Guide request

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

Thanks very much for your replies.

I think I found Cosmik’s article – is it the one entitled Direct Experience under Articles on the website? Either way I found this helpful, thank you.

In answer to your first question ‘what exactly is going on during thought’ What is the basis for this feeling’ - so for example I can think – ‘my shoulder hurts’ – that’s a label for an experience within the body – a sensation arises and ‘I’ labels it, appropriates the experience of pain within the body. Or as happened yesterday …‘I’ can think I don’t understand these spreadsheets – but when I look I can see that there is either understanding or non-understanding….. its not about me! So in another sense the thinker/self is just simply thinking or not thinking.. as in breathing or not breathing.

There is a sense of fear of losing control – so better to FEEL as though ‘I’ is in control of thought – directing - otherwise all hell might break loose - who knows where self/I/me will or won’t end up! Without the self referencing… So there is a sense of keeping up the illusion of control in order for the self/me/I to survive.

So yes in answer to your question ‘is this ‘thinker’ what you mean by ‘my self’. And ‘my self’ is something that can arise and pass away as I noticed this morning whilst eating breakfast in the garden, the thinker/self comes and goes just as the sound of birds, sensation of wind on the face etc came and went.

‘In what sense is the thinker doing the thinking’

This is a hard question to answer. I don’t know is my initial response. Actually, I really don’t know, because thoughts come and go dependent on conditions.


‘what if there were only thinking, thoughts arising ‘in’ awareness, no thinker ‘doing’ it? Is this possible?

Yes, its possible that thoughts come and go in the same way that everything else in experience comes and goes.


Is there really a thinker to be found in experience?

– no I can’t find one - there isn’t – there is an image of a thinker (me) sometimes

Investigate the ‘sense or ‘feeling’ of a ‘thinker’

When I look and investigate I cannot find any sensation or feeling only thought coming and going, which then after the thought may trigger a certain sensation or feeling – so I can think a thought which then produces a certain sensation or feeling (sorry, sounds so obvious doesn’t it!) But when I look for the sense or feeling of a thinker there is none…

Am I on the right track here?

Thank you for your patience.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

is it the one entitled Direct Experience under Articles on the website?

erm not sure, probably ... when I posted about it, the underlined text was actually a link to the article, but this is not totally obvious - live 'n' learn, next time I'll say "can be found here" or something!

.... anyway ..... I loved your post, we're really getting down to business now!

a sensation arises and ‘I’ labels it, appropriates the experience of pain [...] in another sense the thinker/self is just simply thinking or not thinking

In the first part, do you mean that there is a definite experience of "I", and that this I "appropriates" experience?

But in the second part, you seem to be saying that there is 'no doer of the deed', that there is just thinking...

This double-ness runs through your post, eg:

yes in answer to your question ‘is this ‘thinker’ what you mean by ‘my self’. And ‘my self’ is something that can arise and pass away [...] "Is there really a thinker to be found in experience?" – no I can’t find one - there isn’t

... so ..... which is it? Maybe you can 'see' it in either way at different times, like this famous duck-rabbit?

The duck-rabbit may remain forever ambiguous; however, with some persistent observation, it is possible to see unambiguously whether the 'thinker' is a real entity found in experience, or just an idea assumption laid over other experience ... see if this resolves with some more investigation!

There is a sense of fear of losing control – so better to FEEL as though ‘I’ is in control of thought – directing - otherwise all hell might break loose - who knows where self/I/me will or won’t end up! Without the self referencing… So there is a sense of keeping up the illusion of control in order for the self/me/I to survive.

this is really important - yes, the illusion of self is very tightly bound up with 'agency', 'control' and even 'free will'. This is a very fruitful area to look into ... it might be best to stick to 'the thinker' above for now, but if it grabs your interest, you could ask: when 'controlling' is going on, what, exactly, is the entity doing the 'controlling'? Can this entity be found in experience?

Best wishes,

Perry

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

Thanks for your post and noting of the doubleness running through my post – and I think that mainly I ‘see’ in terms of the thinker rather than the self.

