in need of a guide

[davidr]

Hi Pete

You said

Just to be even clearer, you say there is only the seeing and an awareness of the seeing but, in direct experience, are seeing and the awareness of seeing experienced to be separate or in any way distinguishable? Isn't it the case that seeing is awareness and when seeing that's really all there is?

I think my problem hinges around this point, a dog sees but I don't think he 'knows' he sees, I see and I know I see and in this knowing the ego self creeps in and says yes thats me, I, the separate self its me that knows. Buddhist practice has helped me de-construct the idea that the I is the body, or feelings or thoughts but subtly the I has attached itself to awareness and claims ownership of awareness. This is my pit where I am stuck!
Looking now at some flowers in a vase , Yes in this moment there is only one component, the seeing or more precisely the aware-seeing, an instant later thought/feeling arise and create the sense that it is the I/me that is aware. This is very habitual and strong

So great so far, let's move on to an aspect of experience that we've touched on already, thoughts and thinking.
Not from what you think, but from direct experience, please say:
Where do thoughts come from?

Looking from direct awareness, thoughts arise in the same way that a car passes down the street i.e. they just appear.

Are you in control of them?

No. But thought often says yes I can direct a stream of thought e.g. what shall I be doing next Monday.

Can you stop a thought from coming?

No

Can you stop it in the middle?

Not a single thought but can possibly stop in the middle of a string of thoughts.

Do you know what the next thought will be?

No

Is 'I' a different thought from the thought of say, a table?

Yes it seems more than just thought but a thought/feeling

Can a thought think?

No, a thought appears in the mind just as a word appears on a page

Thanks again Pete
Have a good day
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

I think my problem hinges around this point, a dog sees but I don't think he 'knows' he sees, I see and I know I see and in this knowing the ego self creeps in and says yes thats me, I, the separate self its me that knows. Buddhist practice has helped me de-construct the idea that the I is the body, or feelings or thoughts but subtly the I has attached itself to awareness and claims ownership of awareness. This is my pit where I am stuck!

Who knows. I suspect the dog just sees, or rather there is just seeing, awareing. When you see, there is just seeing. Then a thought arises, and there's just thinking, until you become lost in the thought content, in this case saying that 'I saw that' or whatever. These are both just arisings, seeing and thinking, and it's only if you believe the concept within the latter that there's apparently a problem. When you say but subtly the I has attached itself to awareness and claims ownership of awareness. and This is my pit where I am stuck! , can you not see that, just like 'I saw that', these too are just thoughts? As soon as you recognise them as such, and not emanating or realistically referring to any self-entity, these thoughts will start to lose their ability to delude.

Looking now at some flowers in a vase , Yes in this moment there is only one component, the seeing or more precisely the aware-seeing, an instant later thought/feeling arise and create the sense that it is the I/me that is aware. This is very habitual and strong

So, you can clearly see that there's just seeing the vase of flowers, and you know when the thought/feeling comes in afterwards to try and spin you a lie. That's it, that's recognising what's actually happening. You can do it, and have done it! The strong habit you mention isn't at all unusual and, because it's been pre-eminent for many years, it won't necessarily go away quickly after the mistaken belief in a separate self is clearly and finally seen for what it is. These habit energies can take quite a while to dwindle away, but dwindle they do, once they can no longer feed off the ego.

Looking from direct awareness, thoughts arise in the same way that a car passes down the street i.e. they just appear.

Nice, I like that.

No. But thought often says yes I can direct a stream of thought e.g. what shall I be doing next Monday.

It sure does, and it's good that you can clearly see that.

Not a single thought but can possibly stop in the middle of a string of thoughts.

Yes, but then the thought that that says 'Stop' just arises as if from nowhere and without any self agency doesn't it?

No, a thought appears in the mind just as a word appears on a page

Again, I really like your phrasing.

So, despite those few clarification questions, it's pretty clear to me that you can see no separate self in thinking.
Let's have a look at doing: actions and control:

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'?

Look to see whether, when 'you' do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, 'I did that.'

Are all actions automatic?

And rest assured David, this really is going well ...

