...in need for a stick

[moondog]

Hi Uwe,

our dialogue reminds me of a 'Strickliesel'. That's German for 'Knitting Jenny'. The version of my childhood was a hollow wooden doll which, by way of circular knitting, produced a long fluffy string. In the same way our exchange is turning out to become a sort of Knitting Goodness Sock. It is perhaps more appropriate to talk of unraveling instead of knitting and you are there to make sure the thread or yarn is not lost over it.

Here in the UK I don't think we have anything quite like Strickliesel, although it may be there in our ancient folklore, as we share a lot with German culture going way back to Saxon times. I like the idea of unravelling a sort of antimatter Knitting Goodness Sock!

"As always, in direct experience: Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?"

There is direct experience. Hurting, pleasant sensations etc. This seen/directly experienced - there is no body as a separate entity. There is sensing, feeling, thinking... the body as an abstract separate entity does not exist. The body itself is in a way a concept. Looked at it deeply, there is just this again not really controllable or foreseeable chain of sense impressions, feelings, thoughts arising and subsiding. Sometimes it can be traced back afterwards when elbow is knocking against a corner or else. So, correctly speaking there is only experiencing or sensing to be labeled later by the mind or not.

As throughout our thread, there's little for me to say as, not only do you understand all this intellectually but, far more importantly, you can see in direct experience that, like self, body is just an idea, for convenience and, that being so, self just cannot be the body or within the body. And you have seen that to be so, which is just great.

Sounds daft, but it's all flow, direct experience, a force, a flux - whether labeled as body, as thought, as mind, as sensuous experience. Yet, whether it's thoughts or body, ultimately all is empty of a self, without being a separate entity.There is just reality. There is not even a wave nor a particle, just direct experience flowing, and awareness is a reflection of it.

Yes!

Do you agree that experience and awareness are interchangeable terms for 'just this'?

So, now we've covered all the areas/aspects of direct experience and you have found no 'you', anywhere. You appear to have clearly seen that there just is no self-entity.

is that the case? Also, please let me know of any aspects that you'd like to revisit, look into more deeply.

And finally, just looking from a different perspective and, as always, from direct experience:

With "you" revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

Great stuff Uwe.

Pete x

[Anoketu]

Hi Pete,

another day has passed. It was quite 'ordinary'. 'I' went to work. At times 'I' became aware of walking, working, thinking, labeling, sensing... and so on. In its 'thusness' everything was unforeseen, spontaneously arising, flowing.

I agree, or better: there is agreement with your question:

"Do you agree that experience and awareness are interchangeable terms for 'just this'?"

It's like that. All just is, that would to say in direct experience.

"So, now we've covered all the areas/aspects of direct experience and you have found no 'you', anywhere. You appear to have clearly seen that there just is no self-entity. Is that the case?"

Yes, it's clearly seen. Yet at the same time there is the usual view with an 'I' and all the labeling activity - now perhaps perceived as a bit more of a provisional view. I once read the term 'controlled folly'. Referring to the common notion of an 'I' seems like folly. However, it is not really controlled folly as the thought of an 'I' is not
originating in any 'self' and there is no controller.

"Also, please let me know of any aspects that you'd like to revisit, look into more deeply."

There are two aspects which are of interest.

How can this seeing find its consolidation or deepening? Won't there be a 'gravitational' pull'? Not that Santa is invited back, the pull being something like ego-clinging out of habit and because it's familiar.

The second is the aspect of unskilful emotions and irritation. Strong emotions presumably indicate strong identification with 'self'. Normally, there is a lot of advice like cultivating a positive attitude etc. - yet, in direct experience there is nothing and nobody to cultivate. Cultivation may take place or not. It becomes a sort of awareness in no-self development.

Resting in direct experience or awareness seems more like not-doing or non clinging. It's effortless.

"And finally, just looking from a different perspective and, as always, from direct experience:

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?"

There is no 'me' in memories other than the 'thought story'. That's not fixed either as memories fluctuate, arise instantaneously without real self. They are just thoughts of previous events which may have happened or not. Ultimately, nothing fixed, nothing separate remains.

"What experiences? What thinks? What does?"

There is just experiencing, thinking, doing - but no subject. The subject is no-subject.

"What is aware?"

There is just awareness, nothing separate. Clarity.

Experience.

Where is the whacking, Pete?

