Request for a guide, please.

[Xain]

Hi Jon

Thanks for the replies - Let's look into this now.

You state 'hollowness' and 'a core' - Are these things you see, feel, etc?
What exactly is this 'core' that most of us think is there?

I don't actually know. I am sorry. It goes in and out of focus. No, I don't see or feel these things via my physical senses. In an effort to understand my relationship to life I have resorted to intuition. I spoke metaphorically. This intuitive sense is beyond my understanding.

Ok - That's fine.
If you can, please try to answer what you definite believe or know to be true. Most times on here, I will take what you write literally as I will not know if you are speaking metaphorically or not and will want to ensure that I understand you.

Is this 'essence' or 'core' tied in some way to the body?

Somebody could come along and chop me up into pieces and at no point would a 'me' fall out. Nevertheless I have long habit of assuming that 'I' exists and of associating bodily sensations with 'I'. Right now I cannot say that the body is not 'me' and I can't say that it is 'me' either.

I noticed that you said 'chop me up' rather than 'chop this body up' which is quite telling that 'you' are 'the body'.
That is fine, and a good basis of how to proceed in our investigation.

Oh dear. Yes. That sucks. The words are being seen by me. So something is present in the moment, quite obviously.

It is all good stuff. We are simply identifying what is believed in its most simple terms.
This is a place from which we can proceed.
So 'you' are currently reading this sentence.
Going through the other senses, can it also be said that any sounds in experience right now are being heard by 'you'.
Also, perhaps the chair or item that you are sat on is being felt by 'you' etc?

I don't know whether you would think this helpful but I work as an artist (painter). This is where a lot of my time and attention goes. Perhaps it's not relevant to our conversation but thought I should mention it in case it is useful? Painting matters to me.

Nice to know - We are both artists of a fashion. I do a lot of acting.

They are not being seen by me since 'I ' don't really exist. How this is known is a mystery.

Is this sentence being read right now?
If the answer is 'yes' then something is doing it. Clearly, something has to exist in order to do this function doesn't it? Surely the question to ask is not 'do I exist' but rather 'what can I find that is doing this' isn't it?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

Hi Xain, and thank you for taking the time to reply. I'll try to answer yor questions and without metaphors as much as possible.

You state 'hollowness' and 'a core' - Are these things you see, feel, etc?
What exactly is this 'core' that most of us think is there?

I don't actually know. I am sorry. It goes in and out of focus. No, I don't see or feel these things via my physical senses. In an effort to understand my relationship to life I have resorted to intuition. I spoke metaphorically. This intuitive sense is beyond my understanding.

Ok - That's fine.
If you can, please try to answer what you definite believe or know to be true. Most times on here, I will take what you write literally as I will not know if you are speaking metaphorically or not and will want to ensure that I understand you.

Is this 'essence' or 'core' tied in some way to the body?

It seems to be.

noticed that you said 'chop me up' rather than 'chop this body up' which is quite telling that 'you' are 'the body'.
That is fine, and a good basis of how to proceed in our investigation.

Yes. I assume that 'I' am my body by default ( unless I choose to look at this to see if this is really true).

It is all good stuff. We are simply identifying what is believed in its most simple terms.
This is a place from which we can proceed.
So 'you' are currently reading this sentence.
Going through the other senses, can it also be said that any sounds in experience right now are being heard by 'you'.
Also, perhaps the chair or item that you are sat on is being felt by 'you' etc?

Yes. 'I' am currently redaing this sentance. Yes, my son is lstening to some irksome advert on his I-pad and 'I' am hearing this via my ears. Yes 'I' am feeling the couch quite firmly.

Nice to know - We are both artists of a fashion. I do a lot of acting.

That is interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.

Is this sentence being read right now?
If the answer is 'yes' then something is doing it. Clearly, something has to exist in order to do this function doesn't it? Surely the question to ask is not 'do I exist' but rather 'what can I find that is doing this' isn't it?