Am feeling like a bit of a lame duck/rabbit today! – I think perhaps I don’t feel I am able to consistently ‘see’ anything of much note, I have the odd flash of seeing thoughts coming and going and no thinker to be found behind the thought – they just arrive and leave - but I don’t really seem to know how to investigate properly - I just don’t seem to be able to ‘get it’. The usual story line of not being intellectual enough comes up too, though I keep telling myself that’s bullshit…but maybe one does need to have a certain kind of wiring to really see behind thought – to investigate properly and to really ‘see’?

Alongside this there seems a kind of un realness to it all, as though I am saying things that don’t feel quite true or trying to do something with my experience that doesn’t feel real. I can’t put my finger on what I mean and I probably should have given this some more thought before sending - but it all feels hazy - like I’m reporting on something that I don’t really understand at all and just when I think I might have understood or seen something, …….its gone again.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi,

Too late this evening, sorry, will be back in touch soon!

Perry

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

Apologies for the intermittency [is that a word? It is now!]

I don’t feel I am able to consistently ‘see’ anything of much note

That is not a surprise - one of the peculiar features of this kind of enquiry is that what is being pointed to is 'hidden in plain view'. This means that you need to get used to stating the obvious, even though it may seem a bit silly! There is often no need to spend very long 'looking' ... it is not like staring into murky water in the hope of glimpsing something shadowy in the depths, more like just talking about things that are immediately apparent, but which you've probably never paid attention to in the past.

I don’t really seem to know how to investigate properly - I just don’t seem to be able to ‘get it’

'getting it' will come when it comes. In the meantime, I'll ask questions, and if you simply answer as truthfully as you can from experience, together we'll home in on it. The journey really is made up of many small steps, and it also takes a while at the start to tune into each other - as far as I'm concerned, we're still just warming up!

Alongside this there seems a kind of un realness to it all, as though I am saying things that don’t feel quite true or trying to do something with my experience that doesn’t feel real. I can’t put my finger on what I mean and I probably should have given this some more thought before sending - but it all feels hazy - like I’m reporting on something that I don’t really understand at all and just when I think I might have understood or seen something, …….its gone again.

I think I know what you mean. You probably know what the 'right' answers are meant to look like, and this may be subtly distracting you from your experience. Relax into naivité - it is a relief to allow yourself to be completely fresh and simple, and for the record, "I don't know" can be a perfectly reasonable response :-)

So let's start again from another angle with this in mind...

When I say 'keyboard', this label is pointing to the rows of hard, smooth black and white squares under my fingers ... it is shorthand for some sights, touch-sensations and even sounds (clicky-clicky-clicky!). The label 'keyboard' points to something that is real and exists.

When I say 'the internet', this is a label that points not to such clearly defined sense experiences as 'keyboard' (I cannot point to 'the internet'), but it points to a collection of experiences that are loosely held together with some ideas ... there is the little white box with flashing coloured lights and cables connecting it to the wall, there is the idea of 'sending an email' through the cables, and the experiences of typing and sending emails, and I know that if I wanted to, I could go and visit buildings and see more machines and wires that made up 'the internet'... so 'the internet' is a label that points to all sorts of sense experiences and potential sense experiences, so even though I cannot point to it, I can say that 'the internet' is real and exists.

When I say 'the Tooth Fairy', this label points to an idea, a story that I tell my children. Once my children believed that the label 'Tooth Fairy' pointed to a real entity - something that carried pound coins and teeth around - but not any more. We still talk about the Tooth Fairy sometimes (and pound coins still appear under their pillows from time to time) but they know that the Tooth Fairy is not real, and does not exist. The 'Tooth Fairy' is JUST a label, JUST an idea; it does not point to any direct sensory experience, nor is shorthand for a whole raft of actual and potential sense experiences. It is a label that points to nothing.

There are examples of three different kinds of labels ... so what kind of label is "I" when you say "I think" or "I want"? What does the label "my self" point to? What do you mean when using these labels? What thoughts flit by when using these labels?

Regards,

Perry

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

Thanks for your reply and the clarity over the labels we use to point out our sense experiences, collection of experiences and ideas.

So in answer to your questions – what kind of label is ‘I’ when I say ‘I think’ or ‘I want’

When I say ‘I want’ its based on experience – pleasant or unpleasant experience.

When I say ‘I think’ – its based on ideas/memories or stored information that I’m retrieving to convince ‘myself’ that I know what I’m talking about, to convince me that ‘I’ am here and existing.

