I'd like to have a guide please

[beverley]

Hi Xain, you're good at this!

I agree - I accept that all thoughts are the result of conditions, and not generated by 'me'. Just as feeling tense is the result of my housemate slamming a door, and thinking about food is the result of being hungry, or of talking about food... etc. Or actually, most of the time, thoughts are the result of a process that's much more subtle, cumulative conditions, and to pinpoint or explain the conditions, or to locate a trigger for a thought, is (probably) impossible, and unnecessary.

Perhaps I am experiencing the thought of my dinner visually, and therefore it takes place in a part of the brain that visualizes. You are asking what is the evidence from my experience - well only that I can 'see' my dinner, or, for example, if I'm imagining what colour to paint my room, I can close my eyes and 'try out' the colour, by imagining it. (Not very well - but visualization is possible to an extent - isn't this the imagination?) So when you say 'direct experience' - in terms of sensory experience, I don't think I can find any evidence. But there's something going on, a thought. I can't pin it down as a real thing, or a location. I can't find any evidence in terms of sensations.

I can tell you, for example, that I am meeting a friend at the weekend, at a particular time. I have to conjure up this information - this is not experienced by my body, now, like being hungry, or seeing a plant. It's not part of my experience now. But I'm definitely meeting a friend on Saturday. But how do I know? I must be thinking it mustn't I?

Beverley

[Xain]

I agree - I accept that all thoughts are the result of conditions, and not generated by 'me'. Just as feeling tense is the result of my housemate slamming a door, and thinking about food is the result of being hungry, or of talking about food...

Great!
Perhaps you would like to go even further down this exact route that you have discovered regarding 'Choice'. I sense you may be ready to dive straight in and consider this from your replies so far.
This is quite a big concept for most people. Is there free-will? Is there an 'I', a chooser apparent here right now.

Consider . . .
Did you have a choice to be born?
Did you have a choice of a gender, or a choice to like certain food?

Could it be that, just like thoughts, 'choice' is an illusion, and that all that is happening is just 'happening' without any 'controller' behind it? All a result of apparent 'conditions', none of which had any choice what-so-ever behind them?

An experiment:
As you sit there, choose either your right or left hand.
Chosen one? Ok, now raise it in the air.
As you did this, what could you find in your experience made that choice?
We commonly say 'I chose that hand' - What is 'I'?
Or could it be that 'I' is simply a thought added later about the experience? And that no seperate 'I' can be found?

I can tell you, for example, that I am meeting a friend at the weekend, at a particular time. I have to conjure up this information - this is not experienced by my body, now, like being hungry, or seeing a plant. It's not part of my experience now.

Well we are looking for 'I' in the immediate moment.
I think we are both clear that a thought is experienced - That is undeniable, but to say there is an 'I' experiencing that thought, then this 'I' must be found. The thought appears, so the 'I' experiencing the thought must also appear - Or it does not exist as a seperate 'thing'. Is that a fair assessment?
Can you find this 'I'?

But I'm definitely meeting a friend on Saturday. But how do I know? I must be thinking it mustn't I?

How can you, right now, be 100% certain what you are doing on Sunday? Or is this just a thought about what will happen, and not certainty?
Can you find the 'I' that is doing the thinking? Or is 'I' itself just a thought?
Is 'I was thinking' nothing more than just a thought about a thought?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

Hi Xain,

since my reply yesterday, I have been thinking about the notion of choice. Now that I have accepted that thoughts are the result of conditions, I began to wonder how I can take any responsibility for anything I have achieved. Rationally, everyone accepts that you are 'lucky' to have food on the table and not to live in a war zone - this is luck, maybe privilege, and we would not attempt to claim otherwise. But if thoughts and actions are the result of conditions, and not generated by something other ('me'), then the things I have achieved and am proud of are just as much the result of conditions, and I can't take responsibility for them. Or, I can, in the sense that I have worked hard, but my working hard was not the product of 'my choice', despite my wanting to believe that. This is what I have realized.

