fiction anyway.

However, it's clear that a lot of emotional stuff is coming up for you and I really sympathise, and empathise with that. My reason for guiding is to help people alleviate their suffering by helping them to truly see that the self is an illusion that causes so much suffering. We all have our 'own' unique habit energies (samskaras in Buddhist terminology) probably exacerbated by the looking 'process'. At last, some questions:

What is your direct experience of the specific emotions you mention? List them in detail.

Do you notice the emotions before or after the sensations and thoughts? What is the relationship between them?

Focus and magnify until you see how it all works together. You'll begin to notice that sensations usually come first (tightness in the chest and pit of the stomach), followed by thoughts that stick labels on the sensations ("That's fear I'm feeling"), followed by a full-blown emotional response ("I'm afraid").

Do you notice that in your experience? Do you see how the thoughts work like a labeling machine?


You're doing so well and I'd really like to keep the momentum going by, reasonably systematically, looking at each the areas of your direct experience to see if a self-entity can be found anywhere.

When you look at something, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing? If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

You can do the same with hearing, birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill whatever, and similarly tasting, feeling and smelling.

Also, with thoughts, can you find a thinker, or is there just thinking?

There's a fair bit here, but, because you're making such good progress (in marked contrast to what your doubts and fears might be saying) I really want to crack on. If it's too much for you to do in one go, just split it up and reply in chunks, as many as you like, I won't mind.

Lots of love,

Pete

[amrita]

Hi,

Will get back to you shortly. Work, family, the stuff of life has all been calling my attention so haven't had as much time as I would like to give this over the past few days. However, I have managed to keep practicing (looking) and can always find a way to step into the natural state of raw experience. It's always there isn't it?

I fully intend to carry on here but may not be able to post every day as I originally intended. I will try to but want to let you know that I may not be able to. Meanwhile, I will carry on with your suggestions and see how things unfold. Thank you for your full answers. I appreciate the effort you are putting into this. I'll write when I can next find time.

Until then, go well.

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

Thanks for that.

I appreciate that you might not always be able to post substantively every day and, of course, that's fine. So as to maintain the necessary momentum and stay within the spirit of the post-once-day agreement we made at the start, please try to make sure that, at the latest, you reply to each of my posts by the end of the following day. Obviously, if sooner, then better.

I must stress that a lot of the groundwork has already been done here and posts should, all other things being equal, become more focused and shorter. As I've said, all we really need to do now is go through all the various areas/aspects of 'your' direct experience to look for a self. If none can be found, and you can see that for sure, that's it. It's then not a temporary state but something you know and refer to whenever you need, with the liberating change in perspective that that brings to life.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon with replies to (or some of) the points in my previous post.

P x

[amrita]

What is your direct experience of the specific emotions you mention? List them in detail.

Do you notice the emotions before or after the sensations and thoughts? What is the relationship between them?

Focus and magnify until you see how it all works together. You'll begin to notice that sensations usually come first (tightness in the chest and pit of the stomach), followed by thoughts that stick labels on the sensations ("That's fear I'm feeling"), followed by a full-blown emotional response ("I'm afraid").

Do you notice that in your experience? Do you see how the thoughts work like a labeling machine?


You're doing so well and I'd really like to keep the momentum going by, reasonably systematically, looking at each the areas of your direct experience to see if a self-entity can be found anywhere.

When you look at something, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing? If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

You can do the same with hearing, birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill whatever, and similarly tasting, feeling and smelling.

Also, with thoughts, can you find a thinker, or is there just thinking?

Hi Pete,

I am still carrying on with the looking into direct experience and the more I look the more I am convinced there is no “I” in any of my experience. However, there are times when my sense of “self” is more attenuated or even not there at all and I experience openness, spaciousness, clarity. At other times I experience “grasping” onto self, onto my body, onto strong emotions. When I experience this I carry on with the looking for self but I feel more “caught” up in the emotional response. At the same time there is thinking (labelling/describing) of my experience about “me” and which fits into a narrative about myself (who I am, likes,dislikes, etc)

In other words, it appears that my subjective sense of “I” is there at times and not there at other times. I believe the “I” is a strong habit of self-grasping, and yes I also believe it is a fiction that is imposed upon raw experience. However, grasping is still occurring. I will carry on working with this practice of looking. I don’t know what to expect from it anymore. A sudden moment of clarity or what seems to be happening a long slow gradual awakening.

