I am legion!

[Ann O'Nymous]

Hi Neil
I will get back to you late today - perhaps not until tomorrow. Thank you for the detailed reply and the questions.

[neeeel]

Hey, is everything ok? Havent heard from you for a couple of days

[Ann O'Nymous]

Hi again. I have been looking a long time. In that long time, I have neglected you! I don't know if you are still there? If you are, would you be willing to continue helping me?

I think I have a better understanding of where the gate might be, but no idea at all about how to find it!

[neeeel]

hey, yes, I am still around, and happy to continue the dialogue if you are willing.

Give me an idea of where you are now, what you have looked at, and seen, if anything.

[Ann O'Nymous]

Thanks! I have been reading a lot about meditation and mindfulness. Tim Parks, Dan Harris, Bhante G., the Buddhist subreddits. I am slightly further along the path in that I think that my resistance is weakening! I have been trying to meditate for at least 30 minutes a day and, while my mind is still chattering on, the actual sitting is becoming a habit.

I now see where you were coming from in pointing out how I was jumping from one definition to another in my resistance to the fact that "I" do not exist. I am now a little bit closer in seeing what you meant when you said that this wasn't some sort of discussion where things could be argued and then both sides could walk away with their own views intact (a loose paraphrase).

Where I seem to be as far away as ever is in *really* seeing that there is nothing to see!

[neeeel]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying,

Thanks! I have been reading a lot about meditation and mindfulness. Tim Parks, Dan Harris, Bhante G., the Buddhist subreddits. I am slightly further along the path in that I think that my resistance is weakening! I have been trying to meditate for at least 30 minutes a day and, while my mind is still chattering on, the actual sitting is becoming a habit.

I now see where you were coming from in pointing out how I was jumping from one definition to another in my resistance to the fact that "I" do not exist. I am now a little bit closer in seeing what you meant when you said that this wasn't some sort of discussion where things could be argued and then both sides could walk away with their own views intact (a loose paraphrase).

Resistance is fine. I am not expecting you to just accept what I say. What I would like, though, is to get away from the discussion,and more into LOOKING. So, for example, when I ask a question about the self, you go off into explanations of brains and neurons and synapses. This allows you to not look, because you already have an explanation ready. Why would you need to look when you already know the answer, right? BUT, you are just using pre-existing ideas, concepts, and beliefs to support those pre-existing ideas, concepts and beliefs, whereas what I am trying to get you to do is to look at whether those beliefs are true. So everyone assumes there is a self, in control, making decisions, thinking thoughts, living life etc, but is it actually true? One way to find out would be to look at everything we assume that the self does, and see if we can actually find a self doing it.

So we could look at thoughts. You say that , when you meditate, your "mind is still chattering on". Are you in control of this mind chatter? Can you stop and start it at will? Do you choose what subject the chatter is about? Are you the author or creator of every single one of those chattering thoughts?

Remember, explanations may pop up in thought, of neurons, brains, and so on, but this doesnt answer my questions. The only way to answer is to look at how the thoughts happen, to notice whether or not you created that thought, and that thought and that thought, and so on. Did you actively choose the subject of that thought, and that thought and that thought, and so on? Can you notice the beginnings and ends of thoughts, or are thoughts appearing in a constant stream?

Heres a few exercises to try, please try them all and report back on what you found, if anything

1) try and stop all thoughts for 5 minutes.
2) Try and think of a random thought. Take a note of the process that produces a random thought. Is the thought really random?
3) try and predict your next thought. Can you?

[Ann O'Nymous]

Hi Neil
I now "see" where you were coming from. Explanations are only received wisdom. You are encouraging me to look for myself rather than give undue weight to the [rather uncritically swallowed] explanations of others. Again, thanks for your perseverance!

Some of my answers are based on my experiences with meditation over the last month or so. In that time, I have learned that I simply cannot stop all thoughts for five minutes. To be honest, I don't think I can stop them for 5 seconds. As for random thoughts, the only way they come is when I am not trying. When I try, it feels forced or they are somehow related to things that have already happened. For example, I've been talking about how cold it is today. My first effortful "random" thought was weather-related. My second attempt was "I wonder who'll win the league?" Today's conversation has also featured football. Any other attempts to come up with something random are forced and laboured. My brain stutters and can't even come up with a full question.
There is no way that I can predict my next thought.