Best regards,
Uwe

[moondog]

Hi Uwe,

Do you agree that experience and awareness are interchangeable terms for 'just this'?

I agree, or better: there is agreement with your question. It's like that. All just is, that would to say in direct experience.

There's just this, as you say.

Yes, it's clearly seen. Yet at the same time there is the usual view with an 'I' and all the labeling activity - now perhaps perceived as a bit more of a provisional view. I once read the term 'controlled folly'. Referring to the common notion of an 'I' seems like folly. However, it is not really controlled folly as the thought of an 'I' is not originating in any 'self' and there is no controller.

As you can see, just because 'I' is clearly seen not to exist doesn't mean an immediate end to the previous mental activity, including I thoughts, labelling etc. But they are seen for what they are - mere thoughts, unreliable data packages - and over time, because they have been 'found out', lose there power to distract and delude.

How can this seeing find its consolidation or deepening? Won't there be a 'gravitational' pull'? Not that Santa is invited back, the pull being something like ego-clinging out of habit and because it's familiar.

That's a good question, and one that many, perhaps most, people at the stage you're at tend to ask. Continuing on from what I was saying above, because the self has been seen to be a fake, never really there, and that is recognised as true, its power to seduce (there really is no 'it', it's just recurrent thoughts) starts to ebb away. This is the gravitational pull that you refer to, and its rate of decline occurs at different rates for each of us. So, that's how the deepening and consolidation happen. In my case, once I could see for sure that there was no 'me', I saw that there were no other people as separate entities either, and there was no inside/outside in any real sense. My beliefs started to fall away. As there's no 'you', there's really nobody to make this process happen or, if impatience-thoughts are listened to and taken seriously, to speed it up.

The second is the aspect of unskilful emotions and irritation. Strong emotions presumably indicate strong identification with 'self'. Normally, there is a lot of advice like cultivating a positive attitude etc. - yet, in direct experience there is nothing and nobody to cultivate. Cultivation may take place or not. It becomes a sort of awareness in no-self development.

As I'm sure is now clear to you, unskilful emotions and irritation work with and feed off the mistaken impression that there is a definite, real 'you' to nurture, worry about and protect. Once it is seen that there's nothing there, these thoughts, feelings and emotions are seen for what they are, impersonal arisings in awareness, and tend to shrivel away as soon as they're recognised as such. However, these habit-energies have persisted for a very long time, so don't expect them just to disappear immediately. It takes time for their energy to dispel and fade away and it may be that such arisings will occasionally arise indefinitely but, seen for what they are, they can't take hold and so, there's really just no problem.

There is no 'me' in memories other than the 'thought story'. That's not fixed either as memories fluctuate, arise instantaneously without real self. They are just thoughts of previous events which may have happened or not. Ultimately, nothing fixed, nothing separate remains. There is just experiencing, thinking, doing - but no subject. The subject is no-subject.There is just awareness, nothing separate. Clarity.

Cool.

So yeah, great. As you might know, at the end of this investigation, the guide asks a set of final questions and the answers are looked at by other guides just to see whether they have any queries to clarify your seeing no-self for themselves, which is something they often do. After that, you're invited to join a selection of 'aftercare' and other groups, mainly on Facebook, where advice can be sought and friendly discussions happen. It can be really helpful. Prior to that however, I'd just like to ask you some 'sweep-up' questions, to make sure everything's been covered, and that we're both sure and satisfied that you've seen (although there's little doubt of that in my mind). Anyway, my apologies if the following questions seem a tad repetitious. It's just to be sure.

In direct experience:

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

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

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

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

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

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

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

And finally:

Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?

It's a bit of a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, as I said, there is something you want to examine some more.

Oh, one more thing - I don't understand what you mean when you ask, 'Where is the whacking?' What's all that about Uwe?

Pete x

[Anoketu]

Hi Pete,

yesterday I was trying to explain to a friend what I was doing (or not-doing) regarding this inquiry into direct experience. After a few sentences she (Asian) nodded and pointed out how she preferred to live life accepting things as they came naturally. She then said it would mean not think so much, upon which I answered 'that's why I like you'. Normally, this would not be a compliment, but in the light of direct experience it was very very funny and we burst out in laughter.