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

I am still carrying on with the looking into direct experience and the more I look the more I am convinced there is no “I” in any of my experience. However, there are times when my sense of “self” is more attenuated or even not there at all and I experience openness, spaciousness, clarity.

The fact that you can find no "I" anywhere in direct experience, and that you are becoming more and more convinced that there is no self based solely on that, rather than just on an intellectual basis, is exactly what "should" be happening as a result of what you've been doing, and it sounds like it's deepening, which is great.

When I experience this I carry on with the looking for self but I feel more “caught” up in the emotional response. At the same time there is thinking (labelling/describing) of my experience about “me” and which fits into a narrative about myself (who I am, likes,dislikes, etc)

In other words, it appears that my subjective sense of “I” is there at times and not there at other times. I believe the “I” is a strong habit of self-grasping, and yes I also believe it is a fiction that is imposed upon raw experience. However, grasping is still occurring.

I don't know if what you describe is universal, but it sure happens to many, many people to varying degrees in this sort of situation. So long as it can be see that all of this labelling, commentary and judgement is just thoughts, not real, not "you" and not thought by "you", there really can be no problem. When you sit in this moment, experiencing just what's arising in this moment, as you are doing regularly, are there really any problems at all? Remember, it's not about a particular state (that couldn't be maintained in any event), but about knowing there's no self whenever one "remembers" to look.

I want to focus on thoughts as we just go through all possible areas where self might be, so you you can be absolutely sure that there in none to be found, but before I do, I need you to answer the questions I posed in my previous post, i.e.

When you look at something, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing? If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

You can do the same with hearing, birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill whatever, and similarly, with tasting, feeling and smelling.

Then, linking this to thoughts:

Also, with thoughts, can you find a thinker, or is there just thinking?

Lots of love,

Pete

[moondog]

Sorry, a couple of things that forgot.

I will carry on working with this practice of looking. I don’t know what to expect from it anymore. A sudden moment of clarity or what seems to be happening a long slow gradual awakening.

You never did or could know what to expect from it. Expectations are one of the mind's main ways of distracting us and sowing doubt. They are just thoughts again. How could thoughts possibly know what awakening will be like? Put them aside and keep looking! When you finally see, it may come with a "pop" or perhaps it'll gradually dawn on you that you're "there", as it was for me. You might even discover you've been there for a while. Who knows? It will unfold just as it does. No worries.

I'll be "out of town" with friends, over the weekend so I won't be able to post from Friday afternoon after 5, til Monday morning. So, that gives you some space and flexibility in your replies. Whether you send a full or partial response, if I get it tomorrow afternoon, I'll reply then, later and it will be Monday.

Take care,

Pete

[amrita]

I want to focus on thoughts as we just go through all possible areas where self might be, so you you can be absolutely sure that there in none to be found, but before I do, I need you to answer the questions I posed in my previous post, i.e.

When you look at something, a book, a tree outside or whatever, can you find an 'I' that is looking or seeing, or is there just seeing? If there is an 'I', where is the boundary between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

You can do the same with hearing, birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill whatever, and similarly, with tasting, feeling and smelling.

Then, linking this to thoughts:

Also, with thoughts, can you find a thinker, or is there just thinking?

I now find it relatively easy to see there is no "I" or "me" within sense experience. There is just the experience of seeing, or hearing, or tasting.

Likewise with thoughts, I am beginning to really see that there is no "I" or "me" necessary for thoughts to happen, they just happen. This is a new insight for me and I am still integrating this new way of looking at experience. I think I will be integrating this insight for the rest of my life.

What is harder for me to see through is bodily based sensations or feelings. Especially the stronger feelings. I can "see" through the emotion and see that there is no "I" within that experience but it still feels like its an intellectual seeing rather than a deep visceral experience if that makes sense. I will carry on with the looking.

I know this is a short post but I wanted to write something before you went away. Hope you have a great weekend wherever you go and whatever you do with it.

amrita x

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

As before, but more so, I'm really impressed and encouraged by your direct looking at experience, and your "not-seeing" any self, anywhere.

