Requesting a guide

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

Thoughts are triggered from preceding thoughts and felt sensations. For example, if I walk into another room, then new sensations (sights, smells, sounds, etc) enter into my awareness, and corresponding thoughts spontaneously arise. If the room is well lit, it may trigger something different than if the room was dark. My surroundings are constantly changing, and therefore thoughts are constantly changing. The exact process of how thoughts arise is a mystery to me.

Ok, good.

But, not from what thoughts say, just purely from direct experience, can you see (hear, feel etc.) where thoughts come from? Or do they simply arise, hang around for a bit, and then subside?

I feel as if looking at DE quiets my thoughts, or at least I notice the gaps between thoughts. That looking feels like a form of control.

I know what you mean. When 'I' look at a thought it sort of shrivels up. Thing is, I can't see any actual 'me' that either decides to, or indeed does this 'looking'.

You say it feels like a form of control but, as before isn't this just more thinking butting in again, this time about thinking itself? The central question here is In direct experience, can you find anything, any entity, that's actually controlling thinking. If so, please describe it and how it operates.

Can you stop a thought from coming?

Nope! A thought can quickly dismiss another thought, but the fire-hose of thoughts is always on.

I really like your phrase the fire-hose of thoughts is always on as a graphic description :)

I hope this doesn't sound too picky but I always like to be sure - when you say one thought dismisses another thought, what exactly do you mean? Can you see a thought actually doing that? Can a thought actually do anything? Or did you simply mean that one thought replaces another (in line with your answer to the next question about stopping a thought in the middle)?

Do you know what the next thought will be?

I don't ... sometimes my thoughts surprise me, especially the dark ones!

Same here!

I looked, and looked, and looked, but I still can't seem to shed the feeling that the two are different. Intellectually I know they are the same, but I can't seem to hone in on this when looking at DE.

Yeah, I always think this is a strange question.

When looked at in direct experience do you see that, inasmuch as they are both thoughts, they are fundamentally no different? However, when the respective content of each of these two examples is looked at, are they the same? Is the thought of a table the same as an I-thought?

No, 'thinking' is a synonym for the stream of thoughts (I think!). When observing thoughts, it is hard to even see the beginning and end of a thought. All thoughts seem to blur together into a single, multi-faceted stream.

Excellent.

It might look as if I've raised here a lot of points here but you're well on the right track with this Prabh. I just like to make sure from all angles that you're seeing clearly whether there's any self-entity lurking about anywhere.

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

I got caught up in a work project and don't have much time today to send you a thoughtful response. I'll write to you tomorrow evening as soon as I get the chance.

Thanks for understanding,
Prabh

[moondog]

Thanks for letting me know Prabh.

Looking forward to hearing from you later today.

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your patience. I just now was able to spend some time alone to consider the questions you posed:

But, not from what thoughts say, just purely from direct experience, can you see (hear, feel etc.) where thoughts come from? Or do they simply arise, hang around for a bit, and then subside?

I can't identify a source from which thoughts arise. Just as you described, thoughts arise spontaneously, are experienced, and then subside. It's an automatic process, similar to breathing, the beating of the heart, or the twitching of the eyes when they are closed.

You say it feels like a form of control but, as before isn't this just more thinking butting in again, this time about thinking itself? The central question here is In direct experience, can you find anything, any entity, that's actually controlling thinking. If so, please describe it and how it operates.

I can only find thoughts about other thoughts, about other thoughts, and so on ... like an endless, self-referential chain of thoughts over time. For example, the notion of 'control' is a thought about, and a labeling of, a prior thought.

I'm slowly starting to see what DE truly is and is not, because I think that, up until this point, I was confusing thoughts about thoughts, about thoughts, about thoughts ... as DE. It's just a glimmer for now, but I feel that this distinction is an important one (and one that I hope I'll remember through the course of our conversations).