You see, here is 'I' or 'me' trying to 'make' sense where there is actually no need for it. It is very helpful that you pointed out that

"just because 'I' is clearly seen not to exist doesn't mean an immediate end to the previous mental activity, including I thoughts, labelling etc. But they are seen for what they are - mere thoughts, unreliable data packages - and over time, because they have been 'found out', lose their power to distract and delude."

furthermore

"Continuing on from what I was saying above, because the self has been seen to be a fake, never really there, and that is recognised as true, its power to seduce (there really is no 'it', it's just recurrent thoughts) starts to ebb away. This is the gravitational pull that you refer to, and its rate of decline occurs at different rates for each of us. So, that's how the deepening and consolidation happen. In my case, once I could see for sure that there was no 'me', I saw that there were no other people as separate entities either, and there was no inside/outside in any real sense. My beliefs started to fall away. As there's no 'you', there's really nobody to make this process happen or, if impatience-thoughts are listened to and taken seriously, to speed it up."

This sounds very encouraging and I can fully understand. Any thought that it somehow would not work with 'me' would be just another 'selfing' thought mechanism at work.

At this point I want to mention the 'whacking', thereby referring to the title of our exchange 'in need for a stick'. I think it was Elena who pointed out the need to sometimes use the ZEN-stick in order to help people understand.

However, I found our approach rather gentle and I could see at least a bit deeper into my experience. Especially after years of more or less intense Buddhist practice without 'major breakthroughs' it can be easy to think 'it' does not work, at least not with 'me'. Hence the perhaps slightly disheartened initial approach and the thought a big whacking like in some ZEN movies may help to fix 'things'.

Seeing it for what it is, there is just the thought of 'me' in operation - too strong an identification with what gets labelled as 'my' spiritual life or in other words, the temptation to make 'me' something special in whatever way.

Let me get to your set of final questions.

In direct experience:

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

No, there is just experiencing. Experience is direct, immediate, spontaneous. There is sensing hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, and tasting. There are sensations in the body. However, 'body' itself is just a concept.

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

There is no 'doer' either, also no 'controller'. Things or actions arise equally spontaneously. Actions arise on their own. There is no 'doer' involved.

"Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?"

There is no 'decision maker' and no control over decisions. It may look as if there was, but deciding happens by itself.

"Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?"

There is no 'self' doing the thinking. Thoughts come and go without a 'thinker'. They simply arise from mind.

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

The body is not 'self' or 'me' either. Body is a convenient label or mental construct for tactile and kinesthetic experiences. Superficially there are form, matter, the space taken up, energy or consciousness. Yet, these are also just attributes of the mind based on sense experience.

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

The body senses are not 'made' and there is no 'self' making them. They arise spontaneously. Sensing or perception just happens.

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

There is no 'self' which is different from the world and 'others' out there. There is no center, only direct experience, a situation, moment by moment. There is only reality, but nothing that owns or directs.

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

The 'self' is no other than a mental construct. It can not be found when looked directly. There is just experience.

And finally:

"Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?"

There are no doubts, yet seeing that there is a lifelong habitual tendency of 'selfing' taking place. Thoughts are real, the 'self' is not. The 'self' is an illusion. It's just a label, a concept. Not even the thought of 'self' is needed.
Things or phenomena just are. Life is happening moment by moment without owner. Nothing is separate. Everything is joined. Life flows.

And now?

"Once it is seen that there's nothing there, these thoughts, feelings and emotions are seen for what they are, impersonal arisings in awareness, and tend to shrivel away as soon as they're recognised as such. However, these habit-energies have persisted for a very long time, so don't expect them just to disappear immediately. It takes time for their energy to dispel and fade away and it may be that such arisings will occasionally arise indefinitely but, seen for what they are, they can't take hold and so, there's really just no problem."

Given the 'habit-energies', joining the 'aftercare program' appears helpful. 'I' am looking forward how things will shrivel, fade or unfold. Well, life is happening, isn't it?

Thank you again, Pete. This felt very worthwhile, indeed. Hopefully, the cosmic cookie jar is coming 'your' way i.e. manifesting itself spontaneously for this insightful endeavor.

Uwe

[moondog]

Hi Uwe,

You see, here is 'I' or 'me' trying to 'make' sense where there is actually no need for it. It is very helpful that you pointed out that

Great. I like your story of what happened with your friends. It's only in living out life like this that it can be seen - in direct experience - how, although everything remains ordinary, all is very different. It's hard to find the right words.