I now find it relatively easy to see there is no "I" or "me" within sense experience. There is just the experience of seeing, or hearing, or tasting.

Please don't think I'm being over-picky, I just need to be sure, when you say, it's relatively easy to see that there is no self in sense experience, do you mean that when you look (see, hear, feel etc.) there is simply seeing, hearing etc. with no "I" present at all in any way? I'm pretty sure you do, it's just the qualifying word "relatively" that puzzles me.

Likewise with thoughts, I am beginning to really see that there is no "I" or "me" necessary for thoughts to happen, they just happen. This is a new insight for me and I am still integrating this new way of looking at experience. I think I will be integrating this insight for the rest of my life.

Again, it's great that you can see that no "I" is needed for thoughts to happen. It's a wonderful insight to have. Do you see that thoughts just, as it were, bubble up out of nowhere unbidden, deliver their messages and then just go, disappear; all "automatically"?

I can "see" through the emotion and see that there is no "I" within that experience but it still feels like its an intellectual seeing rather than a deep visceral experience if that makes sense. I will carry on with the looking.

You might need to explain this in a bit more detail. If you can see in direct experience that there is no self involved in body-based sensations, feelings and emotions, that's that, that's fine and simply can't be merely intellectual "seeing". However, it may be that thoughts are arising that tell you that, but surely, if you've seen that there is no "I" involved,that's the real evidence. Thoughts just pop up to "try" and mess this up, but they've got absolutely no power if you just see them for what they are - unreliable data packages. Let me know a bit more about how this is for you.

By the way, don't necessarily expect a deep visceral experience. As I've said, just put aside all expectations. You're a lot closer to fully seeing through this illusion of self than you might think.

Moving on with our tour of where the self might possibly be:

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no "I" involved, but how is it for you when walking? How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Is there any "I" there for any of these actions, or are they just "automatic", as it were? Look to see whether, when "you" do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, "I did that." Are all actions "automatic"?

Enough. Enjoy this wonderful weather. I'm entertaining good old friends with my wife and we'll be journeying a bit around Somerset where we live, having a bit of a larf.

Lots of love

Pete

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

Hope you had a good weekend. Mine was great, rounded off by a couple of hours participatory singing at Wells Cathedral with Candy Verney. I used to be in the choir at the Nottingham Triratna Buddhist Centre a few years ago and it was great to do some singing again. A secular event but still a bit weird in a "House of God" (albeit a fabulous one) though!

Back "on duty" tomorrow, so looking forward to hearing from you.

P x

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

I hope all is ok with you and I'm looking forward to reading your latest replies.

Just to let you know that I'm away all day Tuesday in London and so won't be able to reply until Wednesday. No plans for any further trips etc. after that so we can continue moving onwards and upwards at a nice steady pace.

Lots of love,

Pete

[amrita]

Hey, good to hear you had a good weekend. Mine was good too, although over far too quickly. I work at a fairly demanding job which takes it out of me so haven’t had as much time as I would like to sit and look. In fact, I feel I have lost a bit of momentum with the practice of looking. It’s not that I’m not looking, it’s just not as often as I was last week when I began the process. However, when I remember the looking occurs more naturally and feels more familiar to me as the “natural” way to see experience i.e. there is no need for an “I” within experience.

Apologies, for the lack of clarity in the following,

I now find it relatively easy to see there is no "I" or "me" within sense experience. There is just the experience of seeing, or hearing, or tasting.

Please don't think I'm being over-picky, I just need to be sure, when you say, it's relatively easy to see that there is no self in sense experience, do you mean that when you look (see, hear, feel etc.) there is simply seeing, hearing etc. with no "I" present at all in any way? I'm pretty sure you do, it's just the qualifying word "relatively" that puzzles me.

What I mean by this is that I find it (relatively) easy to shift between experiencing the world with “I” glasses on to experiencing the world as “raw open experience”. I also feel happier to accept that choice just happens and the entire decision making process runs independently of the need for “I” or “Self”. In fact, I feel I have surrendered to the truth of “no-self” a lot more since we last spoke and can accept that the “I” is an unnecessary fiction, and the cause of much (unnecessary) suffering in my life.