I've identified with my thoughts for most of my life, and so it has been difficult noticing what is thought and what is behind thought. One way I'm trying to notice thought is by catching words spoken internally to myself, like "I'm looking at a power brick right now", versus resting in the experience of seeing the power brick.

I hope this doesn't sound too picky but I always like to be sure - when you say one thought dismisses another thought, what exactly do you mean? Can you see a thought actually doing that? Can a thought actually do anything? Or did you simply mean that one thought replaces another (in line with your answer to the next question about stopping a thought in the middle)?

Not at all! I appreciate you seeking more clarity for me, especially when my answers to your questions reveal traps that I may have fallen into. Please pick away.

I originally meant "dismiss", but I can see how that may not be the case. A thought doesn't 'do' anything ... it's just there. The thought itself may contain the notion of dismissing the previous thought (like "I can't believe I was just about to succumb to my craving for that ice cream") but that thought simply replaced the previous thought. There was one thought at time X, and then there was another thought at time Y, and then there was another thought at time Z ... just a series of thoughts, of which many refer to previous thoughts and contain notions of anticipating future thoughts.

When looked at in direct experience do you see that, inasmuch as they are both thoughts, they are fundamentally no different? However, when the respective content of each of these two examples is looked at, are they the same? Is the thought of a table the same as an I-thought?

Yes, the two thoughts--of 'I', and of 'the table'--are the same in that they are both thoughts. Both refer to things ... one that I have not been able to find (but still feel its presence, to lesser and lesser degrees), and the other that I can see visually. I never even considered that the 'I' thought referred to something that is not there up until I started chatting with you; and now I'm starting to see that the 'table' thought, which refers to a collection of seen shapes and colors, is not the same as the seen shapes and colors. I.e. the 'table' thought is not the same as the experience of seeing the table.

It might look as if I've raised here a lot of points here but you're well on the right track with this Prabh. I just like to make sure from all angles that you're seeing clearly whether there's any self-entity lurking about anywhere.

Thank you. I'm not yet clearly seeing the absence of a self-entity, but I am beginning to develop a better intuition on how to look at DE ... which has provided small glimpses of what exists prior to the labeling (of 'self', observed 'things', and bodily sensations) that occurs through thought.

Wishing you well,
Prabh

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

I can't identify a source from which thoughts arise. Just as you described, thoughts arise spontaneously, are experienced, and then subside. It's an automatic process, similar to breathing, the beating of the heart, or the twitching of the eyes when they are closed.

Yeah, all just arises, abides and subsides. No effort required. No effort even possible.

I can only find thoughts about other thoughts, about other thoughts, and so on ... like an endless, self-referential chain of thoughts over time. For example, the notion of 'control' is a thought about, and a labeling of, a prior thought.

Really good observation - just by looking in 'your' direct experience!

I'm slowly starting to see what DE truly is and is not, because I think that, up until this point, I was confusing thoughts about thoughts, about thoughts, about thoughts ... as DE. It's just a glimmer for now, but I feel that this distinction is an important one (and one that I hope I'll remember through the course of our conversations).

It's great to see that this 'looking' is deepening for you. Your earlier answers on seeing, hearing etc. showed that you were looking in direct experience then but, from what you say, there's been a shift and you're now seeing more clearly. Really, it's like a habit that gradually develops, and you may want to revisit looking at sense arisings to see how that is now.

You say that it's just a glimmer for now, and that suggests to me that you have expectations for an eventual outcome here. Really, so long as you can look in direct experience at what's happening for 'you' right now, and can see that there's just no separate self anywhere there, and that thoughts telling you otherwise are not true, not what's happening, then that's it. Whenever you 'remember' to check, and you can see for a fact there's no 'you', that's all there is to this. Once you know this, just like you know that there's no Santa, this fundamental change in perspective will manifest in your life in its own particular and unmistakeable way for 'you'.

I've identified with my thoughts for most of my life, and so it has been difficult noticing what is thought and what is behind thought. One way I'm trying to notice thought is by catching words spoken internally to myself, like "I'm looking at a power brick right now", versus resting in the experience of seeing the power brick.