Does this mean that there is no "I" thinking the thoughts or does it mean that the "I" is hidden to me?

[Ann O'Nymous]

I've just been browsing one thread. Things made sense then stopped making sense!

I understand that all we see are things and actions. We label these things and actions. The labels are not real. What is real is unknown to us.

I love my children.

This is a thought. Thoughts are not real.

Are my children real?

What are children? "Children" is a label. Labels are thoughts. Thoughts are not real. But can I apply labels to real things? Are my children real?

My children are many things - the legion of things that the title of this thread referred to. But "my children" are only my thoughts about what my children are. Thoughts are not real. Which means my children are not what I think they are! I get it!

Are they my? What is "my"? If my children are not real, neither am I! I am legion! I am so many things that I am everything. If I am everything, it is the same as being nothing. If I am nothing, then things cannot belong to me. "My" children are not "my" children. They are "children".

What are "children"? It's only a label. Children do not exist. They're just concepts that arise from thoughts.

Does something love something? What is love? It's a concept too. Concepts and labels are products of thoughts and, of course, thoughts are not reality.

So, I can deconstruct it all and there is no "I", no "love", no "my" and no "children". There are just thoughts. Thoughts is just a label too. So there are not even thoughts! There is just something having thoughts. What is it? What does it matter? Anything that I use to name it is just a label. I can see that there are thoughts.

Can a dog have a buddha nature?
What is a dog?
What is a buddha?
What is a buddha nature?

There is seeing. There is seen.

[neeeel]

Hey,

Some of my answers are based on my experiences with meditation over the last month or so. In that time, I have learned that I simply cannot stop all thoughts for five minutes. To be honest, I don't think I can stop them for 5 seconds.

If you cant stop them, are you in control of them?

As for random thoughts, the only way they come is when I am not trying. When I try, it feels forced or they are somehow related to things that have already happened. For example, I've been talking about how cold it is today. My first effortful "random" thought was weather-related. My second attempt was "I wonder who'll win the league?" Today's conversation has also featured football. Any other attempts to come up with something random are forced and laboured. My brain stutters and can't even come up with a full question.

did you pay attention to the process? I know when I try it, there are a number of different thoughts presented, and most are rejected as not being random. Or else, my mind will go blank, and I need to look around the room or something to get a "prompt". Or else I have a stock set of "random" thoughts that I can use , eg "banana", or "rumpelstiltskin". Its worth just sitting and observing how the mind selects a random thought. Are you choosing which thoughts are being presented as random, or are there just thoughts coming up for selection? Do you choose which thought is selected as the random thought, or is there just another thought that says "Ok, this thought is random enough"? Take a look.

There is no way that I can predict my next thought.

Did you try it? Why cant you predict your next thought?

Does this mean that there is no "I" thinking the thoughts or does it mean that the "I" is hidden to me?

How many "I"s and "mes" are there in there? Theres an "I" that is also hidden from the "me"?

You currently believe that theres a self there, thinking the thoughts , right? Well, is it true? How much control do you have over thought?
1) Are you the creator, the author, of every single thought?
2) Are you choosing the subject of every single thought?

If there is an I thinking the thoughts, then that I should be able to stop and start thoughts, choose the subject of thoughts, know what the next thought will be, and so on.

My children are many things - the legion of things that the title of this thread referred to. But "my children" are only my thoughts about what my children are. Thoughts are not real. Which means my children are not what I think they are! I get it!

Yes, this is an important insight. Your children are not what you think they are. Your thoughts and beliefs about them, are not them.

So, I can deconstruct it all and there is no "I", no "love", no "my" and no "children". There are just thoughts. Thoughts is just a label too. So there are not even thoughts! There is just something having thoughts. What is it? What does it matter? Anything that I use to name it is just a label. I can see that there are thoughts.

Yes, no I, no love, no my, no children. What is there that would own something? Does a computer own its keyboard? Does a body own its hand? does the brain own the hand?