Unfortunately, I am still experiencing anger and stress (particularly at work) and this sometimes comes out in my communication with others, which doesn’t feel very enlightened at all. I think I have an expectation that seeing through the I-illusion would somehow transform my emotional experience of life. I now see that all my emotions carry on as usual. Bummer.

Moving on with our tour of where the self might possibly be:

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no "I" involved, but how is it for you when walking? How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Is there any "I" there for any of these actions, or are they just "automatic", as it were? Look to see whether, when "you" do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, "I did that." Are all actions "automatic"?

I think all actions are “automatic”. Another way of saying it maybe is that actions just happen, my body knows what to do when I walk, eat, sit, sleep, drive, cycle, or walk on a slackline. And I see there is no need for a self for those things to happen. The body does what it does. And, interestingly, the body often does those things better when there is no “self” in the way. That doesn’t mean I am not awake or aware when those things are happening, in fact, I am sometimes very awake and consciously watching the body do its thing. I’m also aware of the inner narrative that says “I did that” which comes almost immediately after the event itself. I can clearly see the “me-narrative” is superfluous to the action. All of this is new, so I am learning to trust that my body will do what it needs to without the need for a “me” to control or influence it.

I don’t know if I am there or not. I can clearly see in one sense, there is no where to get to, and no-one to get it, and there never has been. However, I still act like an asshole so maybe not. Also, the looking is something that I need to remember to do. It doesn’t happen naturally (yet) but whenever I do it, I get an “oh yeah, this feels true” moment.

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

It’s not that I’m not looking, it’s just not as often as I was last week when I began the process. However, when I remember the looking occurs more naturally and feels more familiar to me as the “natural” way to see experience i.e. there is no need for an “I” within experience.

Just be aware that there's actually no" you" looking in the first place, so there's no "you" to decide when, or how often to look. There just the afterthought, "I looked, I became aware", or whatever. However, it seems that the more often looking happens, whether looking for a self- entity, or just being, in direct experience, the more awareness "gets into the habit" of looking/dwelling in broad awareness. I don't think we can know how that happens, it just does, and it's a positive spiral, but it happens when it happens. Awareness is constantly going "in and out of focus". Thoughts will come and go as they please, we just have to know they often talk total crap and, at best, are only contingently true or correct.

I also feel happier to accept that choice just happens and the entire decision making process runs independently of the need for “I” or “Self”. In fact, I feel I have surrendered to the truth of “no-self” a lot more since we last spoke and can accept that the “I” is an unnecessary fiction, and the cause of much (unnecessary) suffering in my life.

Wonderful, that sounds just as I would hope but, just to be absolutely clear, when you say that you 'feel happier to accept that choice just happens and the entire decision making process runs independently of the need for “I” or “Self”', are you saying this because you have looked within direct experience and can find no self, or is there any conceptual element and therefore belief within this?

Unfortunately, I am still experiencing anger and stress (particularly at work) and this sometimes comes out in my communication with others, which doesn’t feel very enlightened at all. I think I have an expectation that seeing through the I-illusion would somehow transform my emotional experience of life. I now see that all my emotions carry on as usual. Bummer.

Just bear in mind (cracked record, I know) that the sole aim here is to see that there is no self anywhere in reality, and never was. Although that is seen for sure, negative thoughts and emotions continue to arise, as does the afterthought, "What an absolute bummer" or some such, but it isn't, that's just another thought label arising and passing away. What does happen when self is seen to be a thought-based illusion (and this can be gradual) is that these "negative" habit energies are similarly seen through when they arise, in time losing their power and "stickiness". It may well be that anger, fear, confusion also decline in frequency, as well as efficacy.

I just need to strongly stress to you that seeing clearly that there is no self and accepting that, in the same way that you accept that Santa doesn't exist, is completely independent of, and unconnected to, whether or not you still experience anger, doubt etc. Such feelings and thoughts are only relevant in this context if you give them credence as real and true, believing that they are created by/part of "you", and so allowing them to function as a distraction from actually seeing .

I think all actions are “automatic”. Another way of saying it maybe is that actions just happen, my body knows what to do when I walk, eat, sit, sleep, drive, cycle, or walk on a slackline. And I see there is no need for a self for those things to happen. The body does what it does. And, interestingly, the body often does those things better when there is no “self” in the way. That doesn’t mean I am not awake or aware when those things are happening, in fact, I am sometimes very awake and consciously watching the body do its thing. I’m also aware of the inner narrative that says “I did that” which comes almost immediately after the event itself. I can clearly see the “me-narrative” is superfluous to the action. All of this is new, so I am learning to trust that my body will do what it needs to without the need for a “me” to control or influence it.