That sounds fine. If it helps you to see thoughts for what they are, great. But who's doing the trying?

I originally meant "dismiss", but I can see how that may not be the case. A thought doesn't 'do' anything ... it's just there. The thought itself may contain the notion of dismissing the previous thought (like "I can't believe I was just about to succumb to my craving for that ice cream") but that thought simply replaced the previous thought. There was one thought at time X, and then there was another thought at time Y, and then there was another thought at time Z ... just a series of thoughts, of which many refer to previous thoughts and contain notions of anticipating future thoughts.

You got it.

I never even considered that the 'I' thought referred to something that is not there up until I started chatting with you; and now I'm starting to see that the 'table' thought, which refers to a collection of seen shapes and colors, is not the same as the seen shapes and colors. I.e. the 'table' thought is not the same as the experience of seeing the table.

I'm really pleased that, not only are you seeing an I-thought for what it is (and isn't) but also what the thought of a 'real' object like a table is, as compared to directly experiencing the table. Really good.

Thank you. I'm not yet clearly seeing the absence of a self-entity, but I am beginning to develop a better intuition on how to look at DE ... which has provided small glimpses of what exists prior to the labeling (of 'self', observed 'things', and bodily sensations) that occurs through thought.

Be careful not to look for, or expect to see, this absence of a self-entity as if it were something in itself, a process or tendency known as reification. I'm not saying you are doing this, but some people do. It sounds obvious, but absence is simply a lack, not a thing in itself. Some folks substitute absence of self, non-self, for self, which is a real non-starter. It's much simpler than that. You look for a self-entity. You can't find one anywhere. You know there isn't one, anywhere, and never has been. Hope that helps :)

Anyway, you're fine with not finding a self in thinking Prabh, so let's look at acting, doing and controlling to see if you can find 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

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

Yes, I feel that 'looking' is deepening, or it's at least becoming clearer.

The following was really helpful:

You say that it's just a glimmer for now, and that suggests to me that you have expectations for an eventual outcome here. Really, so long as you can look in direct experience at what's happening for 'you' right now, and can see that there's just no separate self anywhere there, and that thoughts telling you otherwise are not true, not what's happening, then that's it. Whenever you 'remember' to check, and you can see for a fact there's no 'you', that's all there is to this.

Yes, I have been holding onto an expectation that something will change or will feel different. But, as I am looking at DE tonight, I can see that this expectation is yet another thought.

The following resonated with me and was also really helpful:

Be careful not to look for, or expect to see, this absence of a self-entity as if it were something in itself, a process or tendency known as reification. I'm not saying you are doing this, but some people do. It sounds obvious, but absence is simply a lack, not a thing in itself. Some folks substitute absence of self, non-self, for self, which is a real non-starter. It's much simpler than that. You look for a self-entity. You can't find one anywhere. You know there isn't one, anywhere, and never has been.

I was definitely doing this, haha, but recently I've been more aware of this tendency. (Reification is a great word by the way.) Thanks for the reminder.

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

My legs move automatically, and the body is propelled forward. When an obstacle comes up, the body moves in a different direction. All along, thoughts are present: "oh, I need to go to the right", "oh, I need to pick that up on my way", etc. But, these thoughts are necessary for my legs to function, or for my body to navigate my surroundings.

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

All of these actions/activities also occur automatically, especially driving. There will be times when I've zoned out for 10-15 minutes while driving, without any recollection of all the movements that I made (turning, speeding up/down, etc), which is a little scary sometimes haha. Brushing my teeth is similar: it happens automatically, even when I'm lost in thought.

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

An 'I' is not necessary to drive these actions; they occur automatically (like a plant growing, or a fungus spreading).

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

There typically is an 'I did that' thought, in some form or another, after each action/activity, and there is always a sense of purposefulness. For example, I just thought to myself, "my phone buzzed so I should check it". My reaching for the phone and checking of it felt very intentional, even though the buzz triggered an automatic action (I've reached for my phone thousands of times like this before).