What does the label ‘my self’ point to? –

I think this points to an idea of a whole ‘self’ that incorporates all these stories, body experiences and collection of experiences and ideas.

What do you mean when using these labels?

It’s a way of bringing it all together, all this collected experience, it can all be brought together in one tidy SELF.

What thoughts flit by when using these labels?

Often the thoughts that flit by are sort of counter to what I’m saying – almost as though whatever I am saying is not really the whole picture – its only a small take on it – my preferences, my story line, my labels on my experience. Its like somewhere awareness or experience knows that whatever ‘I ‘ am saying at that point is not really true – is just a made up storyline of what I’ve invented based on my stories, labels, judgments etc, - that its not the real thing.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

My last post for a week or so, due to holiday....

When I say ‘I want’ its based on experience – pleasant or unpleasant experience.

To make this less abstract, you may need to identify some wanting going on right now, or else wait for a moment when there is wanting, so you can actually investigate rather than remember and speculate.

so, looking into the experience of wanting as it happens, what do you find: is there just 'wanting', or am 'I wanting'?

If your experience is that 'I am wanting', what experience makes up the 'I' that is 'doing' the 'wanting'?

If the 'I' is NOT an element of experience separate from the 'wanting', then what is the 'I' in 'I want'? Is it a reality, or a thought, a convention, a story, an assumption, what?

When I say ‘I think’ – its based on ideas/memories or stored information that I’m retrieving to convince ‘myself’ that I know what I’m talking about, to convince me that ‘I’ am here and existing.

interesting! experience is undeniable, so I wonder, what is the nature of this doubt that "‘I’ am here and existing"? Who is trying to convince whom of what, exactly?

What does the label ‘my self’ point to?

I think this points to an idea of a whole ‘self’ that incorporates all these stories, body experiences and collection of experiences and ideas.

[...]

It’s a way of bringing it all together, all this collected experience, it can all be brought together in one tidy SELF.

OK, right ... so 'my self' in this sense is just a conventional term for a whole lot of actual experiences and ever-changing processes, a kind of abstraction or 'collective term' like 'the internet', yes?

and yet, when you use the term 'my self', do you always mean it just as a 'collective term' for all these things? .... for example, as you sit here now, seeing the computer screen, feeling the chair and the floor, are these experiences / sensations simply happening, or do you believe that are they happening "to yourself"?

In other words, do you really believe that "my self" is some entity separate from all these experiences, rather than a collective term for these experiences?

Often the thoughts that flit by are sort of counter to what I’m saying – almost as though whatever I am saying is not really the whole picture – its only a small take on it – my preferences, my story line, my labels on my experience. Its like somewhere awareness or experience knows that whatever ‘I ‘ am saying at that point is not really true – is just a made up storyline of what I’ve invented based on my stories, labels, judgments etc, - that its not the real thing.

very interesting, touching on a similar theme to above (doubt about / convincing yourself that you exist). So perhaps 'I' is a story rather than a reality, and so necessarily baseless and incomplete? Which would explain the doubt ... :-)

Can you look directly into this doubt, face this fear that 'I' story might be in some fundamental sense not true?

Looking forward to hearing from you in a week or so!

Perry

[lindsay]

Thankyou Perry, have a great holiday!
Lindsay

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

Welcome back, I hope you had an enjoyable holiday.

In answer to your questions:

‘looking into the experience of wanting as it happens, what do you find: is there just wanting or am ‘I’ wanting?

When I think about wanting – for example – I’m tired after a long day at work, I want rest, sleep - , its just a sensation of tiredness; a sensation of muscles aching, maybe even a headache, so ‘I’ want relief from those sensations – really I can see that there is just wanting before I put a whole story behind those sensations that say, oh my you’ve worked hard today, you need rest and recuperation, you deserve a good nights rest etc. But I can see that in a way all that’s superfluous, that its been added on top of or after the simple sensations of tiredness.

What is the nature of this doubt that ‘I’ am here and existing “Who is trying to convince whom of what, exactly?

I think that the nature of the doubt is that ‘I’ am even a perceiver – what is a perceiver? And who is perceiving anything ? What is perceiving what? It reminds me of a quote from a Buddhist teacher – ‘we are the mirror and not all the chaos reflected in it’ but then does the chaos mirror me – it must surely? So there must be endless mirrors reflecting each other back and forth – in the flow of life.