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete
Yesterday when reading your reply

When you say but subtly the I has attached itself to awareness and claims ownership of awareness. and This is my pit where I am stuck! , can you not see that, just like 'I saw that', these too are just thoughts? recognise them as such, and not emanating or realistically referring to any self-entity, these thoughts will start to lose their ability to delude.

I thought for a moment there was a glimpse of understanding but know its gone. But it was encouraging.

Let's have a look at doing: actions and control:

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no 'I' involved, but how is it for you when walking?

The experience is a combination of sensations (the movement of the body) the sense data arriving from the environment and the feeling of aware presence. In the moment this a simple single event but describing it now sat in my chair it seems to brake down into the above components.

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing?
Try all kinds of stuff.

Yep, the same thing with all these activities.

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

In the moment there is no 'I' apart from the strong sense of presence (I think (forgive the pun) this sense of presence is what is taken for the 'I' when thought arises). Sometimes these actions are automatic when not wide awake and 'present'.

look to see whether, when 'you' do these things there is sometimes a thought, just after that says, 'I did that

.'
Yes there is a lot of the time.

Are all actions automatic?

Thats a tricky one. We like to think are actions are deliberate and directed (our own choice) but I guess most of the time we just react according to causes and conditions.



Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

I thought for a moment there was a glimpse of understanding but know its gone. But it was encouraging.

Ok David, that sounds interesting and, as you say, encouraging. Please tell me some more about this brief glimpse of understanding that you thought you had.

The experience is a combination of sensations (the movement of the body) the sense data arriving from the environment and the feeling of aware presence. In the moment this a simple single event but describing it now sat in my chair it seems to brake down into the above components.

Good, you can't find any 'you' doing anything, or even just present. I particularly like your observation that In the moment this is a simple single event

Not in thoughts but in direct experience are you able to find anything that indicates that body sensations are in any way separate from awareness, or that sense data from 'the outside world' are in any way separate from awareness?

In the moment there is no 'I' apart from the strong sense of presence (I think (forgive the pun) this sense of presence is what is taken for the 'I' when thought arises). Sometimes these actions are automatic when not wide awake and 'present'.

You're right. The reason that the illusion of a separate self tends to be so strong is that it piggybacks on this undeniable feeling of aliveness or presence, awareness, if you like, that is always here, now. That way I-thoughts can convincingly claim all the credit for this non-existent self-entity. It's only when 'you' look in direct experience that the Emperor's clothes are seen for what they are.

Are all actions automatic?

Thats a tricky one. We like to think are actions are deliberate and directed (our own choice) but I guess most of the time we just react according to causes and conditions.

Two things here. You say I guess most of the time we just react according to causes and conditions, but 'guess' suggests to me that you've thought about it and you've concluded that, on balance, it's probably the case that we react to conditions. I don't want you to base any of your responses on what you think, I want you to look into direct experience to see if a self can be found there. If one can't, do actions seem 'automatic', and, if so, is that all of the time? If only most of the time, what about the remainder? (I'm not all that keen on the word 'automatic' as it sounds a bit cold and lifeless, whereas what we're looking at here is completely the opposite to that, but I'm afraid, so far, I haven't been able to come up with a better one.)

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete

The glimpse occurred when reading your comment:

these too are just thoughts

when you were referring to my feeling that the 'I' was attached to awareness. Of course your right, in the moment of direct experience no such things are present, only later when the situation is reflected upon. This insight which is happening a little know as I type these words is accompanied by a feeling of what I can only describe as a widening and lightening of this moment.This is not some huge insight or mystical feeling but a very gentle opening- thats the best I can do.

Not in thoughts but in direct experience are you able to find anything that indicates that body sensations are in any way separate from awareness, or that sense data from 'the outside world' are in any way separate from awareness?

No, body sensations and external sense data are merged in awareness in this moment. Only when I 'return to my thinking mode' does a duality of sensations/sense data-observing me pop up. But the flip is very rapid and the latter much stronger and easily swamps the direct experience. It also says (the thought arises) I was still their (in the moment of direct experience) but in the background as awareness.
If I can refer back to somthing I said in my last post:

In the moment there is no 'I' apart from the strong sense of presence (I think (forgive the pun) this sense of presence is what is taken for the 'I' when thought arises). Sometimes these actions are automatic when not wide awake and 'present'.

