Ready for guidance

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

I meant feeling in a general way - but it does have a quality. The feeling is calm, alive in my body.

Ok, it's just helpful for me to know.

Can you answer this question from my last post:

But don't beliefs and thoughts seem like they're outside the present moment only because you're thinking they're outside the present moment, right now, in the present moment? In fact, can there be a thought that's not right now in this moment? If so, what would that be, and how could you be aware of it?

I asked:

How do you conceive the 'self' or 'I'/ me' that you hold 'yourself' to be?

Well, it is totally thoughts. Thoughts that use the idea of a self, that say "me, I" etc.
And these thoughts also say, well I have a body, too. And that is REALLY me.

You're dead right about that. We'll get on to the self as body soon.

I asked:

Where in that flow does the 'self' that you conceive reside? Can it be found, at all?

I can't find any static Self. Except thoughts - which I have carried (whether I like them or not) from year to year throughout my life. Thought after thought after thought - seemingly solidified and tangled together as beliefs about "me" and the world and everything else. And I'm feeling pretty stuck in thoughts here... but I know there is more going on.

Again you're right, there's no self, static or not; no you/I/we, you just think there is. Don't feel stuck, you've got a good idea of what's going on here. You just need pointing to look in all the places where 'you' might be to see for yourself for sure that there really is no 'you', anywhere.

As I've said in the previous post, the whole of this investigation centres around looking in direct experience to see if a self-entity can be found anywhere there. This is accompanied by seeing that it is in thoughts and only in thoughts that 'I' ever 'occurs' and that 'I' doesn't actually occur there either because thoughts, or at least their contents, are neither reliable nor real in any sense.

During this guiding, I'd like to take you gradually, in a loosely structured, flexible way, through all areas of experience, to see if you can find a self here. So that you can actually SEE for yourself.

So, let's start investigating in direct experience where a self-entity might be by looking at sense arisings and the self as experiencer (or not). First, here's a quote from the Bahiya Sutta, which succinctly sums up our investigation into no-self, when the Buddha says:

Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

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 are the boundaries between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

Please do the same with hearing: birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill or whatever; and similarly with each of: tasting, tactile feelings and smelling.

P x

[Belinda]

Hello Pete,
Thank you so much for your comments and clarifications of what this process is.
Though I can't post very much until tomorrow, I'll be reading and thinking/feeling through them.
More and more I realize this isn't just an idea, its real! And that feels marvelous.
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

Thanks for letting me know. Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow.

Pete x

[Belinda]

Hello Pete,

But don't beliefs and thoughts seem like they're outside the present moment only because you're thinking they're outside the present moment, right now, in the present moment?

Yes - exactly - that's what I was thinking as I wrote about that.

In fact, can there be a thought that's not right now in this moment? If so, what would that be, and how could you be aware of it?

This kind of blows my mind a little - makes it stop and say "..?.." Because there can't be a thought that isn't right now. "What?" My mind says. "I think thoughts not about the present moment all the time!" Yeah, I know that, that's the mind's specialty. But the mind feels like the busy part... There's this quietness that isn't in that busyness at all.
(And then I want to say - well, when you read, those are symbols of thoughts that are frozen in time, they were once someone's thoughts - but nope! They are symbols of past thoughts, and can only be read and "unfrozen" in the present moment.)


And before I begin with the rest - I feel the need to look back at your questions and my answers to them, and see if there is anything I've been leaving out. When I started this, I felt self-conscious about being on a public forum, and a little bit about doing it "right," and so I want to look a little at what I've been feeling doing this. I guess there's some anxiety ... like tightness in my mind ... which I don't want to be "pinching" me, if it is. (But there has also been the light-heartedness for sure!)

More tomorrow.

Thanks,
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

In fact, can there be a thought that's not right now in this moment? If so, what would that be, and how could you be aware of it?