But there isnt just thoughts, is there? There is also, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. So there is the basic experience of things( eg your children) sights, sounds, smells, probably not tastes :D, and touch, and then thoughts about these things. Eg if there are a lot of loud sounds, then there may be a thought of "my children are being really noisy". This is what we refer to as Direct Experience. There are sensations, prior to thought ( thats the direct experience), and then after a very small gap, thoughts jump in to tell us about these sensations. See if you can notice this happening. You have mentioned it already, with labels. Notice as you go through your day, how everything is labelled. Also notice whether this is happening automatically, or whether there is a you actively doing the labelling.

Remember, we are not trying to get rid of the thoughts, or the labelling. They are not bad. What we are doing is looking, noticing.

There is just something having thoughts

Is there? Where is it? Can you find it?

[Ann O'Nymous]

Hi Neil

If you cant stop them, are you in control of them?

No. I get now that I am not in control of my thoughts. In fact, "I" am not! This makes sense to me.

did you pay attention to the process? I know when I try it, there are a number of different thoughts presented, and most are rejected as not being random. Or else, my mind will go blank, and I need to look around the room or something to get a "prompt". Or else I have a stock set of "random" thoughts that I can use , eg "banana", or "rumpelstiltskin". Its worth just sitting and observing how the mind selects a random thought. Are you choosing which thoughts are being presented as random, or are there just thoughts coming up for selection? Do you choose which thought is selected as the random thought, or is there just another thought that says "Ok, this thought is random enough"? Take a look.

I took a look. There's no uniform approach. There's a stream of half expressed thoughts that I can fish from; then there's the rather forced, laboured seletion of a thought; prompts give rise to some thoughts: visual, aural.

Did you try it? Why cant you predict your next thought?

Because there is no me? There is thinking, but no future thought. No past thought.

You currently believe that theres a self there, thinking the thoughts , right? Well, is it true? How much control do you have over thought?
1) Are you the creator, the author, of every single thought?
2) Are you choosing the subject of every single thought?

I guess not. It seems that I am just the echo chamber for the thought.

But there isnt just thoughts, is there? There is also, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. So there is the basic experience of things( eg your children) sights, sounds, smells, probably not tastes :D, and touch, and then thoughts about these things. Eg if there are a lot of loud sounds, then there may be a thought of "my children are being really noisy". This is what we refer to as Direct Experience.

Hmm. Is there sight? Is there sound? Taste? Smell, touch? If I can't see it, can it be seen? If I can't smell it, does it smell? Is there taste when I have a cold?
What makes sense real and thoughts not?

TNotice as you go through your day, how everything is labelled. Also notice whether this is happening automatically, or whether there is a you actively doing the labelling. Remember, we are not trying to get rid of the thoughts, or the labelling. They are not bad. What we are doing is looking, noticing.

It's automatic. Why do we notice? Is compassion just a label? How can a not-real I feel a not real emotion for a not-real other?

Is there? Where is it? Can you find it?

No - it's not to be found. There is just thinking.

[neeeel]

No. I get now that I am not in control of my thoughts. In fact, "I" am not! This makes sense to me.

Ok, you get it, but do you SEE it? its not about making sense ( to the rational reasoning brain), but rather a more basic recognition, "AHA" moment, noticing, looking thing.

Because there is no me? There is thinking, but no future thought. No past thought.

Also, how would the prediction be presented to you? As a thought, right? Which would make THAT thought the next thought, and so your prediction would always be wrong.

I guess not. It seems that I am just the echo chamber for the thought.

"Guess" isnt good enough. Do you SEE it. Keep looking. Maybe Im wrong about this. Look until you are sure. Also, are you the echo chamber?

Hmm. Is there sight? Is there sound? Taste? Smell, touch? If I can't see it, can it be seen? If I can't smell it, does it smell? Is there taste when I have a cold?

There are different "input streams" which we label sight sound taste etc. Sight is shapes and colours ( yes, again concepts, but we need to use concepts when communicating). And those are good questions. If you cant see it, can it be seen, and so on. Its for you to answer them, not me.

What makes sense real and thoughts not?