I agree completely. The sentance is being read right now. Something is doing the reading.. Something does exist. This does strike me as the interesting question.


Jon.

[JonathanR]

Hi Xain,

I'll go a little further sice my reply last night.

Is this sentence being read right now?
If the answer is 'yes' then something is doing it. Clearly, something has to exist in order to do this function doesn't it? Surely the question to ask is not 'do I exist' but rather 'what can I find that is doing this' isn't it?


I agree completely. The sentence is being read right now. Something is doing the reading.. Something does exist. This does strike me as the interesting question

Reading is taking place, hearing, sitting and even thinking, reflecting, commenting. The last three are imagination rather than raw sensation. However the same question is 'what' is doing these things? In the case of the reading, it's possible at least to point to the eyes as a sense.

I tried sitting with my eyes closed, listening to the sounds in the house and down the street. The sound and the hearing were happening without any gap or join in the process. There did not seem to be a hearer, though hearing was happening.

Jon

[Xain]

Let us look into both seeing and hearing.

Yes. 'I' am currently reading this sentence.
In the case of the reading, it's possible at least to point to the eyes as a sense.

Ok.
Right now there is 'seeing'. That is clear.
If you were to cover the eyes in some way, there would still be seeing (of blackness).

What can you find in your experience right now that does the seeing. In other words, if you were to say 'I see', what does the word 'I' point to in this sentence.
You mention 'eyes'. Do you experience eyes seeing right now? If so, how do they appear?
Or is 'eyes sees' a thought about what is going on?

Hearing:

Yes, my son is lstening to some irksome advert on his I-pad and 'I' am hearing this via my ears.

Right now there is hearing. That is clear.
If you were to cover your ears or move into a totally silent area, there would still be hearing (of silence).

What can you find in your experience right now that does the hearing? In other words, if you were to say 'I hear', what does the word 'I' point to in this sentence?
You mention 'ears'. Do you experience ears hearing right now? If so, how do they appear?
Or is 'ears hearing' a thought about what is going on?

There did not seem to be a hearer, though hearing was happening.

Ok. So if you were to say 'I hear', is it clear that the 'I' would just be a thought added to the description of the sense? - A thought that is created on the assumption that there is a 'thing' here performing the function of hearing?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

What can you find in your experience right now that does the seeing. In other words, if you were to say 'I see', what does the word 'I' point to in this sentence.
You mention 'eyes'. Do you experience eyes seeing right now? If so, how do they appear?
Or is 'eyes sees' a thought about what is going on?

It seems that whatever it is that does the seeing is different from the 'I' when I say 'I see'. Of course, that must be the case. There is no real 'I' doing the seeing at all. Sight happens regardless. The phrase 'I see' points to an idea of a self that is supposed to lie behind the process of eyesight. as if in control of such events as seeing or hearing?

But I am not experiencing 'my eyes seeing'. The seeing is quite a mystery. Seeing happens without any help from 'I' and 'eyes sees' is a thought about what is going on.

Right now there is hearing. That is clear.
If you were to cover your ears or move into a totally silent area, there would still be hearing (of silence).

What can you find in your experience right now that does the hearing? In other words, if you were to say 'I hear', what does the word 'I' point to in this sentence?
You mention 'ears'. Do you experience ears hearing right now? If so, how do they appear?
Or is 'ears hearing' a thought about what is going on?

This is exactly the same as the in example of seeing. You are pointing out very clearly the absence of an 'I' in or behind 'my' hearing experience.

There did not seem to be a hearer, though hearing was happening.

Ok. So if you were to say 'I hear', is it clear that the 'I' would just be a thought added to the description of the sense? - A thought that is created on the assumption that there is a 'thing' here performing the function of hearing?

Yes. Absolutely. It can't be anything else.


Jon :)

[Xain]

Ok. Good, Jon.
At this point, you may wish to check the other senses.