Are all actions 'automatic'?

Yes, all actions are automatic. However, I'm still struggling with ... rather, 'I' can see my thoughts protesting about ... 'my' will in the matter.

(I feel a little stuck at the moment, and hope that I don't sound contradictory. I will look at my everyday actions again starting tomorrow morning. This is a fun exercise!)

-Prabh

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

Yes, I have been holding onto an expectation that something will change or will feel different. But, as I am looking at DE tonight, I can see that this expectation is yet another thought.

That's right, it's not what's actually happening, it's just a thought, just a concept. Mental states and moods come and go, change, but knowing that there's no 'you' is for keeps.

I was definitely doing this, haha, but recently I've been more aware of this tendency. (Reification is a great word by the way.) Thanks for the reminder.

Yeah, it's good to look out for this tendency to reify no-self.

My legs move automatically, and the body is propelled forward. When an obstacle comes up, the body moves in a different direction. All along, thoughts are present: "oh, I need to go to the right", "oh, I need to pick that up on my way", etc. But, these thoughts are necessary for my legs to function, or for my body to navigate my surroundings.

Can you just clarify here please Prabh. You say, But, these thoughts are necessary for my legs to function, or for my body to navigate my surroundings. Given your later answers, I don't think you can have meant it, but did you mean to say that, or did you mean to say these thoughts are not necessary for my legs to function...? If you did mean to say that thoughts are needed to be able to walk etc, please explain how that is evident when looking in direct experience.

All of these actions/activities also occur automatically, especially driving. There will be times when I've zoned out for 10-15 minutes while driving, without any recollection of all the movements that I made (turning, speeding up/down, etc), which is a little scary sometimes haha. Brushing my teeth is similar: it happens automatically, even when I'm lost in thought.

Yes, it's really amazing isn't it when 'you' can stand back and watch doing just happening, with no one doing it, no effort involved.

An 'I' is not necessary to drive these actions; they occur automatically (like a plant growing, or a fungus spreading

Exactly.

There typically is an 'I did that' thought, in some form or another, after each action/activity, and there is always a sense of purposefulness. For example, I just thought to myself, "my phone buzzed so I should check it". My reaching for the phone and checking of it felt very intentional, even though the buzz triggered an automatic action (I've reached for my phone thousands of times like this before).

Good to notice how this 'ego-taking-credit' is happening over and over again throughout the day.

Yes, all actions are automatic. However, I'm still struggling with ... rather, 'I' can see my thoughts protesting about ... 'my' will in the matter.
(I feel a little stuck at the moment, and hope that I don't sound contradictory. I will look at my everyday actions again starting tomorrow morning. This is a fun exercise!)

Just keep looking, looking, looking. From what you say, you seem to be seeing clearly what's actually going on but, if you continue to feel stuck let me know all about it. Moving on to looking at whether there's any self entity in deciding and choosing, which heavily overlaps with looking at doing and controlling, might well be helpful with your stuck feeling. Have a go at the following exercise Prabh:

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.

Still going well...

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

But, these thoughts are necessary for my legs to function, or for my body to navigate my surroundings.

Can you just clarify here please Prabh

Sorry, that was an unfortunate typo. I meant that thoughts are not necessary for my body to move around / function. Thanks for catching that!

From what you say, you seem to be seeing clearly what's actually going on but, if you continue to feel stuck let me know all about it.

Will do! Thanks.

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 find anything that is actively choosing any movement of my body. The movement is always registered in thought afterward, and the thought attributes the movement to 'me'. However, the movement still seems deliberate, i.e. it doesn't surprise 'me' (a spastic arm would be very surprising for example).

A thought just occurred: "raise the arm after counting down to 5". And, after counting down to five, the arm moved upward. Then a thought occurred that attributed the thought to 'me'. However, the movement felt calculated, even if it was triggered by a thought. On the flip side, there are movements that I make even without thinking about them, such as moving my leg up and down out of habit. Whether or not a movement seems deliberate/calculated depends on where 'my' attention is directed toward.