Walking here today I was thinking about how the world is a big process where everything is generating everything else, conditions generating conditions, within which I found myself walking to the library, and cars were going back and forth. I had a sense of this already, but there has always been a place in my idea of this big system for my own 'autonomy', which I am capable of generating. Today I was thinking that I'm just as much the result of conditions as the leaves I am walking over, and also, I'm equally generating conditions.

In your experiment, I chose my right hand. I didn't raise it because I'm sitting in the library. At another time I might have chosen my left hand, and I have noticed that certain conditions, like stress and nervousness, cause me to be indecisive. There must be very subtle conditions acting when I'm eating and deciding what to put onto my fork next, etc.

I agree, choice is an illusion, and everything that is happening is just happening. That's very useful, and liberating.

I think I need to consider some more how this impacts. I mean, I invest a lot of time and pride in the work I am doing, and my progress, and I'm not sure what the implications are of being 'choiceless'. I don't think it's a negative impact at all - just that I'm not sure what it could mean yet. How can 'I' be attached to my work, and anything I have achieved in my life, if 'I' doesn't exist? Wherein lies the attachment? I guess 'attachment' is a bunch of thoughts caused by 'conditions' to become bigger and more persistent.

As I write this I'm becoming more aware of the slipperiness of 'I'. I definitely have a plan to meet a friend on Saturday. That's not to say I will actually meet him, just that I have a plan to. But that thought is the result of some conditions - one of which is that we made a plan to meet up.

This is all really interesting!

Beverley

[beverley]

What I appear to have just said is that there is no free will. Also, that very conclusion might be condition enough for anyone who believes it to absolve themselves of responsibility - I think it's the concept of 'responsibility' that I need to mull over a bit more

Bev

[Xain]

What I appear to have just said is that there is no free will. Also, that very conclusion might be condition enough for anyone who believes it to absolve themselves of responsibility - I think it's the concept of 'responsibility' that I need to mull over a bit more

Our conversation together is to find out if there is a seperate 'I'.
To say that there is free-will, means that there is an 'I' to have it - i.e. 'I have free-will'.
To absolve ones-self of responsibility is saying that there is no free-will, and that applies to a seperate individual, an 'I' i.e. 'I have no free will'.
However, what we are saying here is that if there is no 'I', no seperate individual, then there is no 'I' that could have free-will even if there was such a thing.
What is this 'I'? Can you find in your immediate experience an 'I' that has free-will?
Or is free-will, as well as 'I', just a thought applied to the happenings of life . . . going on automatically?

In your experiment, I chose my right hand. I didn't raise it because I'm sitting in the library. At another time I might have chosen my left hand,

What is this 'I' that chose the right hand?
How do you know what would have been chosen another time? Surely this is simply a thought is it not?

Now that I have accepted that thoughts are the result of conditions, I began to wonder how I can take any responsibility for anything I have achieved

If there is no 'I' now, it follows that there was no 'I' in the past and there will be no 'I' in the future.
Is 'what I have achieved' anything more than a thought?
If life is happening via conditions out of any control, automatically, how can there be an 'I' that has achieved something?

Such things you can mull-over, but to answer you simply must search RIGHT NOW. Is 'I' a real-thing?
Or is 'I' just a thought?
Surely 'What I did in the past?' is nothing more than a thought that is believed in?
Is there an 'I' here now capable of doing or achieving? LOOK!
Could it be that 'I' is a thought that is believed in as well?

Today I was thinking that I'm just as much the result of conditions as the leaves I am walking over, and also, I'm equally generating conditions.

You are on the right track, but is there an 'I' generating conditions? This would imply that there is an 'I' will free-will, capable of such. Can you find this 'I'? Or is this just a thought about what is happening?

There must be very subtle conditions acting when I'm eating and deciding what to put onto my fork next, etc.