Smelling - Is there a seperate self you can locate that performs this function?

Feeling. This can be a tricky one as it appears 'close to home'.
If you are sitting down right now, you can no-doubt feel pressure on your back and upper legs.
Normally we say 'I feel' but check this - Is there an 'I' performing the function of feeling. Does the body 'do feeling'?
Or is there just the sensation alone.
So if you said 'I feel', what is 'I'? Is there an 'I' to be found? Or is this just a thought added?

We touched on thoughts, but like seeing, hearing and all the other senses, thoughts also appear in experience and can be looked upon in the same way.

So, is there an 'I' that thinks - Creates the thoughts?

Think a thought right now - What created that thought? Where does the thought appear?

Is there any control of thoughts? Is there a controller or creator of any kind?
Surely if there was a controller, a choice could be made to only ever have pleasant thoughts?
Do you know exactly what your next thought is going to be?

Also, where are these thoughts appearing? Are they appearing in 'you' or to 'you'?
Maybe an area that 'you' have considered as 'my mind'. Is there such an area to be found?

Hence: What is the truth of the statements 'I think', 'My thoughts', 'I had a thought', 'I thought about it'?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

Thanks for your reply, Xain,

Smelling - Is there a seperate self you can locate that performs this function?

No. No seperate self that does the smelling. Just the smelling.

Feeling. This can be a tricky one as it appears 'close to home'.
If you are sitting down right now, you can no-doubt feel pressure on your back and upper legs.
Normally we say 'I feel' but check this - Is there an 'I' performing the function of feeling. Does the body 'do feeling'?
Or is there just the sensation alone.
So if you said 'I feel', what is 'I'? Is there an 'I' to be found? Or is this just a thought added?

The feeling occurs. If I stick to primary experience then the sensation of feeling is just as mysterious as sight or hearing. It happens. There is no 'I' doing it. Feeling seems closely associated with the body but I cannot say that the body is 'doing the feeling' any more than 'eyes see'. The statement 'I feel' is just a thought.

So, is there an 'I' that thinks - Creates the thoughts?

Think a thought right now - What created that thought? Where does the thought appear?

Is there any control of thoughts? Is there a controller or creator of any kind?
Surely if there was a controller, a choice could be made to only ever have pleasant thoughts?
Do you know exactly what your next thought is going to be?

Thoughts seem to come from nowhere. Thinking happens. Not sure if I can just 'think a thought right now'. Thoughts pop up, hang around for a while and then fade away. This process is also a mystery. There is no controller of thoughts. Thoughts are not createdby 'me'. There is no creator of thoughts but they arise anyway. It has never been possible to know what my next thought is going to be..

Also, where are these thoughts appearing? Are they appearing in 'you' or to 'you'?
Maybe an area that 'you' have considered as 'my mind'. Is there such an area to be found?

Hence: What is the truth of the statements 'I think', 'My thoughts', 'I had a thought', 'I thought about it'?

These thoughts sometimes appear to be arising in 'me', somewhere around my head. But they sometimes seem to arrive from somewhere or sometimes they to appear 'to me'.

Mind. This is where thoughts and 'I' am supposed to hang out, isn't it? But right now I can' t find 'my mind'. There is certainly no defined area 'mind' that 'I' can locate as 'me' or 'mine'. (And yet thinking and typing are still possible.).

Hence: What is the truth of the statements 'I think', 'My thoughts', 'I had a thought', 'I thought about it'?

The above statements cannot be true. 'I' cannot have had a thought or created a thought since thoughts arise or not by whatver process causes them, like sensations. Thoughts do occur and are real but 'i' am not behind them.

Jon.

[Xain]

These thoughts sometimes appear to be arising in 'me', somewhere around my head.

It is common in speaking to say 'A thought appeared in my head' but look carefully.
Is a thought a thing you can actually locate?

