I'm ready for this, please guide me to Truth!

[sqnhoj]

Hi Adam,

Great answers on this thread. Pardon me while a prod just a little bit more.

I see it.

I'm not quite sure what "it" refers to.

When perception and perceived are “happening”, there is only one.

Only one what?

As noted above, at the moment of perception, there is not a separate perceiver, there is unity between the perceived and perceiver. The idea that there is something separate is just an idea that comes up afterwards.

Sorry for being so picky, but I want to make sure there is no "back door" here through which a self might sneak in. It looks as if your last sentence nails it, but when you say "at the moment of perception, there is not a separate perceiver," are you suggesting that there is ever a separate perceiver at any point? If I read you correctly, the entire notion of a "separate perceiver" is just a thought, nothing more. Am I getting that right?

Let me try to cut to the chase. I would propose that thoughts, sensations, and any other happenings are just experience. The way you use the word "awareness" sounds as if it is also just experience. Is there any awareness that stands apart from the flow of experience? Is there now, was there ever--in your direct experience--a self that experiences? Your previous posts give me confidence that you will not simply tell me what I want to hear. Give me a response that is satisfying to "you" based on your present, direct experience.

Thanks for hanging in there.

Sincerely,

John

[adam78]

Hi John

By all means prod!!

I'm not quite sure what "it" refers to.

By "it" I meant things as they really are. There was the belief that even though "Adam" could not be found as an entity, there was something more subtle, a perceiver outside of thought, and "I" was that. But upon looking, it is found that the perceiver is also just another idea. In the moment of perception, a perceiver (or an experiencer, to use another term) standing apart from that which is perceived or experienced cannot be found. It is only an idea created after the fact.

Only one what?

Only one movement, event. That which is perceived and that which perceives are one and the same, thought created the impression that they were two separate and distinct entities, but this is only in retrospect.

Sorry for being so picky, but I want to make sure there is no "back door" here through which a self might sneak in. It looks as if your last sentence nails it, but when you say "at the moment of perception, there is not a separate perceiver," are you suggesting that there is ever a separate perceiver at any point? If I read you correctly, the entire notion of a "separate perceiver" is just a thought, nothing more. Am I getting that right?

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. A distinct and separate perceiver cannot be found. The idea that something separate perceives/experiences is simply a thought which arises after an experience.

Awareness is part of experience. In direct, present moment experience, there is no awareness, perceiver, self that is distinct from an object which is experienced. It is merely thought which separates the two into distinct entities. No "self" is here anywhere.

Thanks for all of your continued help and support John.

Best,

Adam

[sqnhoj]

GREAT! I'd like to move on to a new area to investigate. You don't seem to find a self that is an "experiencer." What about a self that is a doer/chooser/decider/controller?

We know that there is breathing, heartbeat, numerous bodily functions. Is there a self that does these, that chooses or decides to do these?

Now let me up the ante. What about walking? Get up… walk slowly…is there a controller that controls walking?
or is there just walking? (It helps to actually do it...not just read it.)

While we are on a roll, let's look at choosing/deciding. Take two objects/possibilities, of which you might ordinarily choose either e.g. coffee or tea, blue pen or black pen, salt and pepper, then sit and see if you can find the choice-point where you could go either way. Describe how choosing happens.

Do you notice any reactions to these areas of investigation?

Your original subject line was "please guide me to truth." That's what we want. Just see--and know--the truth. This is not a "self-improvement" endeavor. (What self?) Just see the truth, and let whatever arises...arise and be until it passes...and it will.

Thank you much!

John

[adam78]

Hi John,

I'm looking at all this closely. Will reply sometime on Tuesday.

Thanks again for all of your support,

Adam

[sqnhoj]

Adam,

Good morning. Thanks for the communication. I'm happy you have something to sink your teeth into. I hope all is okay for you.

I'll probably see your reply after I come home from work. Hope you have a wonderful day.

Best wishes,

John

[adam78]

Good morning John,

We know that there is breathing, heartbeat, numerous bodily functions. Is there a self that does these, that chooses or decides to do these?