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."

Very interesting, and validating! It reminds me of a book I read a while ago: Free Will (http://www.samharris.org/free-will) by Sam Harris. He makes a really good argument against the existence of free will, despite how real it feels. (Sam Harris is also coming out with a new book called Waking Up sometime later this year.)

Wishing you well,
Gurpreet

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

I can't find anything that is actively choosing any movement of my body. The movement is always registered in thought afterward, and the thought attributes the movement to 'me'.

Great. It's good that you can see that constant process of 'taking credit'.

However, the movement still seems deliberate, i.e. it doesn't surprise 'me' (a spastic arm would be very surprising for example).

Can you say a bit more about what you mean by However, the movement still seems deliberate. Specifically, is this seeming to be deliberate something you're aware of in direct experience, or is it what thinking is 'telling' 'you'? If the former, please describe what happens. Also, I'm not clear what you mean when you say a spastic arm would be very surprising for example.

A thought just occurred: "raise the arm after counting down to 5". And, after counting down to five, the arm moved upward. Then a thought occurred that attributed the thought to 'me'. However, the movement felt calculated, even if it was triggered by a thought. On the flip side, there are movements that I make even without thinking about them, such as moving my leg up and down out of habit. Whether or not a movement seems deliberate/calculated depends on where 'my' attention is directed toward.

Again, good observations. It's great that you're experimenting with looking at 'your' experience.

Very interesting, and validating! It reminds me of a book I read a while ago: Free Will (http://www.samharris.org/free-will) by Sam Harris. He makes a really good argument against the existence of free will, despite how real it feels. (Sam Harris is also coming out with a new book called Waking Up sometime later this year.)

Splendid Prabh. I'll check Sam Harris out.

So far you've looked in direct experience at seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting, thinking, doing, controlling, deciding and choosing, and you've found no 'you' anywhere doing anything. No special little guy in your head calling the shots. But you haven't looked yet at the body to see if there's any separate self either as or in there, so let's do that. In direct experience:

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

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

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

Can you say a bit more about what you mean by However, the movement still seems deliberate. Specifically, is this seeming to be deliberate something you're aware of in direct experience, or is it what thinking is 'telling' 'you'? If the former, please describe what happens. Also, I'm not clear what you mean when you say a spastic arm would be very surprising for example.

Great catch; it's definitely thinking telling me this. In direct experience: movements occur, sensations occur, and thoughts occur. It is in the content of my thoughts that the notion of "deliberate action" arises.

By "spastic arm" I meant to contrast the seeming deliberateness of any regular 'ol movement (like raising my arm which, after being registered by thought, isn't surprising to me) vs. a random spasm/convulsion that is clearly not under 'my' control and therefore would be very surprising. My thoughts protest about the former, whereas my thoughts acknowledge that the latter is out of 'my' control.

This reminds me of the role of attention I mentioned earlier: in DE, wherever the spotlight of attention is directed toward, thoughts rush in and the content of attention is attributed to 'me'. For example, I blink my eyes thousands of times a day, but typically 'my' attention is not directed toward the blinking and it therefore seems like an automatic action; but, when attention is turned toward blinking (when an eye is irritated for example) then thoughts rush in about the blinking and all of a sudden it feels like "I am blinking". The scope of 'my' attention is very limited, and its within those bounds that thoughts seem to bounce around in.

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

This is a difficult question for me, but here's a stab at it:

In DE, when my eyes are closed, 'I' feel as large as the breadth/extent of my awareness. For example, there's a bird chirping outside of a window right now and, with my eyes closed, I feel as expansive as the distance between 'me' and the bird ... as far as hearing extends. The body's presence isn't even felt when I'm fully relaxed (unless there's an itch somewhere, haha). However, as soon I open my eyes, I see the body and it appears to be the container in which all sensations and thoughts occur.

