Looking for a guide

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

No I can't find any separation or boundaries, just the experience of seeing, hearing, tasting etc. The seer and the process can come into play, or is fabricated, only in thoughts and not in direct experience.

Great. I'm pleased that you are seeing how this is.

But who's doing this exercise? Who's making the effort? If there's no self-entity, what could be trying?

This is a good question, I'm tempted to say 'I am'. I can't see anything else, however I can't see the 'I' making the effort either. what's going on here?

There's just no 'you' to be doing any trying is there? We'll come back to looking at this in more detail soon.

Fantastic. I'm quite excited about this process!
As always thank you for your guidance.,

It's good that you're enjoying this. It really helps. It should be fun! It's my pleasure to be guiding you Pippo.

Ok, that was good. Now, 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

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

I don't have any updates for today.

Pippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

Ok. Let me have your replies tomorrow then.

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

There's just no 'you' to be doing any trying is there?

Apparently not, we'll see when we come back to the details soon.

It's good that you're enjoying this. It really helps. It should be fun! It's my pleasure to be guiding you Pippo.

Thanks!!

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

Where do thoughts come from?

No idea, they just seem to come and go.

Are you in control of them?

In part, I can try to think certain types of thoughts, but I don't have full control

Can you stop a thought from coming?

no, they keep coming.

Can you stop it in the middle?

Quite difficult, I have to trick it with another thought.

Do you know what the next thought will be?

Normally no.

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

The 'I' seems to be more abstract, while the thought of a table seems more concrete.

Can a thought think?

Isn't thinking what thoughts do?

Pippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

Where do thoughts come from?

No idea, they just seem to come and go.

Don't they just. In direct experience that's all that happens: a thought 'effortlessly' arises, abides a while, and then subsides.

Are you in control of them?

In part, I can try to think certain types of thoughts, but I don't have full control

Could you say a bit more about this, not from what you think or feel, but entirely from direct experience.
In direct experience where is the 'I' that tries to think certain types of thoughts? What does this entity look like and how does it decide to think certain types of thoughts? How does it decide which type of thoughts? Are these 'decisions' to think certain types of thoughts, thoughts themselves? If so, don't they just come and go anyway, as you said in your previous answer? If these 'decisions' aren't thoughts, please describe what they are in direct experience.

[

Are you in control of them?

In part, I can try to think certain types of thoughts, but I don't have full control

Please explain what you mean by part control, rather than full control. Whether part or full, and purely from 'your' direct experience, how is this controlling of thoughts done? What does it? How does it do it? Which thoughts does it partially control? How do 'you' know this?

Can you stop a thought from coming?

no, they keep coming.

Excellent. I'm glad to hear that.

Can you stop it in the middle?

Quite difficult, I have to trick it with another thought.

Can you see the 'I' that does the tricking in direct experience? If so, please describe it and explain how it does this. Or is there just another thought saying that it's tricking the first thought? And is the first thought (the one that's 'being tricked') still present at the same time as the second one? Or is it just there as a memory, and/or as part of the second thought?

The 'I' seems to be more abstract, while the thought of a table seems more concrete.

I get what you mean, I think :) but can you say a little more about what you mean by the thought of 'I' being more 'abstract' than the thought of a table, which is more 'concrete'. This is good stuff Pippo, but I just want to make absolutely sure that you're on the right track here.

Can a thought think?

Isn't thinking what thoughts do?

Is it? You've seen that in direct experience a thought just sort of arrives as if from nowhere, hangs about a bit, and then disappears. There is awareness of it and its conceptual message. So, as well as this arising and subsiding, in direct experience, can you also see a thought thinking? How does it do that? Does that mean that one thought produces another? If so, could you say a little more about that, again solely from direct experience.

As I say, this is good stuff Pippo. It might seem a bit intense, but this is precisely where the most productive work is done; by looking, looking, looking in direct experience, where it's real, as opposed to in thought, where it's not.

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

Are you in control of them?

In part, I can try to think certain types of thoughts, but I don't have full control

Could you say a bit more about this, not from what you think or feel, but entirely from direct experience.
In direct experience where is the 'I' that tries to think certain types of thoughts? What does this entity look like and how does it decide to think certain types of thoughts? How does it decide which type of thoughts? Are these 'decisions' to think certain types of thoughts, thoughts themselves? If so, don't they just come and go anyway, as you said in your previous answer? If these 'decisions' aren't thoughts, please describe what they are in direct experience.