Really? Then discover what they are - Look into this.
If nothing can be found, then could it ALL be 'just happening' - No control of any kind?
Next time you eat a meal, really look into what is going on.
What 'I' chooses a knife-full of broccoli and not the carrots?
What 'I' chooses to stab the meat, rather than scoop it . . . or cut it into bits?
If there an 'I' that eats? What form does 'I', the eater take?
Or does eating just 'happen' and a thought pops up and takes responsibility for the event?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

I agree, the concepts of 'I' and of free-will are applied to things that are just happening, the result of conditions. There might be thoughts relating to 'I', but these are only thoughts. 'I' is just a thought that is believed in. However, surely the belief in that thought is in itself a condition that will generate further conditions? So the belief in a thought of 'me' generates certain events/conditions, which might be different from the non-belief in 'me' - I think this is what I mean by assuming responsibility.

Ok, I think in response you would say that either of those conditions, believing in 'I', or not believing in 'I', are just as 'chosen' by 'me' as whatever vegetable I happen to put on my fork next - i.e., again, these are things unfolding, and to assume autonomy/responsibility is to misunderstand the nature of 'choice'. There is no 'I' to make any 'choice'. It makes sense - it takes everything back to 'before' the thought itself, rendering any consideration of the 'true' or 'false' nature of the thought - whether it's about free will, or 'I', or my dinner - irrelevant (because they're all just thoughts.)

I'm not sure whether I will have a eureka moment on here, or whether no longer identifying with a self will be a bit disappointing. (How can a non-self experience disappointment? It's just a thought about a thought)

Beverley

[Xain]

YOU are very good at this :-)
. . . meant in a convention sense of course.
Despite what is found, conversation must assume two sides. A me and a you, even if this is found not to be true.

However, surely the belief in that thought is in itself a condition that will generate further conditions?

You are doing extremely well - Let's see if I can push you further . . .
Is 'the result of conditions' an actual truth, or just a thought?
And hence . . .
Is there anything here that is the result of conditions?
If there anything at all happening that is the result of conditions?

Is there anything here that holds 'beliefs'?

Did 'you' chose to start this conversation with 'me', or did it just happen?
Has anything ever been chosen by 'you'?

Try not to gloss over these - Really consider them.
Is there a seperate 'I' here right now? Was there ever a seperate 'I'?

I'm not sure whether I will have a eureka moment on here, or whether no longer identifying with a self will be a bit disappointing. (How can a non-self experience disappointment? It's just a thought about a thought)

Is there an 'I' to have a eureka moment?
Is there a seperate 'I' that identifies with a 'self' and can switch to 'no longer identify' with it?
What 'I' will be feeling disappointment?

Forgive me if we begin to delve into the territory of confusing conventional 'I' use, with absolute 'I' use.
(Tell me if you don't understand what I mean).

Xain ♥

[beverley]

Hi Xain, thanks for this, I'm really busy today and will be able to reply tomorrow, I hope that's ok

Bev

[beverley]

Is there anything here that is the result of conditions: yes, if a plant gets water, it stays alive. Isn't that true regardless of whether 'I' observe it? There is a plant on the desk and it is alive.

I can have a thought about the plant - e.g. that's a plant - but that's different from it being alive because it got watered. That just happens, no thought is required. The plant is there, I can see it, I don't have to think about it for it to be standing there.

(You might say - isn't it's being alive just the thought that it is alive? In which case, does anything actually exist, if all we have are thoughts about things? And anyway I can definitely see it - that's not a thought, it's a sense.)

Is there anything that holds beliefs: well only in the sense that we have thoughts that may be classed as 'beliefs'. Perhaps they are persistent thoughts, and they generate particular feelings, which enables us to think of them as being different from and more important than the other thoughts. But they are still thoughts, despite how persuasive they are - and therefore, according to what we've said so far, they are not chosen by us. So neither are beliefs.

Today after some meditation sessions I tried to become aware of what was making me do things. For example, when holding a cup of tea and taking regular sips, I became aware that, at some point, it had seemed an appropriate length of time since my last sip for me to take another sip, and so on. I wondered what 'decided' that enough time had passed - it seemed like there was some kind of instinctive 'rhythm' that made it happen without my being aware of it. There was nothing rational, or chosen, about the time of each sip.