To answer your question however: it is not necessarily the case that the body is experiencing sensations and thoughts. The body is simply occurring as well (and constantly changing, like a sand dune in the wind). But this is more of an intellectual understanding for now, I think.

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

With my eyes closed, yes. With my eyes open, however, I can't seem to see the body as another thought-label.

When fully relaxed though, and looking at a hand, I can't even feel the sensation of the hand's existence. It's almost as if there is a piece of wood sitting very close to me (seemingly connected to the torso). In that sense, the hand is just another label, but I'm feeling stuck in this regard.

Wishing you well,
Prabh

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

Great catch; it's definitely thinking telling me this. In direct experience: movements occur, sensations occur, and thoughts occur. It is in the content of my thoughts that the notion of "deliberate action" arises.

It's good to be able to recognise that thoughts are constantly commentating on what's simply happening in this moment and so distinguish thought content from direct experience, spontaneously returning awareness to this, now.

By "spastic arm" I meant to contrast the seeming deliberateness of any regular 'ol movement (like raising my arm which, after being registered by thought, isn't surprising to me) vs. a random spasm/convulsion that is clearly not under 'my' control and therefore would be very surprising. My thoughts protest about the former, whereas my thoughts acknowledge that the latter is out of 'my' control.

Ok, thanks for the clarification Prabh.

This reminds me of the role of attention I mentioned earlier: in DE, wherever the spotlight of attention is directed toward, thoughts rush in and the content of attention is attributed to 'me'. For example, I blink my eyes thousands of times a day, but typically 'my' attention is not directed toward the blinking and it therefore seems like an automatic action; but, when attention is turned toward blinking (when an eye is irritated for example) then thoughts rush in about the blinking and all of a sudden it feels like "I am blinking". The scope of 'my' attention is very limited, and its within those bounds that thoughts seem to bounce around in.

As I've said before, your 'experimenting' with looking at experiencing is really helpful, as your observations around blinking clearly show. The more you look, the more it becomes clear that stuff just happens of its own accord.

The body's presence isn't even felt when I'm fully relaxed (unless there's an itch somewhere, haha). However, as soon I open my eyes, I see the body and it appears to be the container in which all sensations and thoughts occur.

From what you say, you see 'the body' as merely a label for sensations arising in awareness, if your eyes are closed. It's only seeing (literally, as in visual sensing) that leads to the appearance of a 'body' being present, and appearing to be a container. You go on to say that, intellectually at least, you don't see the body as a fixed object that is the subject of experiences, and that really there are just ever-changing sensations, labelled as 'body'. So, the questions that occur to me are: why is it only when seeing (in the visual sense) that the body appears to 'you' to exist as a discreet object, and why do you regard your knowing the body to be a label for ever-changing sensations to be merely intellectual? Not surprisingly, to clarify both of these apparent problems, I suggest you look again in direct experience.

With your eyes closed, look in direct experience. Is there 'a body' present or is that merely a concept, a label? If an entity called a body is present please describe it.

Now, with eyes open, look again in direct experience. With the addition of seeing, has an entity called a body appeared, or is that still merely a concept, a label? If a body, that wasn't there before, did actually appear when you opened your eyes - and it's not just a label that thought applies to various shapes and colours almost immediately after they are perceived as raw experience - what is this entity that is dependant on/conjured up by seeing? Please describe it.

Finally, looking in direct experience can you find a separate self in, or as, the body? If so, please describe it.

I hope you're still enjoying this as much as I am Prabh.

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

With your eyes closed, look in direct experience. Is there 'a body' present or is that merely a concept, a label? If an entity called a body is present please describe it.

In direct experience, only sensations and thoughts are present, and there's no solid core anchoring those sensations or thoughts ... just emptiness. The body resides in thought. For example, when I think "oh, my foot is asleep", the thought invokes 'a body' and then points it to 'me'. But, when a thought about the body is not there, the body dissolves out into the surroundings that are sensed. In that instance, if there were to be an 'I', then it would be as expansive as all of the sensations that are experienced (far away ones, such as hearing and smell, and the close by ones, such as touch and taste).