From direct experience I can see that the decision of thinking certain types of thoughts comes from thoughts themselves, so it appears that these are self-reinforcing: thoughts generating thoughts. There is no 'I' I can observe. And the thoughts do come ad go as they please. So this entity generating thoughts apparently are also thoughts.

Please explain what you mean by part control, rather than full control. Whether part or full, and purely from 'your' direct experience, how is this controlling of thoughts done? What does it? How does it do it? Which thoughts does it partially control? How do 'you' know this?

What I meant is that at times I do have the illusion that I can try to think 'positive thoughts', for example a nice landscape, 'I' can look at a nice picture of a paradise beach that generates relaxing thoughts. In this way 'I' have the idea of being able to direct, or in part control my thoughts (I might still worry about something else while watching the picture, that's why I wrote in part). However as in the previous example maybe it's not the 'I' controlling but other thoughts leading to the nice picture and therefore generating other thoughts.

Can you see the 'I' that does the tricking in direct experience? If so, please describe it and explain how it does this. Or is there just another thought saying that it's tricking the first thought? And is the first thought (the one that's 'being tricked') still present at the same time as the second one? Or is it just there as a memory, and/or as part of the second thought?

Just like the previous example, trying to stop a thought in the middle would be done by placing another thought (a paradise beach for example), but I can see that this is also done by thoughts. So it's mostly thoughts that can stop, or override other thoughts, often in reaction to direct experience like a sudden event happening. 'I' cannot stop in the middle.

I get what you mean, I think :) but can you say a little more about what you mean by the thought of 'I' being more 'abstract' than the thought of a table, which is more 'concrete'.

Sure I can say more! The thoughts of 'I' seem to be built on a set of intangible ideas, like 'I' am like that, 'I' have this degree, 'I' like certain things until an entity is created, thoughts identify with it and the 'I' appears to be real. At the same time however the 'I' is not perceived in direct experience, only its thoughts. The table can be perceived in direct experience so thoughts seem more 'firm', unquestionable.

Can a thought think?

Isn't thinking what thoughts do?

Is it? You've seen that in direct experience a thought just sort of arrives as if from nowhere, hangs about a bit, and then disappears. There is awareness of it and its conceptual message. So, as well as this arising and subsiding, in direct experience, can you also see a thought thinking? How does it do that? Does that mean that one thought produces another? If so, could you say a little more about that, again solely from direct experience.

I'm not sure if this is really a thought thinking, it could be just running its course. So are they just like a commercial on a TV that manifests its message and go away (often just like TV commercials returning over and over)?

Regarding thoughts producing one another, yes, it appears that they do produce one another, often in a chain-reaction, especially in cases of obsessive thinking.

As I say, this is good stuff Pippo. It might seem a bit intense, but this is precisely where the most productive work is done; by looking, looking, looking in direct experience, where it's real, as opposed to in thought, where it's not.

Indeed this part seems intense and I'm glad that this is the most productive work.

Pippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

Thanks for your replies on thoughts and thinking. You've obviously put a lot of work into this.

As you know, the sole point of these exercises is so that it can be seen whether there is any self-entity involved or present, in this case in thinking. I can see from your answers that, based on direct experience, you're aware that thoughts just pop up, and then go (although, in apparent contradiction, you say one thought generates another), and that there's no separate self controlling, stopping or doing anything with thinking and thoughts. However, you also say:

From direct experience I can see that the decision of thinking certain types of thoughts comes from thoughts themselves, so it appears that these are self-reinforcing: thoughts generating thoughts. There is no 'I' I can observe. And the thoughts do come and go as they please. So this entity generating thoughts apparently are also thoughts.

and

However as in the previous example maybe it's not the 'I' controlling but other thoughts leading to the nice picture and therefore generating other thoughts.

and

Regarding thoughts producing one another, yes, it appears that they do produce one another, often in a chain-reaction, especially in cases of obsessive thinking.

I'm just concerned here that you're talking about an entity generating thoughts, something that could be called 'me' or 'I', and I need to know for sure what you're basing that on in direct experience, rather than it being the product of thoughts, ideas, memory, imagination etc. After all, all we are interested in is what is actually present right now.

A thought will arise, abide a while and then subside, followed by another thought, and so on. You say that you can see in direct experience that one thought comes from another, rather than there being one thought, a gap, then another. Remember that in direct experience it's never about what we think or feel might or should happen, or about what appears or seems to happen. It's only about what's experienced right now before thought is 'allowed' to intercede.

