Guide Request

[awasin]

Pete

I've been practicing looking at things, I mean really looking at them, and noticed that I sometimes become a bit disoriented.

I was doing this while driving, and, while I was driving at least as well as usual, much more attentive anyway, I was totally confounded by a flag-person on the road. It wasn't dangerous or anything, I spotted her right away. I just had no clue how to respond to her . It's hard to explain: she wasn't clearly directing me to stop, and, as I've had to drive a lot through mountain roads, I'd typically know exactly what was going on, but it was like I was seeing everything, and didn't know how to react.

[awasin]

To simplify this, because the scenario is confusing - even to me - I was unable to do something that I could normally do on autopilot (while listening to music, eating a snack, pondering how unfair life is to me). On seeing the flag person - let's say something unexpected, or better, something I had to respond to - it was like I'd just woken up. And had no idea what to do.

Is this experience common?

[moondog]

Hi David,

When I look at something, really look at it, I can't find any I that is looking or seeing. All there is is seeing.
I tried this with the other senses as well - the garden was full of songbirds yesterday - and it was the same with all of them. No I just hearing or smelling or whatever.

Ok, That's really good David. I'm not sure what you mean by really look at it, but I'll come to that later.

Just to be absolutely clear here, when you are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling can you find in direct experience any separation at all between 'that which is experiencing', experiencing, and 'that which is being experienced,' or is there just seeing, hearing etc?

I've been practicing looking at things, I mean really looking at them, and noticed that I sometimes become a bit disoriented.

As I say, I'm not totally sure what you mean by I mean really looking at them. You don't need to try at all when seeing, hearing etc. It should be as natural as it usually is. This could explain why you feel disorientated. Just allow yourself to experience things in a calm, relaxed way. Trying just exaggerates the illusion of a separate self 'doing things'.

Also, this is big stuff and your whole system may be reacting to the dawning reality that there's really just no 'you' anywhere, and never has been. Whatever the reason, one thing that would be really sensible and that you must do is:

Don't drive (or operate machinery etc.) when doing these exercises!

Relax, behave as you usually do and just notice what naturally arises in awareness.

In my previous post there are a couple of questions (in bold) that you haven't yes answered. Please do.

If there is no (separate) self, how can it be a construct of DNA and conditioning?

if there's no self, what's a 'false self'? As we go through this process of looking for a self-entity, I'll point you to look in all areas of direct experience. If you find no separate self anywhere in 'your' experience, that's it. Just like you absolutely know there's no Santa, you'll know there's no separate self. And no 'false self'. Do you see?

And don't worry, you're doing just fine and are clearly making progress in seeing that there's 'you', no self-entity, doing anything, or even present at all.

Pete x

[awasin]

Hi Pete

Thanks for the reassurance.

In my previous post there are a couple of questions (in bold) that you haven't yes answered. Please do.

If there is no (separate) self, how can it be a construct of DNA and conditioning?

if there's no self, what's a 'false self'? As we go through this process of looking for a self-entity, I'll point you to look in all areas of direct experience. If you find no separate self anywhere in 'your' experience, that's it. Just like you absolutely know there's no Santa, you'll know there's no separate self. And no 'false self'. Do you see?

By false self, I mean ego self, or whatever. Pete is seven hours ahead of David. We have to call these constructs something, even though they are fictive.

I could say now, David is typing. Truer would be to say there is typing. But attributing the typing to a fictional character is useful. Just like calling a university, "the university" is useful even though it doesn't exist.

As for the ego self being a construct of DNA and conditioning, that's precisely what it is, in contrast to what we commonly call the self, by which we mean an independent agent, a controller, a sinner, and so on.

The ego self reacts to the environment, similar to the fight or flight surge of adrenalin when a tiger appears.

The ego self is a character in a movie that follows the script. The script is comprised of DNA, conditioning, and environment. Same as the physical body.

Do you have a body? Does the body exist?

Well, there is no "you," and I'd suggest that the body is as much a fiction as the ego self, and perhaps a less persistent one.

[moondog]

Hi David,

By false self, I mean ego self, or whatever. Pete is seven hours ahead of David. We have to call these constructs something, even though they are fictive. I could say now, David is typing. Truer would be to say there is typing. But attributing the typing to a fictional character is useful. Just like calling a university, "the university" is useful even though it doesn't exist.

Yeah, I accept all of that. Language is conceptual and therefore relative. As a guide I'm always treading that thin line of using 'conventional' terms in relation to the unconventional, with the (hopefully) judicious use of inverted commas etc. There's really no choice when one wants to communicate. As your guide all I want is for 'you' to see for 'yourself' that there's no separate self, and so my intention in this case was simply to try and alert you to the dangers of reifying the total absence of a self-entity, via a label like 'a false self', which can happen instead of simply seeing and knowing there's no such thing, without any such reification. Mind and ego are other labels that carry that danger with them. They're just metaphors for thoughts, specifically I-thoughts.

The ego self reacts to the environment, similar to the fight or flight surge of adrenalin when a tiger appears.