Day to day, I' don't actively think about the body often, but I have an unshakable faith in the notion that there's such a thing as 'my body'. That faith is crumbling a bit now, haha.

Now, with eyes open, look again in direct experience. With the addition of seeing, has an entity called a body appeared, or is that still merely a concept, a label? If a body, that wasn't there before, did actually appear when you opened your eyes - and it's not just a label that thought applies to various shapes and colours almost immediately after they are perceived as raw experience - what is this entity that is dependant on/conjured up by seeing? Please describe it.

Those are great questions. I'm finding it a little difficult to answer them, but here's a shot:

I did the following a few times: closed my eyes > looked at DE > sensed the body dissolve when concepts about it were absent > opened my eyes > and continued looking at DE. But I can't seem to hone in on that brief moment before labels are applied to observed colors and shapes. The entity conjured up by my visual experience is in fact a collection of colors and shapes ... but the torso, limbs, hands, and feet are all registered as 'mine' immediately after the eyes open.

Finally, looking in direct experience can you find a separate self in, or as, the body? If so, please describe it.

I can't find a separate self in the body but, as I mentioned above, the visual experience of the body makes it appear to be 'mine' and therefore separate from everything else.

I hope you're still enjoying this as much as I am Prabh.

I definitely am! This is one of the hardest things I've ever done; thanks SO much for all the time you've spent with me, and for your patience.

-Prabh

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

In direct experience, only sensations and thoughts are present, and there's no solid core anchoring those sensations or thoughts ... just emptiness. The body resides in thought. For example, when I think "oh, my foot is asleep", the thought invokes 'a body' and then points it to 'me'. But, when a thought about the body is not there, the body dissolves out into the surroundings that are sensed. In that instance, if there were to be an 'I', then it would be as expansive as all of the sensations that are experienced (far away ones, such as hearing and smell, and the close by ones, such as touch and taste).

You see, you've summed it al up there beautifully: no such thing as a body, and no possibility therefore of a separate self in, or as,the body.

Day to day, I' don't actively think about the body often, but I have an unshakable faith in the notion that there's such a thing as 'my body'. That faith is crumbling a bit now, haha.

The body only 'appears' when thoughts referring to it arise, whether you call those thoughts 'belief' or 'faith'.

I went on to ask: Now, with eyes open, look again in direct experience. With the addition of seeing, has an entity called a body appeared, or is that still merely a concept, a label? If a body, that wasn't there before, did it actually appear when you opened your eyes - and it's not just a label that thought applies to various shapes and colours almost immediately after they are perceived as raw experience - what is this entity that is dependant on/conjured up by seeing? Please describe it.

My sole reason for asking this was to establish whether, when you opened your eyes, an entity, 'the body', arose in vision. In turn, this is only relevant because, either grossly or subtly, this body-entity may be identified as being, or containing, 'you' as a self-entity. In reply you've said:

I did the following a few times: closed my eyes > looked at DE > sensed the body dissolve when concepts about it were absent > opened my eyes > and continued looking at DE. But I can't seem to hone in on that brief moment before labels are applied to observed colors and shapes. The entity conjured up by my visual experience is in fact a collection of colors and shapes ... but the torso, limbs, hands, and feet are all registered as 'mine' immediately after the eyes open.

To me, there seems to be nothing 'wrong' with your answer. You say, I can't seem to hone in on that brief moment before labels are applied to observed colors and shapes, and, the entity conjured up by my visual experience is in fact a collection of colors and shapes. This indicates that you know from direct experience that, prior to labelling, there are just colours and shapes, not a body, 'your' body! My question was simply to establish whether an entity, 'the body', actually appears in direct experience, or is just a label that thought applies to various shapes and colours almost immediately after they are perceived as raw experience. You have confirmed that this is what happens, not that the body exists as a discrete entity in direct experience.