Bearing all of that in mind, please describe to me from 'your' direct experience the actual process when a thought is seen to be either creating or leading to another thought, rather than one simply following the other.

I'm not sure if this is really a thought thinking, it could be just running its course. So are they just like a commercial on a TV that manifests its message and go away (often just like TV commercials returning over and over)?

I really like your analogy here.

When 'you' look again in direct experience, can you find any self-entity involved in any way in thinking, or does thinking appear just to happen spontaneously?

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your replies on thoughts and thinking. You've obviously put a lot of work into this.

I did put quite a lot of work, this is quite interesting.

I'm just concerned here that you're talking about an entity generating thoughts, something that could be called 'me' or 'I', and I need to know for sure what you're basing that on in direct experience, rather than it being the product of thoughts, ideas, memory, imagination etc. After all, all we are interested in is what is actually present right now.

Let me explain the idea of thoughts generating thoughts with an example. Let's say I see a heater, immediately the thought of the heater is followed almost concurrently with the thought of heat, then maybe of the thought of hot air flowing in the room and so on. I'm not saying that there is a 'me', however these thoughts seem to be related to the point of giving the impression that one generates another.

Another example could be the experience of seeing a snake that immediately is followed by a myriad of thoughts of being bit, of having to run away, of going to a hospital etc. This is what I mean by thoughts apparently generating other thoughts. Your direction might explain these:

Remember that in direct experience it's never about what we think or feel might or should happen, or about what appears or seems to happen. It's only about what's experienced right now before thought is 'allowed' to intercede.

But isn't the thought also the direct experience?

So in the example of the snake I do realize that these thoughts are about what could happen. However it is difficult to notice a snake and not have an overwhelming amount of thoughts about what could happen. Once again I'm not saying that there is a 'me' but it does appear that these thoughts come in clusters and that one thought can trigger others.

A thought will arise, abide a while and then subside, followed by another thought, and so on. You say that you can see in direct experience that one thought comes from another, rather than there being one thought, a gap, then another.

See above, at times they come so close to one another that I don't notice any gap, just a train of connected thoughts.

Bearing all of that in mind, please describe to me from 'your' direct experience the actual process when a thought is seen to be either creating or leading to another thought, rather than one simply following the other.

See the snake example above: the thought of a snake seems to be immediately spawning several other thoughts. What am I missing here?

When 'you' look again in direct experience, can you find any self-entity involved in any way in thinking, or does thinking appear just to happen spontaneously?

Thinking does appear to just happen spontaneously, I think the area I need to clarify is these cluster of thoughts, or thoughts triggering other thoughts. I can't see an 'I', but as mentioned I do get the impression that some thoughts can trigger others.

Thanks,

Pippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

But isn't the thought also the direct experience?

Yes, thinking, like the other sense arisings, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and feeling arises in awareness as direct experience. However, thoughts 'contain' all sorts of conceptual detail, labels, opinions judgements, memories, ideas etc. These thought contents are neither real in the sense that direct experience is, nor are they reliable. This is particularly true of I-thoughts that regularly 'take credit' for sense experiences, thoughts, actions, decisions etc. when, as you've already seen for yourself by looking in direct experience, all of this just happens, with no 'you' to be found anywhere.

Let's say I see a heater, immediately the thought of the heater is followed almost concurrently with the thought of heat, then maybe of the thought of hot air flowing in the room and so on. I'm not saying that there is a 'me', however these thoughts seem to be related to the point of giving the impression that one generates another.

The most important point here is that you are not saying that you have found a separate self in direct experience doing any thinking. That being so, whether or not one thought 'leads' to another is a bit of a red herring. I've noticed on many occasions when guiding that these interesting but not strictly relevant discussion points come up, as if introduced by the ego (I'm being metaphorical here) to distract from the process of seeing that there is no self.

For that reason I don't want to spend any more time pursuing this. Suffice it to say direct experience shows us that thoughts arise one at a time, to be followed by others, sometimes with gaps between, sometimes apparently almost immediately afterwards. However, at any one time, i.e. now, and it's only ever now, there can only ever be one thought existing. That thought might 'say' it was generated by a previous one, but that previous thought cannot, by definition be extant now as it's previous, it's gone and in direct experience we can only experience what is happening now. So, we can never actually know that an 'earlier thought' led to or generated the present one. The idea, thought or belief that it did, is just that, thought, not direct experience.