So ‘my self’ in this sense is just a conventional term for a whole lot of actual experiences and ever-changing processes, a kind of abstraction or ‘collective term’ like the ‘internet’, yes?

But what is the flow of life/experience – is the ‘flow’ happening for me, with me, to me – clearly not – just happening by itself but I’m not sure how I can really know its happening by itself.

When you use the term ‘my self’ do you always mean it just as a ‘collective term’ for all these things?...for example as you sit here now?..are these experiences/sensations simply happening, or do you believe that they are happening “to yourself”?

As I stand I believe they are happening to ‘myself’ – but I don’t know what ‘my self’ is – I can t find it or put my finger on it/her – she can’t be found – she is hiding! As a child feel I had more of a sense of this flow of life – just happening – a sense of awe of life/experience and ‘me’ in it all – then somewhere and with constant reinforcement ‘I’ became an observer and a separate perceiver rather than part of the flow of life, but I don’t remember when! - and now I believe that that is the real situation – that I am separate and solid and real. In a way I am but not the thoughts/stories which make up this sense of ‘myself’.


Do you really believe that “myself” is some entity separate from all these experiences, rather than a collective term for these experiences?

Somewhere ‘I’ became separate in my mind – a sort of shrinking down to an ‘I’ in order to safeguard/preserve these experiences.


Perhaps ‘I’ is a story rather than a reality, so necessarily baseless and incomplete?

Yes I can see that as a story based on fear but ‘I’ still thinks deep down that she exists as separate from others.

Can you look directly into this doubt, face this fear that ‘I’ story might be in some fundamental sense not true?

Can I? – in a way, yes, I can – and when I do, a sense of freedom arises – rather than the shrinking sense of the me/I/myself storyline.

Your question reminds me of a situation I recall as a teenager – when I remember feeling as though the world I was in at that point was slightly crazy, a moment of awareness that felt like a reminder to wake up, to find the truth; whatever that means. It was something akin to your question – doubting that the ‘I’ story was not true, was a lie. But can I really look the fear of no ‘I’, no ‘me’, no ‘self’ fully in the eye; truly and know that’s it’s a falsification? That seems almost too big, too monumental, too fundamental to be able to do, yet what makes me think I’m so special as to not be able to do it?
Who am ‘I’ to NOT see this? Not to see that ‘I’ doesn’t exist and never has existed.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

I'm back, and will get on the case asap!

best,

Perry

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

Sorry for the slow response... coming back from holiday has been - hectic!

really I can see that there is just wanting before I put a whole story behind those sensations that say, oh my you’ve worked hard today, you need rest and recuperation, you deserve a good nights rest etc. But I can see that in a way all that’s superfluous, that its been added on top of or after the simple sensations of tiredness.

Hey, that is a great observation - "a story added on top" indeed!

Once you can clearly recognise and distinguish basic sensations from the though-story added on top, you're within spitting distance of 'the gate'

I think that the nature of the doubt is that ‘I’ am even a perceiver – what is a perceiver? And who is perceiving anything ? What is perceiving what? It reminds me of a quote from a Buddhist teacher – ‘we are the mirror and not all the chaos reflected in it’ but then does the chaos mirror me – it must surely? So there must be endless mirrors reflecting each other back and forth – in the flow of life.

interesting questions, let's see if we can approach them experientially - only an experiential answer is truly satisfying.

there is perception, experience, awareness - this is undeniable, yes?

there is doubt as to whether "I" is even a perceiver - this is a very good doubt to have!

However, rather than wondering about the nature of "I" ("is 'I' the perceiver?") try this: come back to the fact of perception and ask - in what is going on right now, is there a separation between "perceiver" and "perceived"? Are these really distinct elements of experience, or is experience (perception) whole? Is "I perceive" an accurate statement as to the nature of direct experience, or a story added on top of undivided "perceiving"?

But what is the flow of life/experience – is the ‘flow’ happening for me, with me, to me – clearly not – just happening by itself but I’m not sure how I can really know its happening by itself.