Such a doer or chooser cannot be found. Doing is similar to experiencing in that in the moment of doing, there is not a doer and an activity which is done. It is one movement, whether it is breathing or walking or moving a hand. The idea of a separate doer arises after the activity, again just a thought.

Or if I try a different approach, say that I “intend” to lift my hand before it is lifted, it is also a just a thought that isn’t related to the “doing”, when the hand lifts, it just lifts. Sometime I “intend” the movement, but it doesn’t happen. There is no relationship. Thought happens and the activity happens independent of one another.

Now let me up the ante. What about walking? Get up… walk slowly…is there a controller that controls walking? or is there just walking? (It helps to actually do it...not just read it

Walking happens, no doer… and thinking about walking happens...no thinker

While we are on a roll, let's look at choosing/deciding. Take two objects/possibilities, of which you might ordinarily choose either e.g. coffee or tea, blue pen or black pen, salt and pepper, then sit and see if you can find the choice-point where you could go either way. Describe how choosing happens.

The choice is made. There is no chooser. For example, when deciding to press one of two buttons on this keyboard, thought about the choice may arise, the choice happens and then a thought “naming” the choice arises.

Your original subject line was "please guide me to truth." That's what we want. Just see--and know--the truth. This is not a "self-improvement" endeavor. (What self?) Just see the truth, and let whatever arises...arise and be until it passes...and it will.

Yes, this is very clear now. Unusual reactions and thoughts bubbling up these last couple days, irritable. And periods of real spacey-ness. Thought keeps looping back to the idea of no-self. Sitting with all of it.

I am very grateful for all your work and support.

Best,

Adam

[sqnhoj]

Adam,

Thank you for your responses. There is a lot of clarity there. Bear with me while I examine some of the language you use.

Or if I try a different approach, say that I “intend” to lift my hand before it is lifted, it is also a just a thought that isn’t related to the “doing”, when the hand lifts, it just lifts. Sometime I “intend” the movement, but it doesn’t happen. There is no relationship. Thought happens and the activity happens independent of one another.

Here you put the word "intend" in quotes, but not the word "I." (Of course, I tend to avoid that quote mark thing, unless it helps alleviate misunderstanding) Still you say that "sometime I 'intend' the movement. What is this "I" that "intends."

Walking happens, no doer… and thinking about walking happens...no thinker

Love it!!! I was planning to explore the "thinking, thinker" area, but your answer seems clear to me.

Yes, this is very clear now. Unusual reactions and thoughts bubbling up these last couple days, irritable. And periods of real spacey-ness. Thought keeps looping back to the idea of no-self. Sitting with all of it.

How are you with all this? Can thoughts of irritability come and go (and they probably will) without causing a train wreck? Nothing I read here raises any red flags to me. I'm curious about the "spacey-ness." Can you describe this experience a little more. Nothing to worry about, in my opinion at all. From where "you" ;-) are, does it interfere with the ongoing flow of experience?

I am very grateful for all your work and support.

You're quite welcome, but please know that I'm enjoying this thoroughly, so it's no sacrifice on my part.

I think the above leaves you with a couple of questions this time. I'm looking forward to your response.

Best,

John

[adam78]

Hi John,

Here you put the word "intend" in quotes, but not the word "I." (Of course, I tend to avoid that quote mark thing, unless it helps alleviate misunderstanding) Still you say that "sometime I 'intend' the movement. What is this "I" that "intends."

In this instance "I" is simply a thought arising that there is an intention. On this note, the "I am the doer" or "I am the thinker" thoughts and phrasing still occurs. If scrutinized, they are seen as false, but they arise nonetheless.

How are you with all this? Can thoughts of irritability come and go (and they probably will) without causing a train wreck? Nothing I read here raises any red flags to me. I'm curious about the "spacey-ness." Can you describe this experience a little more. Nothing to worry about, in my opinion at all. From where "you" ;-) are, does it interfere with the ongoing flow of experience?

It is as it is. The irritability is just not typical, and therefore notable. It doesn't interrupt the flow, but rather is part of the flow. As for the "spacey-ness", there seems to be a slower flow of thoughts, meaning space between them. The eyes seem to relax, not as hungry to grab onto things.