Is my description and understanding of what you are saying correct Prabh? If not, please explain why and we'll look at this some more.

Also in reply to my question - Finally, looking in direct experience can you find a separate self in, or as, the body? If so, please describe it - you said:

I can't find a separate self in the body but, as I mentioned above, the visual experience of the body makes it appear to be 'mine' and therefore separate from everything else.

You haven't said for sure whether you've been able to find a separate self as the body. Please let me know whether you can and, if so, provide details from 'your' direct experience.

This is one of the hardest things I've ever done; thanks SO much for all the time you've spent with me, and for your patience.

Yes, it is hard work at times, but it should also be fun, and I'm glad that we're both enjoying this looking process. It's my absolute pleasure to be able to help you.

Pete x

[gnoneme]

Hi Pete,

Is my description and understanding of what you are saying correct Prabh? If not, please explain why and we'll look at this some more.

There was doubt present in 'my' thoughts, but your description is spot on. A 'body' does not appear in DE, but does appear when thoughts about a body arise. Sure, sensations felt on the skin seem closer than the hearing of a bird chirping further away, but even that is a function of thoughts arising and immediately labeling raw experience.

Pretty surreal!

You haven't said for sure whether you've been able to find a separate self as the body. Please let me know whether you can and, if so, provide details from 'your' direct experience.

By "separate self as the body", do you mean if I've been able to find separation between 'my' body and 'my' surroundings? If so:

Hmmm, 'I' am looking at a laptop keyboard right now, and 'my' fingers (narrow, brown) are resting on keyboard keys (black, rounded squares). Everything that is being observed resides within awareness and, in that sense, nothing is really separate from each other. 'My' fingers have a shape, texture, and color that are different from the keyboard keys, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the two are separate, even when the fingers seemingly rise above the keys and there is a gap between them (that gap is occupied by the shape, texture, and color of the table when looked at from a specific perspective).

This reminds me of a black and white drawing on paper: various objects are delineated from each other through the use of shading, shadow, and perspective, but everything in the drawing still resides on one piece of paper. When looking at the drawing, I can say that I see 5 different objects (the contents of the drawing), but I can also say that I see one object (the paper that contains the drawing). I'm not sure if this metaphor makes much sense, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw it out there.

Wishing you well,
Prabh

[moondog]

Hi Prabh,

There was doubt present in 'my' thoughts, but your description is spot on. A 'body' does not appear in DE, but does appear when thoughts about a body arise. Sure, sensations felt on the skin seem closer than the hearing of a bird chirping further away, but even that is a function of thoughts arising and immediately labeling raw experience.

Good to know. I just needed to be sure. I'll be doing a recap via a bunch of sweep-up question shortly, so there will be another opportunity for you to point up any areas of remaining uncertainty then anyway.

Hmmm, 'I' am looking at a laptop keyboard right now, and 'my' fingers (narrow, brown) are resting on keyboard keys (black, rounded squares). Everything that is being observed resides within awareness and, in that sense, nothing is really separate from each other. 'My' fingers have a shape, texture, and color that are different from the keyboard keys, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the two are separate, even when the fingers seemingly rise above the keys and there is a gap between them (that gap is occupied by the shape, texture, and color of the table when looked at from a specific perspective).
This reminds me of a black and white drawing on paper: various objects are delineated from each other through the use of shading, shadow, and perspective, but everything in the drawing still resides on one piece of paper. When looking at the drawing, I can say that I see 5 different objects (the contents of the drawing), but I can also say that I see one object (the paper that contains the drawing). I'm not sure if this metaphor makes much sense, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw it out there.

Oh yes, that makes a lot if sense to me Prabh. It also tells me how clearly you are now seeing in direct experience. Excellent, I'm really pleased :)

So, you've now looked very thoroughly in all the various areas of direct experience and you haven't been able to find a self in any of them. Before I ask you the aforementioned sweep-up questions, I'd just like to see what you make of the following, which just ask you to look at all of this from a bit of a different perspective:

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

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

Pete x