I couldn't have put it better myself. You got it! You clearly see no self in any of that.

I don’t know if I am there or not. I can clearly see in one sense, there is no where to get to, and no-one to get it, and there never has been. However, I still act like an asshole so maybe not. Also, the looking is something that I need to remember to do. It doesn’t happen naturally (yet) but whenever I do it, I get an “oh yeah, this feels true” moment.

I looks to me as though you are pretty much there, but you need be sure of that and so we just need to clear up certain points. You say that you can see "in one sense" that, in effect there's no self. In what sense, in reality can it be seen that there is a self- entity? Oh, and there's no you there to be an asshole anyway, is there?

So nearly there, and I really don't want to lose any of your interest and commitment at this point. That being so, please just answer these sweep-up questions so as to finally root out any vestige of self-view (forgive the repetition, it won't happen again):

In direct experience

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

There's quite a bit here but the answers can be brief. We just need to tidy up and clarify, after which we can start to wind this up.

Lots of love,

Pete

[amrita]

In direct experience

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

In direct experience

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

No, there is just an on-going flow of experience.

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

I’m struggling with this one. I still feel there is an ability to choose between this or that. Many of my choices are automatic, I can see that, but I feel there is still an ability to choose or discriminate.

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Hmmm. Again, this is a tricky one. Decisions get made somehow. I can see that. I think I am still identified with choice however, or I am holding to the cherished belief that I can make decisions. I don’t like the idea that I am not in control of the ability to choose.

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

There is no “self” that does the thinking. Thinking just occurs and I cannot find a thinker behind thoughts or who originates thoughts.

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Don’t know exactly what this question means. The body gives rise (is a field of conditionality) to all kinds of tactile and kinaesthetic sensations.

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

No, the body senses just are and create the conditions for experience to arise.

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’

No.

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

No. I am very clear that the “self” is mental fabrication, a fiction in most of these cases. I still struggle with the notion of choice and find it hard to completely let go the notion of a “self” that makes decisions. For example, my wife and I had to decide upon our daughter’s school. This was not an easy process, fraught with anxiety and tension as we both held strong views about what we considered important in education. Why if there is no self do I feel so strongly about such things???

[moondog]

Hi amrita,

It looks as if we've now narrowed it all down to your doubts about choosing/decision-making, and I'll get back to you about that tomorrow.

In the meantime, can you please have another look at the earlier part of my last post and answer the couple of questions that haven't yet been answered there, viz:

i) Wonderful, that sounds just as I would hope but, just to be absolutelyy clear, when you say that you 'feel happier to accept that choice just happens and the entire decision making process runs independently of the need for “I” or “Self”', are you saying this because you have looked within direct experience and can find no self, or is there any conceptual element and therefore belief within this?

ii) You say that you can see "in one sense" that, in effect there's no self. In what sense, in reality can it be seen that there is a self- entity? Oh, and there's no you there to be an asshole anyway, is there?

P x

[amrita]

i) Wonderful, that sounds just as I would hope but, just to be absolutelyy clear, when you say that you 'feel happier to accept that choice just happens and the entire decision making process runs independently of the need for “I” or “Self”', are you saying this because you have looked within direct experience and can find no self, or is there any conceptual element and therefore belief within this?

I can see that most of my choices are automatic and need no "self" or "I" to function or occur. They just happen, maybe as the result of pre-conscious "automatic" mental processes. I can accept this intellecually and it appears to be true within my experience. However, as I said in my last post, I find it harder to see when there are bigger choices to be made (i.e. my daughter's schooling) and I appear to struggle to make a choice, particularly when my choice is as odds with someone else's (my wife). These choices do not appear to be automatic and were the process of much mental cogitation and anguish.

ii) You say that you can see "in one sense" that, in effect there's no self. In what sense, in reality can it be seen that there is a self- entity? Oh, and there's no you there to be an asshole anyway, is there?

No, there are just asshole type behaviours. No self necessary. :)