This kind of blows my mind a little - makes it stop and say "..?.." Because there can't be a thought that isn't right now. "What?" My mind says. "I think thoughts not about the present moment all the time!" Yeah, I know that, that's the mind's specialty. But the mind feels like the busy part... There's this quietness that isn't in that busyness at all

So yeah, it's good that you can see clearly from direct experience that there's 'always' only right now and that's the only time that thoughts can possibly arise, although their content inevitably can, and frequently does, concern 'other times', i.e. past or future. No matter what your expectations or memories of certain experiences are, they are still only thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts as such. They're just part of life and aren't a problem if we see them for what they are: just concepts, messages, dodgy data packages, opinions and judgements, derived directly or indirectly from past (immediate, recent, distant) direct experience. Thoughts can vary in the accuracy of their content, but they are not direct experience of what is and so are not reliable at all.

And before I begin with the rest - I feel the need to look back at your questions and my answers to them, and see if there is anything I've been leaving out. When I started this, I felt self-conscious about being on a public forum, and a little bit about doing it "right," and so I want to look a little at what I've been feeling doing this. I guess there's some anxiety ... like tightness in my mind ... which I don't want to be "pinching" me, if it is. (But there has also been the light-heartedness for sure!)

It's a good idea to keep checking that what you post just contains accurate details of what you think, feel and, most importantly, what your direct experience has been. That's the only way you need to be sure you're 'right'. So you're wise to check back now to see if that's the case so far, as it's all I've got to go on and all we've got to work with. That said, what you've said so far seems fine to me. However, only you can be sure. I look forward to finding out what you've discovered, together with your answers to the sense arisings exercises.

Pete x

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
I think my impulse to look over my previous posts is like I am a student who has to make sure I've been doing the course right. Hm. I don't think that's necessarily helpful!
Perhaps the fear thats's coming in it the edges is related... it is a feeling that comes while I'm falling asleep or just woken up... some kind of reaction to "my world being fucked with." So that seems good to at least acknowledge.
More soon,
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

I think my impulse to look over my previous posts is like I am a student who has to make sure I've been doing the course right. Hm. I don't think that's necessarily helpful!

As I said before, checking is good but, once you've checked, there's no need to dwell. This isn't about thinking things through or 'getting it right'. The whole of this investigation is looking, looking, looking at your direct experience, that's all.

Perhaps the fear thats's coming in it the edges is related... it is a feeling that comes while I'm falling asleep or just woken up... some kind of reaction to "my world being fucked with." So that seems good to at least acknowledge.

The prospect of discovering that there really is no you, no self-entity, isn't something that most people take lightly so it's not surprising that you should feel some feelings of fear and anxiety, or other negative emotions. It's quite common to have these feelings when the truth of no-self starts to really kick in. So, although it's clearly unpleasant and can be disturbing, don't worry, it's a good sign. Consider any fear you have of no-self to be a protective mechanism. It's doing its job perfectly, and it's a loyal friend and protector. It's just that fear can't distinguish between a real danger and something like this, where there's really nothing to protect in the first place!

Can you look at the fear itself, how it works, and where it is felt in the body? Ask it to come closer. Check that raw feeling. Is it personal? Ask it what it's protecting. What is it that it does not want you to find out? Thank it, and look behind the fear as if you would be taking a peek with curiosity. What is behind it?

Don'y worry, you won't disappear. You cannot. You never 'were' in the first place. Existence exists and always has and always will. What does not exist is this 'you' —the imaginary ownership of a piece of existence.

Your investigation has really only just begun with my questions to you around looking for any separate self in sense arisings. Keeping momentum going here is vital, so there's no point in delaying further. Just let me know what happened with seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touch.

Pete x


Pete x

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
Okay.

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 are the boundaries between what is being seen, the seeing process itself and the seer?

Please do the same with hearing: birdsong, music, a pneumatic drill or whatever; and similarly with each of: tasting, tactile feelings and smelling.