If you placed a hand in front of the face, it could be said 'a hand is seen in front of the head'.
Can you detect a thought's location in a similar way?

If you were to say 'a thought arises in me' you would have to detail what 'me' is, and also how it is known that the thought resides there.

Mind. This is where thoughts and 'I' am supposed to hang out, isn't it? But right now I can' t find 'my mind'. There is certainly no defined area 'mind' that 'I' can locate as 'me' or 'mine'. (And yet thinking and typing are still possible.).

Good.
Could you say that 'mind' was a label given to an apparent stream of thoughts that appear in experience?
Would that be fair?
Right now in experience, can you locate anything at all other than 'the current thought' (if one is appearing)?
Just like in seeing, can anything other than the current view been seen?

The above statements cannot be true. 'I' cannot have had a thought or created a thought since thoughts arise or not by whatver process causes them, like sensations. Thoughts do occur and are real but 'i' am not behind them.

Good.

The words are being seen by me . . .

What is your opinion of what you wrote now? Is there a 'me' seeing these words?
If thoughts appear, is there a 'me' thinking them?

Let's look deeper.

Is there a controller of the body? When you type your reply to me, will there be an 'I' controlling the hands?

Is there a chooser? When you type your reply to me, will there be an 'I' choosing what words to write?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

Hi Xain,

This conversation is getting exciting.

It is common in speaking to say 'A thought appeared in my head' but look carefully.
Is a thought a thing you can actually locate?

If you placed a hand in front of the face, it could be said 'a hand is seen in front of the head'.
Can you detect a thought's location in a similar way?

If you were to say 'a thought arises in me' you would have to detail what 'me' is, and also how it is known that the thought resides there.

No. A thought is not spatially located. It can't be nailed down. It arises, but from where? (How fantastic). You certainly can't detect a thought as you might a hand passed in front of the head. A hand exists in space. Consciousness is interesting because it seems to relate to each of the senses and to thoughts. But consciousness is not located 'in my head' either. I can verify by simply looking hard that consciousness does not 'belong to me' and is not spatially located

Could you say that 'mind' was a label given to an apparent stream of thoughts that appear in experience?
Would that be fair?

Yes. 'Mind' was a label pointing not to a real 'thing' but to an unending stream of thoughts.

Right now in experience, can you locate anything at all other than 'the current thought' (if one is appearing)?
Just like in seeing, can anything other than the current view been seen?

.

I can't spatially locate the current thought, though one or two are arising and fading away again. In fact there is more than thought going on, for example, slight discomfort from sitting in one position for too long, the sounds of the fridge and 'my' stomach. These comprise 'the current view'. There is nothing else in current experience.

The words are being seen by me . . .

What is your opinion of what you wrote now? Is there a 'me' seeing these words?
If thoughts appear, is there a 'me' thinking them?

What 'I' actually meant to say was that the words are being seen 'by me' . The words are getting seen. There is no seer. Thoughts do arise but no thinker holds sway over this or any other process.

Is there a controller of the body? When you type your reply to me, will there be an 'I' controlling the hands?

Is there a chooser? When you type your reply to me, will there be an 'I' choosing what words to write?

No. There is no controller of the body in the sense of 'I. 'I' don't control the body. This reply is being typed and thoughts are coming and going. Conventional wisdom would seem to point to a self that has will and takes executive decisions but this has already been seen through when we discussed thought. Thoughts are not created by 'me'. Nevertheless they have a life of their own.

Decisions are taken, no doubt about that. But everything we have discussed so far has shown 'me' not to exist. There is no controlling self. So decisions arise, just like thoughts!. There isn't an 'I' controlling the hands. Something happens and hands type the words. Yes, there is connection between thoughts and hands and typing. It's impossible to know what chooses the words to type but they still get typed.


Jon :)

[JonathanR]

Hi Xain,

I need to re- visit yesterday evening's post because I wasn't specific enough about one point

Could you say that 'mind' was a label given to an apparent stream of thoughts that appear in experience?
Would that be fair?