So, if the person seeing the tiger and feeling the resultant adrenalin buzz fires a shot at the tiger but misses, thereby causing the tiger to take flight, does that mean the tiger has an ego too? Or is it that all sentient being have simply evolved that deep-rooted survival response of fight or flight?

In direct experience, can you find an ego, or a false self, or the a mind, or a body?

There's one question left over from my last post which I'd like you to answer. It was:

Just to be absolutely clear here, when you are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling can you find in direct experience any separation at all between 'that which is experiencing', experiencing, and 'that which is being experienced,' or is there just seeing, hearing etc?

Let's take a look at whether there's a self-entity involved or present in thoughts and thinking:

Not from what you think, but from direct experience, please say:

Where do thoughts come from?

Are you in control of them?

Can you stop a thought from coming?

Can you stop it in the middle?

Do you know what the next thought will be?

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

Can a thought think?

Pete x

[awasin]

Hi Pete

So, if the person seeing the tiger and feeling the resultant adrenalin buzz fires a shot at the tiger but misses, thereby causing the tiger to take flight, does that mean the tiger has an ego too? Or is it that all sentient being have simply evolved that deep-rooted survival response of fight or flight?

Animals aren't - as Descarte asserted - automatons reacting to stimuli. They have ego selves. Spend some time with tigers, and you'll see that some are irritable, some are lazy, and so on, just like us. But the ego self doesn't cause them to act in this way, it's a label that describes them; it's a fiction, same as with us.

In direct experience, can you find an ego, or a false self, or the a mind, or a body?

No.

There's one question left over from my last post which I'd like you to answer. It was:

Just to be absolutely clear here, when you are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling can you find in direct experience any separation at all between 'that which is experiencing', experiencing, and 'that which is being experienced,' or is there just seeing, hearing etc?

No. There is just seeing, hearing, whatever.

Let's take a look at whether there's a self-entity involved or present in thoughts and thinking:

Not from what you think, but from direct experience, please say:

Where do thoughts come from?

I don't know.

Are you in control of them?

No. I can ignore them, but can't control them.

Can you stop a thought from coming?

No.

Can you stop it in the middle?

No.

Do you know what the next thought will be?

No.

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

No.

Can a thought think?

No.

[awasin]

Of course, I guess you could say that we're all automatons, reacting to our environment.

[moondog]

Hi David,

All your answers are fine, spot on David. No comments.

So, you've looked at sense arisings and thinking and have clearly found no separate self. Now let's move on to acting, doing, controlling to see whether you can see any trace of a 'you' there.

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?

You're doing really well here David.

Pete x

[awasin]

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?

There is no I involved when walking, driving, making coffee, cleaning, cooking, lawn-mowing or any other of the everyday things I observed. They happen automatically.

There is sometimes a thought just after that says something like, "I've finished the lawn."

No self is required to perform the actions.

Actions are automatic.

[moondog]

Hi David,

Thanks for those nice, clear, unambiguous replies. You clearly cannot find any self-entity in the doing of anything that 'you' do. It's a short jump to looking to see whether there's any separate self present or involved in deciding/choosing to 'do' anything. So, 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, you might find the following short video clip from BBC Horizon - The Secret You on Neuroscience and Freewill interesting: 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 x

[awasin]

Hi Pete

Thanks for the video link.

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?

I can't pinpoint a moment of choice. In fact, sometimes during my trials, my right arm raised while "I" was thinking of the problem.

[moondog]

Hi David,

I can't pinpoint a moment of choice. In fact, sometimes during my trials, my right arm raised while "I" was thinking of the problem.

That's excellent. It's just so strange when you see for certain that what you'd simply assumed to be how things are and how they function for so long just ain't so, isn't it? No chooser, no doer, just this happening, now.

We haven't yet looked at yet is the body, and whether the self is the body, or is in the body. So, as always, from direct experience:

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

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

As I've said, I think your looking for a separate self (and not finding one) is going really well. What do you reckon so far David?

Pete x

[awasin]

Hi Pete

1. Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

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

1. No.

2. The body is a thought label. But it exists independently of sensations and a fortiori thoughts.

As I've said, I think your looking for a separate self (and not finding one) is going really well. What do you reckon so far David?

So far, so good, but I wonder whether my answers above are an impasse???

I should add that it certainly seems to me that I'm not finding a separate self, despite looking hard for one. Today I was watching and listening to a swollen creek. It's been raining, and there is still snow in the mountains, so the creeks have risen dramatically. All there was, was hearing and seeing and smelling and bodily sensations. And I saw a mosquito light on my left hand: small, delicate, nearly translucent. Then I saw my right hand moving swiftly but evenly, gently crushing the mosquito.

There was no "I" involved at all. There was no difference between the "seeing" of the creek, and the "seeing" of my right hand moving.

Thanks so much for your patience.

[awasin]

Further to 2., consider how amputees can still "feel" their missing limb.

[awasin]

In other words, I see the body as akin to a suit of clothes.