Thoughts are real, where by real I mean sensed or perceived. the content of thought is not real.

It's automatic. Why do we notice? Is compassion just a label? How can a not-real I feel a not real emotion for a not-real other?

Can a not real I do anything, feel anything? This is the crux of the matter. Stuff is happening, feelings, thoughts, sensations, etc. Is there an I there sensing, feeling, thinking? Or is sensing , feeling, thinking just happening, to no one? Take a look. Do you choose which thoughts are present? Do you choose which feelings are present?

Sit down, and close your eyes. Listen to the sounds around you. Is there an experiencer of sound here, a sound over there, and an experience of sound happening? Or is the sound, and the experience of the sound, the same thing? Can you find any separation between the sound and the experience of the sound?

We notice in order to see the truth. We believe that there is an I, a self, running the show. When we look, when we notice, we see that its not the case.

Yes, compassion is just a label. And yet, people act in ways that could be labelled as compassionate.

[Ann O'Nymous]

Hi

"Guess" isnt good enough. Do you SEE it. Keep looking. Maybe Im wrong about this. Look until you are sure. Also, are you the echo chamber?

No - you're not wrong. I need to look more and more so that the implications of this realisation are clear to me. At the moment, I "get" it. There was a "Doh!" moment when I finally realised what you have been trying to show me, but when I look outside the window, I still see office workers, builders, cars, the weather etc. Then I have to strain to see how they are not there. How what I am seeing is something that I can't understand, but then label to help me. Is this how you still see the world or does seeing become something else?

When I typed the comment about the echo chamber, I felt that it was wrong. I am not an echo chamber because I am not! Thoughts rise. What am I to the thoughts? The experiencer? The Body without which the thoughts cannot be? Possibly the latter. Still possibly though!

There are different "input streams" which we label sight sound taste etc. Sight is shapes and colours ( yes, again concepts, but we need to use concepts when communicating). And those are good questions. If you cant see it, can it be seen, and so on. Its for you to answer them, not me.

I will give them some thought. Is meditation helpful? I'm still struggling with the concept of meditating on something - I am still trying to anchor myself to my breath. Do you have any tips on how to approach these questions in meditation?

Thoughts are real, where by real I mean sensed or perceived. the content of thought is not real.

This I see! Nicely put! Thanks, Neil.

Sit down, and close your eyes. Listen to the sounds around you. Is there an experiencer of sound here, a sound over there, and an experience of sound happening? Or is the sound, and the experience of the sound, the same thing? Can you find any separation between the sound and the experience of the sound?

This is great. I will give this some thought/attention and hopefully see what I can see. Herein, perhaps, lies the key to me seeing it rather than getting it.

Yes, compassion is just a label. And yet, people act in ways that could be labelled as compassionate.

Great! This I see too. So compassion is not a choice that we make in our efforts to free ourselves from our circular behaviour? Rather, it is a label that we can apply to behaviour that arises? When people see the truth, is the idea that compassion arises more freely?

I am trying to understand how seeing the truth sits alongside the exhortations of some to be compassionate; or how we can break out of samsara if we are not in control of our actions. What is trying to see the truth? I don't mean "what does it mean", but "what is the thing that is trying to see the truth"?

[neeeel]

No - you're not wrong. I need to look more and more so that the implications of this realisation are clear to me. At the moment, I "get" it. There was a "Doh!" moment when I finally realised what you have been trying to show me, but when I look outside the window, I still see office workers, builders, cars, the weather etc. Then I have to strain to see how they are not there. How what I am seeing is something that I can't understand, but then label to help me. Is this how you still see the world or does seeing become something else?

You dont need to strain to see how they are not there. Do you need to strain to see clouds in the sky? Or that your shoes are blue? What you are actually straining with is thought. You are straining to align your thoughts along certain paths, certain beliefs ( "these things do not exist", etc). "these things do not exist " is a thought, and, as we have seen, the content of thought is not real, and full of concepts. We do not need to change our thoughts or beliefs( as if we can anyway!) , but simply to see that we arent doing them, and that the content isnt real. This includes thoughts about looking, thoughts about enlightenment, thoughts about things existing.