So, you've looked at sense arisings and thinking and haven't found a separate self, anywhere. 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?

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

The most important point here is that you are not saying that you have found a separate self in direct experience doing any thinking. That being so, whether or not one thought 'leads' to another is a bit of a red herring. I've noticed on many occasions when guiding that these interesting but not strictly relevant discussion points come up, as if introduced by the ego (I'm being metaphorical here) to distract from the process of seeing that there is no self.

Understood and agreed, I don't find a separate self doing the thinking and I realize that the ego can go off into distracting tangents.

For that reason I don't want to spend any more time pursuing this. Suffice it to say direct experience shows us that thoughts arise one at a time, to be followed by others, sometimes with gaps between, sometimes apparently almost immediately afterwards. However, at any one time, i.e. now, and it's only ever now, there can only ever be one thought existing.

Interesting point, I had the impression of having a storm of thoughts that seem concurrent at times, however now I notice that in the 'now' there can only be one thought at a time.

So, you've looked at sense arisings and thinking and haven't found a separate self, anywhere.

No I haven't! The self must be hiding somewhere else :)

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

No 'I' when I walk, just thoughts as we've already explored before, same as when I'm sitting ir try other activities, only sensations (perceptions) and thinking.

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

They are automatic, however thinking likes to comment during these actions.

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

At times I notice a thought that says 'I've done it'. These thoughts come up for example when I make mistakes, when the thought needs to point a finger to someone: if there is no 'I', who's going to take the blame? 'I' seem to be looking for an accountable entity. These thoughts come up also right after an accomplishment, for example scoring a goal in a football game. These thoughts seem to pop up in these occasions.

Are all actions automatic?

It is slowly becoming clear that they are! I'm wondering how 'I' get to make myself do things I don't like to do but have to, if they can be done automatically.

And at this stage I'm also wondering how I can let 'myself go'.

Thanks Pete!

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

Interesting point, I had the impression of having a storm of thoughts that seem concurrent at times, however now I notice that in the 'now' there can only be one thought at a time.

Yeah, it's amazing what we all take for granted isn't it? When we really look, we see that there can only be the present thought at any one time, i.e. now.

So, you've looked at sense arisings and thinking and haven't found a separate self, anywhere.

No I haven't! The self must be hiding somewhere else :)

I wonder where that can be ;)

No 'I' when I walk, just thoughts as we've already explored before, same as when I'm sitting ir try other activities, only sensations (perceptions) and thinking.

Absolutely. Just this, happening, including commentary.

They are automatic, however thinking likes to comment during these actions.

It sure does.

At times I notice a thought that says 'I've done it'. These thoughts come up for example when I make mistakes, when the thought needs to point a finger to someone: if there is no 'I', who's going to take the blame? 'I' seem to be looking for an accountable entity. These thoughts come up also right after an accomplishment, for example scoring a goal in a football game. These thoughts seem to pop up in these occasions.

Although deluded, this is a lifelong habit, and tenacious. But, when the illusion on which it's based is seen through, it loses its strength, sometimes quite quickly, often more gradually.

Are all actions automatic?

It is slowly becoming clear that they are! I'm wondering how 'I' get to make myself do things I don't like to do but have to, if they can be done automatically.
And at this stage I'm also wondering how I can let 'myself go'.

Remember that you're not losing or getting rid of anything here; it was never there in the first place, you only thought it was. Things get done when they get done, whether thought says ''I really don't want to do this' or ' I really want to do this.'

You don't and can't let yourself go. There's no you that needs to be let go of, and no you to do any letting go.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that you can't find any self-entity in the doing of anything that 'you' do. It's a short jump from this 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.

Nice going Pippo.

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

And at this stage I'm also wondering how I can let 'myself go'.

You don't and can't let yourself go. There's no you that needs to be let go of, and no you to do any letting go.

Yes I can see that, I guess what I mean by 'let myself go' is to realize that there was never a self in the first place and I appear to be attached to this illusion.

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?

I can't really pinpoint, the decision seems to be predetermined and I can't find the entity that makes the choice. However if I think about it for a while, the thought could decide to raise it or not. For example, before taking the decision I can start thinking that I've already raised my arm twice in the last couple of minutes, and therefore the thought can 'decide' not to raise it. In other words if I don't act spontaneously and start deliberating, it seems that the deliberation process is the moment of 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?