Yes. 'Mind' was a label pointing not to a real 'thing' but to an unending stream of thoughts.

'mind' is a label pointing to no thing. The stream of thoughts is apparent, thoughts appearing and disappearing but 'mind' has no separate reality from this. In this sense 'I' and 'mind' are both just labels.


Jon.

[JonathanR]

Today is a new day and has spawned a collection of negative emotions. Anger, misery, outrage, diappointment. All the stuff that makes it hard not to believe in a 'me. Loathing, greed, fear. What a line-up!

I have decided to look at these They seem stronger than usual. Maybe they don't like Anatta? One of them is a victim, resentful, entrenched. A misery-guts. He's not 'me' because 'I' am not 'me'. He'll be back tomorrow,.possibly, but for now, Goodbye Mr. Grumpy! Then there is the ill person. 'I' suffer from a chronic illness. Chrohn's disease. At least, that is the label. Rather like the thoughts that come and go the physical discomfort waxes and wanes, but is not a 'thing' experienced by 'me'. It is not 'my' illness. Likewise, the painting I did today that was awful is not 'mine'.So 'I' am not losing sleep over it. But crossness with failed painting did ensue for some time before it became clearer that nothing about the circumstances that went into its creation could have been any different. 'I' did not create it. It's astonishing, actually, that it was created at all.

[Xain]

Consciousness is interesting because it seems to relate to each of the senses and to thoughts.

Yes, that certainly appears to be the case. Good observation.

What 'I' actually meant to say was that the words are being seen 'by me' . The words are getting seen. There is no seer. Thoughts do arise but no thinker holds sway over this or any other process.

Excellent.

Can you say that in all the cases of the senses, seeing, hearing etc and thoughts, that there is no 'I' to be found.
No separate self that performs or controls the senses or thoughts. It all simply 'happens'?
If it is said 'I think', 'I see' etc, then that is a thought added to the experience.
Does this appear to be the case?

Conventional wisdom would seem to point to a self that has will and takes executive decisions but this has already been seen through when we discussed thought.

Conventional wisdom. Would it be ok to rephrase that to 'a thought appearing'.
A thought appears that says 'I control, I decide'.
Is it any more than a thought?

(About thoughts) Nevertheless they have a life of their own.

Yes. It does appear to be so. With no controlling 'I', then thoughts of all types simply appear and disappear.
Important: If 'I' is nothing more than a thought, would there be any possibility of stopping the 'I' thought appearing?

Decisions are taken, no doubt about that.

Well would you agree that it APPEARS to be that way?
If there was a definite decision, then we would be able to know what decided that particular course of action.

Yes, there is connection between thoughts and hands and typing.

How do you mean?
Or is this connection you are describing, simply another thought about what is happening?

'mind' is a label pointing to no thing. The stream of thoughts is apparent, thoughts appearing and disappearing but 'mind' has no separate reality from this. In this sense 'I' and 'mind' are both just labels.

Yes.
Is 'I' ever anything more than a label? A thought?
Is there a separate self here right now?

Is there an 'I' doing this investigation right now?
Is there an 'I' thinking what they are going to reply?
Has there ever been an 'I'?

All the stuff that makes it hard not to believe in a 'me. Loathing, greed, fear. What a line-up!

Sorry to hear that you aren't feeling so good.
But is there an 'I' that believes or doesn't believe in 'I'?
Or is that just another thought?

'I' did not create it. It's astonishing, actually, that it was created at all.

You mean, this whole entire show is just 'happening' automatically . . . no controller . . . no chooser . . . just a ride on a roller coaster?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

Hello Xain,

Thank you so much for you reply.

Can you say that in all the cases of the senses, seeing, hearing etc and thoughts, that there is no 'I' to be found.

There is absolutely no 'I' to be found in any of these situations.