This sounds very encouraging and I can fully understand. Any thought that it somehow would not work with 'me' would be just another 'selfing' thought mechanism at work.

Yeah, it's good to 'bear this in mind'.

Thanks for clearing up the 'whacking' mystery. Sorry, I was a bit slow there, should have looked at your 'in need of a stick' heading. Sometimes when guiding I've had to wield the old Zen stick, but you just haven't needed anything like that. You've been very receptive to looking into direct experience from the start, and you've been a pleasure to guide Uwe.

Anyway, your answers to the sweep-up questions (not the 'final questions', they're next) are spot on.

So, here are the final questions. (When answering question 5, please give specific and recent examples from direct experience.) As I've already said, once I get your answers, I'll put them forward for other guides for any comments. Then I'll arrange for you to get access to various aftercare and other groups on Facebook and the LU site. Have you got a Facebook name? If so, either let me know here or, if you prefer, PM it to me.

Always from direct experience.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen?

Please give examples from your experience.

6) Anything to add?

I'll keep an eye out for that cosmic cookie jar.

Pete x

[Anoketu]

Hi Pete,

here are the answers to your final questions.

Always from direct experience.

1) "Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?"

No, there is no separate 'self', 'me' nor an 'I' in any way, shape or form. There never was.

2) "Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your
own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now."

'Self' in my own case was thoughts and the belief of 'me' creating 'my' 'personal' history. 'Me' as the 'doer' of 'my' actions, being in charge of 'my' life. However, through looking into direct experience the notion of 'self' was recognized as mere thought. The more often the thought of "I" appears, the more it is believed, and it seemed to become a reality itself.

Whilst being guided and encouraged to look at direct experience it became obvious that the notion of a separate 'self' is born out of mind, merely a thought construct. It arises without control, spontaneously, as trains of thought do. It is ultimately an illusion. Thinking itself cannot be controlled as there is no thinker, nobody who couldtake control. Thinking just happens as well as the habit that there is a 'me' doing all things.

3) "How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days."

The main difference lies in direct looking. As looking or even thinking is happening, direct looking clearly revealed that there is no doer, no 'self' in control. Life is just happening born out of nowhere. As direct looking took place there was no 'doer' seen, nobody to decide. Things just happened. The main difference is a sense of presence in experience and a certain relief not needing to 'control' everything.

4) "What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?"

It was a gradual process and still is. The most convincing part was the realization that there is no 'I' in control: not of thinking, not of emotions, not of body, not of senses, not of will.

Direct looking helped to see that phenomena are born out of the moment. They just happen. No 'I' is needed for that.

5) "Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen?"

'I' believed I could do these things. However, in direct experience deciding, intending, choosing or controlling just happen without control. 'I' cannot make anything happen. Whenever investigated, 'I' is always found as a thought after any action took place. Without thinking, in experience no 'I' was there. It simply functions as a label. The self is never really involved in the doing. It's just a thought-based attempt to take ownership of what is happening. All ideas of who or what I am are only imagined. As a recent example I can mention the unaware grasping of a coffee cup or simply the sequence of tasks arising as thoughts during work hours. I really cannot say how and why they arise. There is definitely no 'me' deciding upon an action or as to when a particular thought arises.

6) "Anything to add?"

There is no 'me' other than in thought, that is habitual thoughts of 'self'. 'Me' is just a story of belief. Without story there is just a sense of being alive. Life itself just happens. What happens happens as there is nobody in charge. There is just direct experience, life as a whole. Therefore awareness and appearances are one. Without the story of 'self' there is freedom.

Uwe

[moondog]

Hi Uwe,

Thanks for your replies. I'm really pleased that you've seen through the illusion of self. You've been a delight to guide.

I've forwarded your replies to the other guides. It's quite common for them to put forward questions or points for absolute clarification.

I'll let you know as soon as I've heard from them; it sometimes takes a day or so. It's probably best to keep checking now and again, if at all possible, to keep things moving.

Pete x

[moondog]

Hi Uwe,

I'm pleased to say that there are no further questions and the guides are happy and satisfied.

I've forwarded all the appropriate detail to LU admin and they will be in touch with you soon with various info etc. A new administrator is presently in training which might make the process of turning you blue etc. take a little longer than usual, so please bear with that. You can always PM me if there's a problem.

I've really enjoyed guiding you and feel really happy and pleased to have been able to help you see through the illusion of a separate self. Go well in your life.

Pete x