Thanks again for your guidance.

Best,

Adam

[sqnhoj]

Adam,

Good morning. Here again, there is clarity in your answers. Can't help but wonder if the obviousness of this is apparent by now.

In this instance "I" is simply a thought arising that there is an intention. On this note, the "I am the doer" or "I am the thinker" thoughts and phrasing still occurs. If scrutinized, they are seen as false, but they arise nonetheless.

That's what I thought and hoped you meant, but I wanted to hear you say it. Hope this doesn't sound mischievous, but the verb "scrutinized" caught my attention. Is there anything doing the scrutinizing (or scrutiny)? Is scrutinizing simply another arising...coming and going in the flow of experience?

It is as it is. The irritability is just not typical, and therefore notable. It doesn't interrupt the flow, but rather is part of the flow. As for the "spacey-ness", there seems to be a slower flow of thoughts, meaning space between them. The eyes seem to relax, not as hungry to grab onto things.

An excellent description. I hope my slow prodding is not eliciting that irritability. If so, I apologize...but this is what I think is needed.

I want us to be clear about the body--this "thing" that seems to persistently hang around. Just from the visual standpoint, various body parts are within the constantly changing field of vision, coming and going depending on where our sight happens to be "directed." Fingers type on a keyboard, hands move toward the coffee cup, grab the cup and move it closer to this huge open space that is so fascinating.

Other senses at work...the sense of touch. Catch that thumb inside a door, and there will be powerful sensations: the feeling of pain, irritability, and the hearing of profanity (in my case anyway). Don't duplicate this, although if you want to noticeably tap your thigh or knee or arm, then the sense of touch should arise.

Having said all that, here is a question that may also seem somewhat redundant, based on the clarity noticed in your previous responses. Does the body experience sensation and thought?

Thanks,

John

[adam78]

Hi John,

Thank you for the message. Yes, all is quite clear.

Hope this doesn't sound mischievous, but the verb "scrutinized" caught my attention. Is there anything doing the scrutinizing (or scrutiny)? Is scrutinizing simply another arising...coming and going in the flow of experience?

Thought attaches ownership, or "I" to it, but when noticing of this attachment of "I" happens it is seen as false. There is no one to do the scrutinizing.

I hope my slow prodding is not eliciting that irritability

The prodding is welcomed! When thought arises about your comment, it seems clear that there can be no "cause" or "eliciting" of anything anyways...just more flowing.

Having said all that, here is a question that may also seem somewhat redundant, based on the clarity noticed in your previous responses. Does the body experience sensation and thought?

Wow.There is no body outside of thought either. It is simply experience until thought of the body arises.

More interesting happenings today, had an exchange with my girlfriend where I wanted things to go one way, and in deferring to her, frustration arose. Then the thought of "no I" arose and I became giddy with laughter at the silliness of the exchange! The whole story came to a screeching halt, it was great.

Thanks you so much for your continued support!

Best,

Adam

[sqnhoj]

Adam,

Good evening, and thank you for your clear responses.

Yes, all is quite clear.

Your entire post illustrated this. I would like to test the focus, just a bit.

Wow.There is no body outside of thought either. It is simply experience until thought of the body arises.

What about the experience before the "thought of the body arises"? I could almost interpret this statement as suggesting that thought somehow interrupts experience. Is thought something other than experience? If you stub your toe, is the discomfort or pain that arises a "thought"? I don't mean this as a philosophical debate. Can you look and see and then describe the entire gamut of experience as a thought? Or is thought simply part of the flow of experience that also includes visual sensing, auditory sensing, tactile sensing, tasting, and smelling. What about emotions?

More interesting happenings today, had an exchange with my girlfriend where I wanted things to go one way, and in deferring to her, frustration arose. Then the thought of "no I" arose and I became giddy with laughter at the silliness of the exchange! The whole story came to a screeching halt, it was great.

I really loved this description. To me, it shows a genuine insight, and it made me giddy with joy. Just a little nagging, though. I see the word "thought" frequently in this post and just want to be clear on what is meant. Remember that earlier I hinted at grounding in your senses--well, actually experience as a flowing whole. Colors and shapes (not the words, of course). Are those thoughts? Raw sensations...are those thoughts?