The I is not looking or seeing. Looking and seeing just happen. The I has nothing to do with it happening, actually.
The boundaries are very fast - I mean, there is the experience and then the mind/thinking overlay onto the experience almost instantaneously. The I has it's thoughts and also sense of ownership (that it chose or is choosing, is in control). But really everything happens. Okay, wait. That's something I know is true, because I've read & been told. Whats direct experience? Direct experience is that I do nothing to see, hear, taste, feel, smell. My body does these naturally - the I has no input there, only the tiniest changes. ( closing eyes, for example, is an action. Wait, what about actions? An action seems different - who chooses?? I guess that's a different question.)
My "I" can no more decide to see ( or any of the other sense) than to make my heart beat. It just happens, no consciousness required.
I say that, but I don't know if that is absolute truth - just what it seems like. The information from the senses comes in, just as a part of being alive.

Okay - I just was looking at your second question, about the boundaries. I saw that there is no boundary between what's being seen and the seeing process! (I actually said " arghh!" And clutched my head. Because that's not supposed to make any sense, I'm over here and that's over there! ) Seeing no boundary, it was very clear, just knew it, obvious - how could there be a boundary? Then mind starts thinking and has a bit of panic over it.
I see no boundary between what is seen and the seeing process.
The boundary between the seeing process and the seer is created by the seer who thinks.
(Oh boy, getting disoriented and a bit of a headache, really! Arg! )
Really the seer is the seeing process, but the mind of the seer thinks it is the seer, and the seer is separate.
Something like that, I'm not sure yet about language. (This is very weird. Ok, maybe not to you, but to me! :) )
Okay. So there is no boundary between the seer and what is being seen. I can see that this is logical and must be true, but my body is having a lag in experiencing this. (As in, "arg!")

Wow. I wrote all that in real time, as I was seeing it. That's for your guidance!
Belinda

[Belinda]

Oh boy - I'm laughing because I just realized, oh no, once I see this I can't un-see it, can I?? :D

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

No you can't unsee it now you've seen it! That's really great Belinda, I'm really pleased.

I heard mail coming in so just checked on my way out, and I'm glad I did.

Keep looking, when you feel like it. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Lots, of love,

Pete

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
I saw you were online too and I was glad.
Yeah! Right now I'm like Oh Shit, all the boundaries are fake! ( omg! :) )
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

The I is not looking or seeing. Looking and seeing just happen. The I has nothing to do with it happening, actually.

Great, so you clearly see that there is just seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting. And it's got nothing to do with 'I'/'me' because there is no such entity.

The I has it's thoughts and also sense of ownership (that it chose or is choosing, is in control). But really everything happens.

Also, you see how the ego, i.e. I-thoughts, immediately take the credit for what happens (to 'you').

My "I" can no more decide to see ( or any of the other sense) than to make my heart beat. It just happens, no consciousness required. I say that, but I don't know if that is absolute truth - just what it seems like. The information from the senses comes in, just as a part of being alive.

Great, and you don't need to analyse this to any degree. If it appears in direct experience, it's true. What else could be, and where else could truth be?

The boundary between the seeing process and the seer is created by the seer who thinks.
Really the seer is the seeing process, but the mind of the seer thinks it is the seer, and the seer is separate.
Something like that, I'm not sure yet about language. (This is very weird. Ok, maybe not to you, but to me! :) )

You've described it very well. There's no boundary to be found, anywhere, between seer, what is being seen and seeing itself; there's just seeing (and hearing,feeling etc.). I remember it was weird for me too at first, but in a good way. As it becomes more and more accepted, it becomes even more wonderful.

So, that went well then. Let's look to see whether - as always in direct experience - there's an I, a self-entity, acting as doer or controller:

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? Try all kinds of stuff.

Is there any "I" there for any of these actions, or are they just like 'automatic'?