And your reply:

You're right. The reason that the illusion of a separate self tends to be so strong is that it piggybacks on this undeniable feeling of aliveness or presence, awareness, if you like, that is always here, now. That way I-thoughts can convincingly claim all the credit for this non-existent self-entity. It's only when 'you' look in direct experience that the Emperor's clothes are seen for what they are.

Many thanks for that comment Pete, It helps greatly.

Two things here. You say I guess most of the time we just react according to causes and conditions, but 'guess' suggests to me that you've thought about it and you've concluded that, on balance, it's probably the case that we react to conditions. I don't want you to base any of your responses on what you think, I want you to look into direct experience to see if a self can be found there. If one can't, do actions seem 'automatic', and, if so, is that all of the time? If only most of the time, what about the remainder? (I'm not all that keen on the word 'automatic' as it sounds a bit cold and lifeless, whereas what we're looking at here is completely the opposite to that, but I'm afraid, so far, I haven't been able to come up with a better one.)

Your right, its a question I have often thought about i.e. free will vs pre-destination but in the moment of direct experience things just happen/flow, there is neither free will nor predestination nor any self. I agree with you the word automatic is somewhat cold and mechanistic. Perhaps 'suchness' (Tathata) fits better with direct experience ie things/events do not so much happen automatically but in accord with the 'suchness' of the moment ? Perhaps.

Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David

when you were referring to my feeling that the 'I' was attached to awareness. Of course your right, in the moment of direct experience no such things are present, only later when the situation is reflected upon. This insight which is happening a little know as I type these words is accompanied by a feeling of what I can only describe as a widening and lightening of this moment.This is not some huge insight or mystical feeling but a very gentle opening- thats the best I can do.

That's really good. Rather than merely by understanding intellectually, actually seeing the truth is only to be found in direct experience. That and the fact that it is only belief in thought content that can mask this seeing, are absolutely key to your investigation here. Rest assured that this insight by no means necessarily always comes suddenly with a rush or a pop, but can often be a gentle opening as you describe, or a bit of both. Everyone's experience differs of course. It sound fine.

No, body sensations and external sense data are merged in awareness in this moment. Only when I 'return to my thinking mode' does a duality of sensations/sense data-observing me pop up. But the flip is very rapid and the latter much stronger and easily swamps the direct experience. It also says (the thought arises) I was still their (in the moment of direct experience) but in the background as awareness.

I'm pleased that you can see that sensations and perceptions are awareness. Just keep looking in direct experience whenever it occurs to you. It's a good habit to cultivate. And remember the Santa analogy from near the beginning, where I said, in effect, you don't go around with the fact that there's no Santa on your mind all the time but, whenever you look, you know for certain that he doesn't exist. It's just like that with looking to see if a separate self exists, except that it seems to be a lot more important and so we tend to look more often, particularly at the time and just after no self has been seen.

Your right, its a question I have often thought about i.e. free will vs pre-destination but in the moment of direct experience things just happen/flow, there is neither free will nor predestination nor any self. I agree with you the word automatic is somewhat cold and mechanistic. Perhaps 'suchness' (Tathata) fits better with direct experience ie things/events do not so much happen automatically but in accord with the 'suchness' of the moment ? Perhaps.

Yeah, good suggestion. I've always liked 'suchness'/Tathata as a description.

I think that's all pretty clear now, and you've spotted no trace of any self either prominent or lurking anywhere so far. So let's now move on a little from doing/controlling to deciding/choosing (although the border between these always seems to be very fuzzy). Anyway, please have a go at the following exercise:

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.

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete

I think that's all pretty clear now, and you've spotted no trace of any self either prominent or lurking anywhere so far. So let's now move on a little from doing/controlling to deciding/choosing (although the border between these always seems to be very fuzzy). Anyway, please have a go at the following exercise:

I can agree with you that no trace of a prominent self can be found when looking at direct experience but there does still seem to be lurking an implied sense. However, what has changed is that I can now see that in the moment of direct experience he has totally disappeard and only returns with thinking, so I feel a sense that the way is open.