Of course, there is the occasional doubt about this as 'my watchfulness' appears to waver. But since there is no observer, watchfulness its self is not an issue.

If it is said 'I think', 'I see' etc, then that is a thought added to the experience.
Does this appear to be the case?

Yes, these are thoughts added on.

Conventional wisdom. Would it be ok to rephrase that to 'a thought appearing'.
A thought appears that says 'I control, I decide'.
Is it any more than a thought?

Yes. That phrasing is better. In experience it does seem to be that a thought arises and says this sort of thing. It is no more than a thought.

About thoughts) Nevertheless they have a life of their own.

Yes. It does appear to be so. With no controlling 'I', then thoughts of all types simply appear and disappear.
Important: If 'I' is nothing more than a thought, would there be any possibility of stopping the 'I' thought appearing?

Since thoughts arise and fade spontaneously (or appear to) and no self controls or creates this process, how can there be a possibility of stopping the thought 'I ' from arisiing?

Decisions are taken, no doubt about that.

Well would you agree that it APPEARS to be that way?
If there was a definite decision, then we would be able to know what decided that particular course of action.

I agree that actual experience points not to a definite decision but to the appearance of a decision. It appears that definite decisions are taken but whatever really happens is as spontaneous as thought its self, which arises regardless.

Yes, there is connection between thoughts and hands and typing.

How do you mean?
Or is this connection you are describing, simply another thought about what is happening?

Oh yes! The 'connection' is just another thought about what is happening. Except that there is consciousness of words arising as thoughts and there is simutaneously some consciousness of hands typing.

mind' is a label pointing to no thing. The stream of thoughts is apparent, thoughts appearing and disappearing but 'mind' has no separate reality from this. In this sense 'I' and 'mind' are both just labels.

Yes.
Is 'I' ever anything more than a label? A thought?
Is there a separate self here right now?

Is there an 'I' doing this investigation right now?
Is there an 'I' thinking what they are going to reply?
Has there ever been an 'I'?

In thought, yes. In reality no.

All the stuff that makes it hard not to believe in a 'me. Loathing, greed, fear. What a line-up!

Sorry to hear that you aren't feeling so good.
But is there an 'I' that believes or doesn't believe in 'I'?
Or is that just another thought?

It's just another thought. There is no 'I'.

'I' did not create it. It's astonishing, actually, that it was created at all.

You mean, this whole entire show is just 'happening' automatically . . . no controller . . . no chooser . . . just a ride on a roller coaster? [/quote

Something like that Xain. 'I' have never been in control of it. Nobody is in control. It's a free gift.


Jon :)

[Xain]

You mean, this whole entire show is just 'happening' automatically . . . no controller . . . no chooser . . . just a ride on a roller coaster?
Something like that Xain. 'I' have never been in control of it. Nobody is in control. It's a free gift.

Beautiful.
So is it clear that every reference to 'I' is simply a thought. That there is no separate self, 'I', 'me' anywhere . . . not has there ever been . . . not will there ever be . . . It is all simply just thoughts about an 'I' appearing in experience?

Do you have any further questions or issues at this point?

There are a further six questions to ask which may help - Are you ready for those?

Xain ♥

[JonathanR]

So is it clear that every reference to 'I' is simply a thought. That there is no separate self, 'I', 'me' anywhere . . . not has there ever been . . . not will there ever be . . . It is all simply just thoughts about an 'I' appearing in experience?

Yes. Just thoughts. Thoughts about 'I'. A separate self cannot be found. It seems this has always somehow been known, but not always remembered. The only other thoughts 'I' have been experiencing around this have been to do with seeing how hooky and sticky and foggy many thoughts can be. Of course there is nothing for them to stick to in reality.

Do you have any further questions or issues at this point?

There are a further six questions to ask which may help - Are you ready for those?

I have no further questions at this point and am delighted that there are six more. Do please fire away!


Jon :)