Take a good look at the scene before you. Then look at your hands. Move your sight up your arms to your shoulders. Then look at what is even closer than your shoulders. What do you see? (I mean visually.) Is there anything before "thought" as you carry out this little experiment?

I apologize for picking at your language. Please understand...there's no right way (or wrong way) to see. Just seeing.

With a passion for truth,

John

[adam78]

Hi John,

What about the experience before the "thought of the body arises"? I could almost interpret this statement as suggesting that thought somehow interrupts experience.

What was meant was that thought "names" a particular aspect of experience, such as "body". Body is not in fact separate from experience, nor is thinking, or thinking about thinking. All of aspects of experience are an indivisible whole. Thought about the body creates the impression that it is separate. But still, thought about the body and thoughts about thoughts merely create an impression of separation, but are still part of the flow.

Emotions are the same. Thought about emotions as distinct "entities" ariese and they are classified as emotions for the purpose of description, but they are also part of the indivisible whole.

Colors and shapes (not the words, of course). Are those thoughts? Raw sensations...are those thoughts?

No, they are not thoughts. Thoughts arise about colors, shapes, sensations, but those are thoughts. Both the thoughts about colors, shapes and sensations, and the colors, shapes and sensations are part of the experience.

Take a good look at the scene before you. Then look at your hands. Move your sight up your arms to your shoulders. Then look at what is even closer than your shoulders. What do you see? (I mean visually.) Is there anything before "thought" as you carry out this little experiment?

Before thought, nothing is being seen. Thought creates the idea of "things"

Thank you John.

Best,

Adam

[adam78]

John,

To add to the last part of the response, the seeing before thought arises is experience, just as the seeing + thinking is experience. Thought labels these as different, but they are both pure experience.

[sqnhoj]

Adam,

Good morning. Beautiful responses. I trust that you realize that I don't have any special magical ability to know if you've really seen. Only you can verify that. My role has been to poke and prod as relentlessly as possible to see if any block to seeing can be found. I could go on asking questions until the cows come home, but what point would that serve? Bottom line is that now it's really up to "you" ;-) to determine if you truly see--in all ways possible--that there is no self. Do you? Are there any doubts? Do you find any remnant of anything--either in sensation or in thought--to hang on to as an identity?

Since this is sort of a moment of truth, it might be good to go back and look at your original expectations. How do you feel about them now? Do you have any nagging belief that something should be different from what it is?

Lastly, do you feel ready for the final questions?

Sincerely,

John

[adam78]

Happy Thursday John!

I could go on asking questions until the cows come home, but what point would that serve? Bottom line is that now it's really up to "you" ;-) to determine if you truly see--in all ways possible--that there is no self.Do you? Are there any doubts? Do you find any remnant of anything--either in sensation or in thought--to hang on to as an identity?

It is crystal clear. A self is nowhere to be found, no body, no mind, no experiencer.

There aren't any doubts. The "I" thoughts continue to arise, and are seen for what they are. There is no one to grab hold of, and no one to do the grabbing.

Since this is sort of a moment of truth, it might be good to go back and look at your original expectations. How do you feel about them now? Do you have any nagging belief that something should be different from what it is?

Okay, here's what I posted.

At the most basic level, I think it will feel like a great insight, hopefully one that will silence the inner dialogue, which will allow me to exist in a place of greater contentment with the world and my place in it, to live in the present with things as they are.

I have read plenty of accounts of dramatic physical changes, etc. that seem to occur in conjunction with an awakening....I guess something like that may be possible too.

It is a great insight, but so darn simple. The inner dialogue continues, there are moments when the story tries to get rolling, but the dialogue relating to "I" has no teeth as it were, so the story doesn't get much traction before it's seen for what it is. Just thought arising, which itself is part of experience. There is greater contentment, seemingly greater receptivity and sensitivity to the experience, but there is no expectation that this will be permanent. Nor is there a nagging belief that anything should be other than it is. It is as it is.

Let the final questions fly!

With much gratitude,

Adam