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?

Its all a bit fuzzy. There does seem to be the feeling that 'I' will direct the arm to rise, but when closely looked at, a director of the movement cannot be separated out.

Thanks for directing me to that video clip, very thought provoking. I had come across a similar study some time back but they only found an interval of less than one second between decision making and the conscious awareness of the decision- but 6 seconds wow !

Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

I can agree with you that no trace of a prominent self can be found when looking at direct experience but there does still seem to be lurking an implied sense.

What do you mean by there does seem to be lurking an implied sense? Is that something you've seen (including heard, felt etc) in direct experience? If so, please describe it to me. If not, how do you know it exists? Is it derived from thought? If so, why do you give it any credibility? If not, what is it? Please describe it.

However, what has changed is that I can now see that in the moment of direct experience he has totally disappeard and only returns with thinking, so I feel a sense that the way is open.

That's great. It's exactly what should be happening to the way you see this at this stage.

Its all a bit fuzzy. There does seem to be the feeling that 'I' will direct the arm to rise, but when closely looked at, a director of the movement cannot be separated out.

Just to be clear about this - when 'you' raised your arm (or don't raise your arm, it doesn't matter which), did you actually witness or directly experience anything, any entity, making that choice? Did anything arise that you could identify as the chooser? If so, what did it look like and how did it bring about the choice that was made? Or was there just a thought?

One area we haven't looked at yet is the body, and whether the self is the body, or is in the body. From direct experience

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

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

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete

What do you mean by there does seem to be lurking an implied sense? Is that something you've seen (including heard, felt etc) in direct experience? If so, please describe it to me. If not, how do you know it exists? Is it derived from thought? If so, why do you give it any credibility? If not, what is it? Please describe it.

I think I now what it is. During direct experience their is no trace of an 'I' its only later when thought later arises and thinks 'the sense of being that was unmistakably their during direct experience is me the 'I'. So it is derived from thought. Why do I give it credibility- because of 68 years of unquestioned acceptance.

Just to be clear about this - when 'you' raised your arm (or don't raise your arm, it doesn't matter which), did you actually witness or directly experience anything, any entity, making that choice? Did anything arise that you could identify as the chooser? If so, what did it look like and how did it bring about the choice that was made? Or was there just a thought?

Just a thought.

One area we haven't looked at yet is the body, and whether the self is the body, or is in the body. From direct experience[/quote

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

No

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

In direct experience the body is present just as all other arising objects are present. The body doesn't seem like a thought label for sensations which seem to arise independantly alongside the body.

Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

I think I now what it is. During direct experience their is no trace of an 'I' its only later when thought later arises and thinks 'the sense of being that was unmistakably their during direct experience is me the 'I'. So it is derived from thought. Why do I give it credibility- because of 68 years of unquestioned acceptance.

You're correct, it's only shortly afterwards that, habitually, thought claims false credit for what just effortlessly arises. I can fully empathise with what you say here David, because, early last year when I saw clearly that there is not, and never has or could be a separate 'me', I had 61 years of unquestioned, habitual acceptance of a self-entity. Such thoughts do still sometimes crop up, but are now quickly seen for what they are and get no purchase, before quickly subsiding.

Just to be clear about this - when 'you' raised your arm (or don't raise your arm, it doesn't matter which), did you actually witness or directly experience anything, any entity, making that choice? Did anything arise that you could identify as the chooser? If so, what did it look like and how did it bring about the choice that was made? Or was there just a thought?

Just a thought.

Excellent.

You say that in direct experience 'the body' doesn't experience thoughts or sensations, which is fine. But then, in reply to the question Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?
you go on to say:

In direct experience the body is present just as all other arising objects are present. The body doesn't seem like a thought label for sensations which seem to arise independantly alongside the body.

Please describe for me the experience that indicates to you that there is a body and that this is different and separate from directly experienced sensations and perceptions. How is your body experienced apart from as a thought label?