Pete x

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
(I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be using the quote function.)
When I first read the questions, I thought, "Uh Oh, I think I know what's coming. There's no "I" to be found doing actions, is there?"
Then I went into direct experience. Actions just happen too! Thoughts happen, of course, but I cannot find that the thoughts precede action.
From where I sit, it seems like the "I" part is very much smaller than I always though. It takes credit for things that really just happen.
This shakes things up of course - I'm also thinking, of course thoughts precede action! But what I started to wonder today, as I watched myself, was whether I'm just doing _what would happen anyway_ (I would underline that, if I could), and my thoughts were just flitting accompaniment to the almost inevitable choices. Or as if the choices were made at a far "deeper" level than my "I" thoughts.
So that's what's going on right now. I may post some more tonight as I experience it.
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

it seems like the "I" part is very much smaller than I always thought

So, are you really saying that you do have a separate self, an I, but that it's just smaller than you previously thought, rather than non-existent? I hope not, but I need to be sure.

Then I went into direct experience. Actions just happen too! Thoughts happen, of course, but I cannot find that the thoughts precede action. From where I sit, it seems like the "I" part is very much smaller than I always thought. It takes credit for things that really just happen.

You're right.

So, looking again at 'your' direct experience, are you saying that an action, any action, just happens, followed immediately by a thought, completely unconnected, that takes the credit, saying 'I did that!'?

what I started to wonder today, as I watched myself, was whether I'm just doing what would happen anyway and my thoughts were just flitting accompaniment to the almost inevitable choices. Or as if the choices were made at a far "deeper" level than my "I" thoughts.

it's fundamentally about whether in your direct experience you can find any 'I' doing or controlling anything 'you' do but yeah, it does seem as if choices are made at some level, without the need or involvement of any separate entity, perhaps as the fruition of an almost infinite permutation of conditions going back to the beginning of time, or something like that.

It's pretty clear from the above that doing and controlling can"t really be separated from choosing and deciding so this seems like a good time to look at whether the self is involved at all in making decisions and choices:

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Also, can I ask you to have a look at the following short video clip from BBC Horizon - The Secret You on Neuroscience and Freewill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3AiOS4nCE . It demonstrates scientifically that our decisions and choices are made a full 6 seconds before we think we make them, i.e. before a thought arises saying, "I decided to do this." There is no substitute for looking in direct experience, but this is excellent scientific corroboration for what is to be found, or rather not found, in direct experience.

Love, Pete

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
Whoops, just lost the response I spent half an hour on.
Here goes again!

it seems like the "I" part is very much smaller than I always thought
So, are you really saying that you do have a separate self, an I, but that it's just smaller than you previously thought, rather than non-existent? I hope not, but I need to be sure.

There is a doubt - or maybe it is just language? If "I" am not choosing, what is?? Could it be a me who isn't "me"?

So, looking again at 'your' direct experience, are you saying that an action, any action, just happens, followed immediately by a thought, completely unconnected, that takes the credit, saying 'I did that!'?

Yes.

what I started to wonder today, as I watched myself, was whether I'm just doing what would happen anyway and my thoughts were just flitting accompaniment to the almost inevitable choices. Or as if the choices were made at a far "deeper" level than my "I" thoughts.

it's fundamentally about whether in your direct experience you can find any 'I' doing or controlling anything 'you' do but yeah, it does seem as if choices are made at some level, without the need or involvement of any separate entity, perhaps as the fruition of an almost infinite permutation of conditions going back to the beginning of time, or something like that.

Okay, this speaks to what I was saying above - the how-does-choice-exist question.
It seems like it may be language tripping me up, making this seem more confusing.
This weekend my dear friend, who is awake, has been visiting. He has said, for years, that when language comes into the mix, it often confuses people who are beginning to see, because language still uses the word I, etc., and that can reinforce doubts. He said this is what's happening to me... And I think he's right. (He also just said, Soon we'll sit down and have a chat about why the idea of having an "I" is ridiculous.)

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Okay, I can furiously think raise your arm raise your arm - but that doesn't mean I do it!
I can't find the moment of choice, or the chooser. It seems as if the physical act, and whatever immediately precedes it, which we call choice, is unrelated, in completely different circuitry than the "I" thinking about it.
Just rationally, it seems like if we had to rely on the conscious brain to direct every action, life in this body would be like directing a robot.

I'm going to watch that video tonight. Thanks.

Belinda