In this exercise there seems to be some sort of random choice that I observe happening: either the arm is raised or not. It seems to be coming randomly and therefore I can't pinpoint the chooser. However just as described earlier if there is a deliberation process it appears that this process can come up with a choice and then the action is taken.

If the 'I' is not the chooser, what is? Is there some other entity guiding us in these decisions? The choice of raising (or not) is certainly made, so there must be a decider.

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 .

Amazing video!

Thanks,

Pippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

You don't and can't let yourself go. There's no you that needs to be let go of, and no you to do any letting go.

Yes I can see that, I guess what I mean by 'let myself go' is to realize that there was never a self in the first place and I appear to be attached to this illusion.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that.

But what is it that appears to be attached to the illusion?

I can't really pinpoint, the decision seems to be predetermined and I can't find the entity that makes the choice. However if I think about it for a while, the thought could decide to raise it or not. For example, before taking the decision I can start thinking that I've already raised my arm twice in the last couple of minutes, and therefore the thought can 'decide' not to raise it. In other words if I don't act spontaneously and start deliberating, it seems that the deliberation process is the moment of choice.

Can you see that if I think about it for a while, the thought could decide to raise it or not and I can start thinking that I've already raised my arm twice in the last couple of minutes, and therefore the thought can 'decide' not to raise it are just thinking, interrupting and telling 'you' all kinds of stuff, and that this is not what is seen in direct experience?

Also, can a thought do or decide anything? If so, how is that evident in direct experience?

In this exercise there seems to be some sort of random choice that I observe happening: either the arm is raised or not. It seems to be coming randomly and therefore I can't pinpoint the chooser. However just as described earlier if there is a deliberation process it appears that this process can come up with a choice and then the action is taken.

Yes, as in the BBC video clip indicates, it seems that 'decisions' (as we have to call them something) happen somewhere. But, as you've clearly seen, the separate self, the 'you', that thought tells you does all this, is nowhere to be found.

If the 'I' is not the chooser, what is? Is there some other entity guiding us in these decisions? The choice of raising (or not) is certainly made, so there must be a decider.

You've seen in direct experience that there's seeing, but no seer; hearing, but no hearer: doing, but no doer; thinking but no thinker, etc. So, even if there's choosing/deciding, why should there be a decider/chooser? Or is it thinking again, insisting that this must be so, just as thought says there really is a separate, special you?

Pete x

[pippo]

Hi Pete,

But what is it that appears to be attached to the illusion?

My feelings are attached to the illusion. It's like moving out from a place and feeling that you'll miss it. It's similar with the idea of letting myself go.

Can you see that if I think about it for a while, the thought could decide to raise it or not and I can start thinking that I've already raised my arm twice in the last couple of minutes, and therefore the thought can 'decide' not to raise it are just thinking, interrupting and telling 'you' all kinds of stuff, and that this is not what is seen in direct experience?

yes I can see that! It seems like how the rationalization process as defined in psychology works: the thought makes up a story to justify the outcome.

Also, can a thought do or decide anything? If so, how is that evident in direct experience?

No it's not evident in direct experience.

In this exercise there seems to be some sort of random choice that I observe happening: either the arm is raised or not. It seems to be coming randomly and therefore I can't pinpoint the chooser. However just as described earlier if there is a deliberation process it appears that this process can come up with a choice and then the action is taken.

Yes, as in the BBC video clip indicates, it seems that 'decisions' (as we have to call them something) happen somewhere. But, as you've clearly seen, the separate self, the 'you', that thought tells you does all this, is nowhere to be found.

Right, the self does not come into play. I can see that.

You've seen in direct experience that there's seeing, but no seer; hearing, but no hearer: doing, but no doer; thinking but no thinker, etc. So, even if there's choosing/deciding, why should there be a decider/chooser?

Right, it's possible to observe a decision process happening, but not an 'I' making the decision. It took me a while, but I can see that now.

Or is it thinking again, insisting that this must be so, just as thought says there really is a separate, special you?

Well this was not an easy one for me to see, I did have quite a lot of thoughts pointing t a separate 'me'.

For the past couple of days I've been experimenting a lot with this 'decider' concept and I'm still slightly disoriented. Among all other direct experience examples, this has been the most challenging so far.

Thanks,

Filippo

[moondog]

Hi Pippo,

Thanks for your replies. I've just got back from being away all day in London so I won't be able to reply until tomorrow.

Pete x