Also, please say whether you have you been able to find any trace of a self-entity, any 'you', in direct experience, in or as the body?

I reckon this investigations is continuing to go well. Do you, and are you enjoying this David?

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete
You said

Just to be clear about this - when 'you' raised your arm (or don't raise your arm, it doesn't matter which), did you actually witness or directly experience anything, any entity, making that choice? Did anything arise that you could identify as the chooser? If so, what did it look like and how did it bring about the choice that was made? Or was there just a thought?

In the moment of raising an arm, no self, I or me identity was detected just a strong sense of being. Only later when thought arises do the questions, rationalisations, doubhts , and the voice in the head saying 'that was me diredcting that movement' arise.
The wonderful thing is that now I can see the space between the direct experience and the mental commentaries that follow.

You say that in direct experience 'the body' doesn't experience thoughts or sensations, which is fine. But then, in reply to the question Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?
you go on to say:
In direct experience the body is present just as all other arising objects are present. The body doesn't seem like a thought label for sensations which seem to arise independently alongside the body.

Please describe for me the experience that indicates to you that there is a body and that this is different and separate from directly experienced sensations and perceptions. How is your body experienced apart from as a thought label?
Also, please say whether you have you been able to find any trace of a self-entity, any 'you', in direct experience, in or as the body?

I have not found or seen any trace of a self-entity in the body.
The body is experienced as sensations and is sensed like all other objects apart from it itself is a sensory sensitive object, thus the feeling of a warm cup and the feeling of the fingers that hold the cup. Unless you are implying that in direct experience the body like all other objects is only known by the sense data received i.e. sight, sound, touch etc which is fine. I dont think there is any problem here with identifying the body as the self.

I reckon this investigations is continuing to go well. Do you, and are you enjoying this David?

Well Pete, the feeling is one of hope. At 68y 'the doubt arises as to wether any understanding of the matter will be achieved. A glimpse has been seen, though this is still vulnerable. Thoughts too arise saying the whole thing is suggestion. But with the practice of direct experience thoughts can now be seen to be just thoughts. Thus there is a gentle joy and gratitude that the matter will be resolved.

Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

In the moment of raising an arm, no self, I or me identity was detected just a strong sense of being. Only later when thought arises do the questions, rationalisations, doubhts , and the voice in the head saying 'that was me diredcting that movement' arise.

That's clear and that's great.

The wonderful thing is that now I can see the space between the direct experience and the mental commentaries that follow

I'm really pleased to hear that. It tells me that your seeing through the illusion of self is deepening.

I have not found or seen any trace of a self-entity in the body.
I dont think there is any problem here with identifying the body as the self.

Splendid. There isn't one to be found.

Unless you are implying that in direct experience the body like all other objects is only known by the sense data received i.e. sight, sound, touch etc which is fine.

Yes, I was really only trying to make the point that 'body' is just another label, concept. It's not as if one can find any distinct object, recognisable as 'body' alongside the spectrum of raw sense arisings in direct experience.

Well Pete, the feeling is one of hope. At 68y 'the doubt arises as to wether any understanding of the matter will be achieved. A glimpse has been seen, though this is still vulnerable. Thoughts too arise saying the whole thing is suggestion.

Just be very wary here of your expectations and doubts David. Metaphorically speaking, at this point in the enquiry the ego has a tendency to deploy thoughts about expectations and how they aren't being met, or are unlikely to be met, for any number of imagined reasons, as a kind of last ditch attempt to stop it, the ego, the separate self, from finally being seen for the fraud that it is. You say you doubt whether any understanding will be achieved, but it's not about that. An understanding indicates that the knowing for certain that there's no separate self can somehow happen as a result of an intellectual process, through thought. That simply can't happen. It won't work. It's thoughts that are giving rise to your doubt now. Nothing else is! Only by looking, looking, looking in indirect experience will you see for sure that there's no separate 'you'. Thoughts trying to convince you otherwise will continue to spew forth at least for a while. If you see them for what they are, impersonal arisings whose contents are neither reliable nor true, that's it, no problem. If you continue to believe them, that is the problem. It's not about mere glimpses or this seeing being vulnerable. It's always there, right now, to be seen in direct experience.