Is it helpful or a hindrance to reflect here on my experiences of meditation?

If I'm hungry, I eat. Sometimes (usually) it's accompanied by thoughts about being hungry, but I don't think the thoughts are necessary for the act to take place. The organism, the animal, acts on physical instinct, and responds to the world and conditions. Whatever takes place rationally is extra to this.

I think I'm getting away from your points - if you are questioning whether anything at all is the result of conditions, then you will also question whether animals eat because they are hungry. So I'm not sure, because I think they do. (And they would do it even if I didn't think it.)

Is there a separate I? I'm not sure. Maybe not, if I'm saying that the thoughts are not under my control, and that things just happen.

How long do you tend to guide people for? I may take some time to get my head around this

[Xain]

Is there anything here that is the result of conditions: yes, if a plant gets water, it stays alive. Isn't that true regardless of whether 'I' observe it? There is a plant on the desk and it is alive.

If it is not observed (or at least, detected by the senses), then where is the answer coming from?

What about an 'I' that is here right now as the result of conditions?
Look for that one in the immediate moment. You can use the senses to find it, or you can get the answer as a thought. What is found?

I wondered what 'decided' that enough time had passed - it seemed like there was some kind of instinctive 'rhythm' that made it happen without my being aware of it.

Is this 'Rhythm' and actual fact of experience, or just a thought?
If it is a fact, then some 'thing' is generating that pattern.
Look into your experience here and now. What can you find that would do that?

I may take some time to get my head around this

Your comment points to the notion that there is an 'I' that can have an understanding of something.
That there might be an 'I' that 'has to be convinced' before it will believe something.
Describe that one to me.

Xain ♥

[beverley]

I don't know that the plant is still alive when I'm not there. However, I can see it now, and my memory (thoughts about the plant in the past) tells me I have seen it before in the same place. So in my experience, right now, is the plant itself, plus a thought about the past. Actually I don't 'know' that it's the same plant, or even that I've seen one there before, or that I've ever seen a plant.

The 'I' here now has thoughts going on, about today, and tomorrow, and it has sensations of sitting in a chair and typing. It is the body experiencing those sensations. I don't know what is experiencing the thoughts.

The 'rhythm' I referred to is a thought applied after the event, when I wanted to describe the phenomenon of drinking tea at intervals. However, in the actual event of sipping my tea, there was no such thought. 'Rhythm' is what I chose to describe it afterwards. In the event there was only the sensory awareness of the sipping (the sight of the cup, the feel of the cup at my mouth, etc).

However, why didn't I (or at least, this human organism) drink the whole cup in one go and burn my/its tongue? It's not that anything prevented that from happening - like pain on the tongue - it just didn't happen. Why not, is that just luck? Why didn't I drink bleach from a bottle instead of a cup of tea?

It's not so much that 'I' have to be 'convinced' before I believe something, more that I'm not quite sure what it is that's being believed. (Ok, so 'I' have to 'know' what it is that's being believed....) We discussed belief earlier and found (I think) it was a strong thought or a series, but still thoughts

I'm unable to reply on Thursday and will be back on Friday

Beverley

[Xain]

As we have stated, in order to find 'I' in the immediate moment, we can use the senses or we can get the answers from thought.
Please, in each case, try to use the senses to find this 'I' that you describe.
If an 'I' cannot be found, please tell me that the result you are getting is from a thought.

The 'I' here now has thoughts going on . . .

Is this 'I' found using the senses or via a thought?
If it was found using the senses, then describe that one to me. The 'I' that has thoughts.

. . . it has sensations of sitting in a chair and typing. It is the body experiencing those sensations

So the body performs the function of 'feeling'.
Does the body perform all the other senses as well? And is it correct to say that the body is 'I'?

However, why didn't I (or at least, this human organism) drink the whole cup in one go and burn my/its tongue? It's not that anything prevented that from happening - like pain on the tongue - it just didn't happen. Why not, is that just luck? Why didn't I drink bleach from a bottle instead of a cup of tea?