I'm also not sure how you could really know it is happening by itself, except by elimination ... which element of experience does not arise in dependence upon conditions? Is it possible to find any experience or aspect of experience which stands outside this flow of conditions? Search, really look! Maybe that indefinable special sense of 'Lindsayness'? Maybe willing? Or the sense of choice? What can you find in experience that is NOT happening by itself? There are no shortcuts here - don't jump to a conclusion, investigate!

To keep things focussed, I won't comment on the rest of your post, though it is full of excellent observations - the whole are of fear can be very fruitful, I suspect we'll return ... and I loved this :-)

But can I really look the fear of no ‘I’, no ‘me’, no ‘self’ fully in the eye; truly and know that’s it’s a falsification? That seems almost too big, too monumental, too fundamental to be able to do, yet what makes me think I’m so special as to not be able to do it?

The fear is all bark and no bite - you can look, and yes, it really is worth it! Though there is no need to jump straight in if it really seems too much - we'll chip away and approach gradually in a roundabout way, and once you've glimpsed out the corner of your eye often enough, there will be no surprise looking no self full in the face :-)

Best wishes,

Perry

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

Good to hear from you – I’ve been waiting for an email alert that you’d replied but I must have disabled it somehow – hence MY late response!

there is perception, experience, awareness - this is undeniable, yes?

Yes that’s definitely true!

try this: come back to the fact of perception and ask - in what is going on right now, is there a separation between "perceiver" and "perceived"? Are these really distinct elements of experience, or is experience (perception) whole? Is "I perceive" an accurate statement as to the nature of direct experience, or a story added on top of undivided "perceiving"?

No there is no separation between perceiver and perceived – that I can say without doubt - but it still feels as though it’s a conceptual answer rather than a experiential answer. As I sit here, there is the experience of heat from the sun on my hands and feet, so a perception of warmth, heat….but only ‘I’ can feel this in this particular body – no one else can have this sensation right now as ‘I’ or as this body feels it.

which element of experience does not arise in dependence upon conditions? Is it possible to find any experience or aspect of experience which stands outside this flow of conditions? Search, really look! Maybe that indefinable special sense of 'Lindsayness'? Maybe willing? Or the sense of choice? What can you find in experience that is NOT happening by itself? There are no shortcuts here - don't jump to a conclusion, investigate!


…I’m looking hard to find some experience that stands outside this flow of conditions….no there isn’t a special sense of ‘Lindsayness’ more perhaps a sense of choice or willing – so for example when thought pops up – ‘I could do some gardening or I could read this book’ – ‘I’ choose to do this or that – so yes, I would say it’s a sense of choice that I would say is NOT happening by itself. A sense that ‘I’ or Lindsay chooses one thing or another – even though the ‘choice’ has been made from random thoughts popping up. So I guess you could say that there is no choice really by ‘me’ because all of it came from thought, which I can’t control!.... But then that particular choice influences the conditions which follow on from that…..I think I’m tying myself up in knots here….

On another note - and it sounds totally obvious as I write about it now - but a ‘revelation’ came to me whilst you were away – that there is no ‘self’ in the present moment, that when fully in the here and now – when there is a sense of no separation between perceiver and perceived there is no ‘you’ at all, ‘you’ just doesn’t exist and only exists in the past and the future.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

Thanks for your answers - all good stuff, and worth following up, but I'd really like to leap upon:

there is no ‘self’ in the present moment, that when fully in the here and now – when there is a sense of no separation between perceiver and perceived there is no ‘you’ at all, ‘you’ just doesn’t exist

yesyesyesyes! this is gold!

and only exists in the past and the future.

so what kind of 'existence' is this?

do the past and future exist other than as thoughts (memories and anticipation both being thoughts)?

what about 'you', then?

best wishes,

Perry

[lindsay]

Hi Perry,

So what kind of 'existence' is this..

A non-existence!

What about 'you' then?

'You' just doesn't exist

Do the past and future exist other than as thoughts?

No they don't - they are only thoughts.

Best wishes,

Lindsay

[perrym]

Hi Lindsay,

Short and sweet :-)

there is no ‘self’ in the present moment, that when fully in the here and now

is there 'self' at any other times? Has there ever been a 'self'? If so, what is it? If not, what is the nature of the illusion?

best wishes,

Perry

P.S. I'll next be in front of a computer on Monday