But with the practice of direct experience thoughts can now be seen to be just thoughts. Thus there is a gentle joy and gratitude that the matter will be resolved.

It's clear from this statement that you do already know that what I have just reiterated above is true. But remember that this can only be 'resolved' by seeing that in this moment there is just this and that's all there is or can ever be.

Can you find a self in this?

This leads on nicely to looking at all of this from a slightly different perspective.

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

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

Pete

[moondog]

Sorry David, on re-reading, there's one quite fundamental correction needed. Rather than:

'Only by looking, looking, looking in indirect experience will you see for sure that there's no separate 'you'.'

The line should of course read:

'Only by looking, looking, looking in direct experience will you see for sure that there's no separate 'you'.'

Oops! :)

Pete

[davidr]

Hi Pete
You said

Yes, I was really only trying to make the point that 'body' is just another label, concept. It's not as if one can find any distinct object, recognisable as 'body' alongside the spectrum of raw sense arisings in direct experience.

Aha, I see what you mean.

at this point in the inquiry the ego has a tendency to deploy thoughts about expectations and how they aren't being met, or are unlikely to be met, for any number of imagined reasons, as a kind of last ditch attempt to stop it, the ego, the separate self, from finally being seen for the fraud that it is.

The separate self, the ego sure is a cunning, slippery character. I (the ego self) do have this habit of making statements and creating stories that are just accepted as fact. This has been seen and the practice now is to keep this in mind whenever these stories arise. This seems best done by looking in direct experience when they loose their validity as 'real' and fall away.

But remember that this can only be 'resolved' by seeing that in this moment there is just this and that's all there is or can ever be.
Can you find a self in this?

In this moment no self can be found just a single all-inclusive presence.

This leads on nicely to looking at all of this from a slightly different perspective.

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

Just this moment by moment aware arising.

What experiences?

An experiencer is not found. The experience seems a part off and inseparable from the arising moment.

What thinks?

Similarly, thoughts arise in present experience no thinker.

What does?

Doing happens as part of the single moment, no doer.

What is aware?

This is the one that has had me stuck for a long time. Previously it seemed that there was some kind of witness, an observer that lurked in the background and was the agent of awareness. Cunningly this was the ego masquerading as awareness, very subtle.
Now awareness is an integral part of this aware moment. No witness or separate agent can be found.


Best wishes
David

[moondog]

Hi David,

The separate self, the ego sure is a cunning, slippery character. I (the ego self) do have this habit of making statements and creating stories that are just accepted as fact. This has been seen and the practice now is to keep this in mind whenever these stories arise. This seems best done by looking in direct experience when they loose their validity as 'real' and fall away.

That's absolutely it David; couldn't have put it better myself ...

But remember that this can only be 'resolved' by seeing that in this moment there is just this and that's all there is or can ever be. Can you find a self in this?

In this moment no self can be found just a single all-inclusive presence.

Always.

Your answers to my questions are totally spot on. Just great David. I'm really pleased that you can now see so clearly.

What is aware?

This is the one that has had me stuck for a long time. Previously it seemed that there was some kind of witness, an observer that lurked in the background and was the agent of awareness. Cunningly this was the ego masquerading as awareness, very subtle. Now awareness is an integral part of this aware moment. No witness or separate agent can be found.

I't's great that you can now see this. It often seems to happen that when someone is pointed to look in direct experience for the experiencer (seer, hearer, taster etc.) it is clearly seen that there's no self experiencing, but a vestigial impression or feeling of some witnessing entity - the witnesser - remains. By looking directly at 'your' experience you've seen that there's just experiencing/ awareing. Indeed, not only is awareness an integral part of this aware moment, it is this aware moment!

So excellent David. I reckon it's time just briefly to review everything we've done so far, to see if you need to revisit any aspects to look in more depth for any evidence of a self-entity anywhere at all.

As always, 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 might seem like a bit if a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, of course, there's something you want to examine some more. It doesn't look to me as if there is much, if anything, but basically, we just need to tidy up and identify any areas that need to be looked into a bit more deeply, or clarified.

Pete