You ask many questions here. These are all thoughts about the past. This is your investigation. I can only ask for you to look in the immediate moment, and to discover what the truth is for yourself.

Go into the kitchen now and get a drink.
What is the 'I' that selects Tea and not Bleach?
Describe this 'I' to me.

Xain ♥

[beverley]

The 'I' here now that has thoughts going on: in my experience now there are thoughts. There are sensations, the taste of the sandwich I've just eaten. The 'I' must itself be the content of thought.

The body performs the function of feeling, and it performs the other sense functions. And the function of thinking, because there are thoughts in my experience, as well as sensory experiences.

The body is the body, carrying out its functions, one of which is thinking.

The choice to eat a sandwich just now arose because of thoughts. The content of the thoughts related to things like the appropriateness of eating the sandwich, it's gone lunch time, and knowledge about the sandwich - e.g. i brought it to eat at lunch time. The thoughts gave rise to the action. Also, sensations affected the action - I am in a quiet place, and I heard the crunching sounds made by my chewing which sounded loud, and my chewing action became slower. This was a sensory experience, mixed with thoughts relating to what I 'should' be doing (being quiet).

There are thoughts and sensations there, I didn't find any 'I'

Beverley

[Xain]

Hi Beverley - Good.
I would encourage you at this point to look very deeply into exactly what is happening in your experience.
There may be a temptation to use standard phrases in every-day use without actually examining in detail whether they are true or not.

For example, it is typical to say 'A thought appear in my head' - But have you ever experience a thought which is located in a head? How can one experience the inside of a head?

The 'I' here now that has thoughts going on: in my experience now there are thoughts.

Please, we need to break this down and look carefully.
Clearly there are thought appearing.
You are saying that there is an 'I' here right now, to which the thoughts are appearing to.
What exactly is this 'I' that is having the thoughts. Look into your experience as thoughts appear and determine the 'I' to which the thought appears and describe it.
Or . . . are there just thoughts appearing, without an 'I' actually locatable to which they are appearing to?

The body performs the function of thinking, because there are thoughts in my experience

Is this an assumption? Or an experience?
Do you experience a body thinking? Or is this just a thought about the event?
Do you experience a particular part of the body performing the function of thinking? Or the entire body?
There may be a temptation to say 'my Brain' - Do you experience a brain thinking?
Don't assume or revert to analysis - LOOK - Find out what is actually going on.

The choice to eat a sandwich just now arose because of thoughts.

Thoughts are experienced. Are you saying that the thoughts chose?
Again, do you actually experience thoughts choosing?

If you were driving a car, do you experience thoughts choosing the gears to change, and the choice to accelerate of brake? Or does it all just happen?

If thoughts choose, do you control thoughts?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

Hi Xain,

Sorry I've had a really busy weekend

Regarding that first point, I was repeating what had been said earlier, but not making that very clear. I gave up on the quote function. What I meant to do was go on to say what was in my experience, which was thoughts and sensations, and that 'I' was the content of some of the thoughts. I would agree that there are thoughts appearing, without a locatable 'I'.

I don't experience the body thinking, but I am aware of thoughts. I mean - there are thoughts in my experience. I couldn't say that 'I' am aware of them. But thoughts are there in my experience. The body is there in my experience too. So the two would seem to mutually exist - perhaps requiring one another to exist, but I have no evidence for that.

I don't experience 'the brain thinking', I only experience thoughts. The thoughts I experience are images, speech and words, or they seem to be vague impressions - of a shape or emotion, or an instinct.

I was just eating some nuts, but I never thought 'I'm going to eat some nuts'. I knew to eat them, without having any rationale or premeditation. At some point I was aware of a voice saying 'nuts', as in - when I next go to a shop, buy some more nuts. Like a mental list. It wasn't a sentence but it was definitely a word. It was a thought about a future action.

Again, it was a thought that arose and went away. I'm not aware of controlling thoughts and they certainly seem to come and go, unpredictably - the ones that might usefully stick around are often lost. So I can't be in control of them, otherwise I wouldn't forget stuff

Bev