Relax, let go of straining. We dont need to "see" in any particular way, we dont need to hold the thought, the belief, the view, that they dont exist.

I will give them some thought. Is meditation helpful? I'm still struggling with the concept of meditating on something - I am still trying to anchor myself to my breath. Do you have any tips on how to approach these questions in meditation?

I am no expert on meditation, but it seems to me like you are approaching it wrong. You seem to have got hold of the western idea that meditation is sitting and thinking deeply about things ( sorry if I have stated your view wrongly , but this is what you seem to be saying). I would say this couldnt be further from what meditation is. Meditation is a more formal way of doing what we do here, looking and noticing. Focusing on the breath allows your thoughts to quieten a bit, you notice the gaps between them, you notice that they are not you, and you are not doing them, you notice all the other things, body sensations, sounds, etc. Some types of meditation also label everything as it comes up eg "that was a thought" "that was a sound", "that was a body sensation".
Thinking about things is not meditation , imo.
You dont need to set out a formal time to do this though. You can do it wherever, whenever. Whenever you remember, observe your thoughts, how they come and go, observe how much of your actions are "automatic", eg walking, talking, working, breathing. When you walk down the road, are you controlling your legs, moving each muscle at the right time, in the right order? When you are talking to someone, are you controlling the lips, the breathing, the tongue, the sounds that are produced? And so on.

This is great. I will give this some thought/attention and hopefully see what I can see. Herein, perhaps, lies the key to me seeing it rather than getting it.

Yes, you can do it with other sensations too ( sight, taste, touch, thought( which can be classed as a perception)). It is a good way to look at whether the experiencer, the perceiver, actually exists.

Great! This I see too. So compassion is not a choice that we make in our efforts to free ourselves from our circular behaviour? Rather, it is a label that we can apply to behaviour that arises? When people see the truth, is the idea that compassion arises more freely?

If we believe in a self, a separate entity, then we are going to act in order to protect that entity. so if someone says "You are so stupid", then immediately thoughts arise, denying that we are stupid, accusing the other person of being mean, emotions arise in response to the thoughts and beliefs, anger, embarassment etc. We lash out at the other person in defence of our self. Its worth taking time to observe this process happening with you. Next time something makes you angry, observe the thoughts arising, and how the thoughts and emotions are linked. Observe how what you believe about what happened, about the other person, influence your actions.

If we dont believe in a self, then there is no need to defend that self. Of course, the thoughts and emotions can still arise in response to an event. And sometimes, we dont see through the thoughts and emotions, and react defensively. Because, guess what, there is no you to see through anything. No controlling of thoughts, emotions and responses. Just a whole load of causes and effects, arising conditions, however you want to put it. Sometimes there will be noticing of the thoughts and emotions, realisation of what is happening, and laughter at how silly it is. Other times you will react as if the separate self really exists.

I am trying to understand how seeing the truth sits alongside the exhortations of some to be compassionate; or how we can break out of samsara if we are not in control of our actions. What is trying to see the truth? I don't mean "what does it mean", but "what is the thing that is trying to see the truth"?

There is no you to be compassionate. There is no you to break out of samsara. There is no you that is suffering. There is no thing that is trying to see the truth.

There is no you that gains enlightenment. There is no such thing as enlightenment.

[Ann O'Nymous]

Thanks, Neil.

There is no you to be compassionate. There is no you to break out of samsara. There is no you that is suffering. There is no thing that is trying to see the truth.

There is no you that gains enlightenment. There is no such thing as enlightenment.

Whew! Yes, I can see how this follows; the fact that it blindsided me suggests that I am still "getting it" but not "seeing it". I think I may need some time. Although it may be as simple as just "seeing", I have a life of "not seeing" to get over!

[neeeel]

Whew! Yes, I can see how this follows; the fact that it blindsided me suggests that I am still "getting it" but not "seeing it". I think I may need some time[/quote]

Ye, take whatever time you need, although it may help to report in every day, even if you feel you havent got anywhwere

Although it may be as simple as just "seeing", I have a life of "not seeing" to get over!

Does the "not seeing" stop you from seeing now?