Request for guide Moondog

[Andy Blackford]

Thanks, Pete - just seen this. I'm going to contemplate it today, during my breaks at the gaol. I will try to get some kind of response back to you before tomorrow, depending on how I get on. Failing that, tomorrow morning. But here's what's behind my comments about being able to control my thoughts to a limited extent: Sometimes I sit to meditate and (it seems that) "I" can impose some order and stability to my mind - fiddle with the TV controls to achieve a clearer picture. Sometimes "I" can't and thoughts are everywhere, like litter blowing in the wind. I definitely have the impression that "I" am using my volition to achieve (or fail to achieve) this. Please talk me out of it - I'm aware, even as I'm writing, that this view is probably just another expression of the 'self' delusion, but I can't quite grasp how.

[moondog]

Hi Gemma,

... either there's a thought that's telling you that there's 'something' aware of this awareness, or you can see this 'something' in direct experience. Looking at this in another way, with no self, there' can be no 'other', so no 'something' to know 'something else'. How about awareness simply being aware of/knowing itself? Do you see that?

Yup indeed --- awareness aware of itself...chuckles a lot this awareness

Lovely. I like that 'it' chuckles :)

When eyes closed there are many tingly sensations in the area memory tells me the body is...beither just background of tingling or looking some cold, hard, soft, warm touch sensations and some tingling. If move to particular sensations e.g. cold hard sensations, others fade into background or disapear. Certainly not a whole body sensation/shape. So sensations arising there in awareness, not a body experiencing them.

These and your other observations and comments tell me that you see very clearly that there's just experiencing, nothing else.

The body is a thought label, just a concept construct thing. My cat does not, ‘i’ perceive, label it a body, just a warm stroke giving food giving thing..or some such but not a body!. The ‘body’ kind of does lots of stuff on autopilot so something is there doing something.
Don’t think would call the ‘body’ a thought label for tactile and kinaesthetic sensations though, the sensations are just sensations. We tend to talk of the sensations as in the body area though, or the body touching, moving..

Yep, I get that. Great poetry too!

So Gemma, 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 some 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?

Splendid stuff.

Pete x

[moondog]

Hi Andy,

Sorry, I don't know how that happened. Lines got somehow crossed within the workings of the forum. Please ignore this, it's for another client. Yours will follow shortly.

Pete

[moondog]

Hi Andy,

Ok, this one definitely is for you!

...here's what's behind my comments about being able to control my thoughts to a limited extent: Sometimes I sit to meditate and (it seems that) "I" can impose some order and stability to my mind - fiddle with the TV controls to achieve a clearer picture. Sometimes "I" can't and thoughts are everywhere, like litter blowing in the wind. I definitely have the impression that "I" am using my volition to achieve (or fail to achieve) this. Please talk me out of it - I'm aware, even as I'm writing, that this view is probably just another expression of the 'self' delusion, but I can't quite grasp how.

Thanks for letting me know and I look forward to your replies by some time tomorrow. No worries.

In the meantime, I can't reiterate too strongly that all this process is about is looking at your direct experience which, by definition can only be right now. What it's not about and can never be about, is thinking and what 'your' thoughts are telling you. If it was, most people would have probably figured it all out for themselves by now.

You say - (it seems that) "I" can impose some order and stability to my mind - fiddle with the TV controls to achieve a clearer picture - interestingly, with the first three words in parentheses. What do you mean by - it seems that,and later - I definitely have the impression that ? I can't imagine that either can refer to anything but a thought-based impression, belief or conclusion, but correct me if that's not the case. If it's not simply based on thinking, surely it must be direct experience. Hence my first set of comments and questions in my last post, viz:

I follow all that you say about control, or rather lack of control of thoughts, but I'm puzzled when you say I have a limited control of my thoughts. This indicates that you do have some control over your thoughts. Not at all from what you think but just from direct experience, please describe to me how this control, or partial control, manifests itself. What can you see that is doing this controlling? How does it work? If there is no evidence of such a controller or controlling mechanism in 'your' direct experience, is it really just thinking that is telling you this? If neither, what else can it be?

Just remember Andy, thoughts simply arise, abide awhile and subside, with no thinker. That being so, thoughts that 'say' that there's a 'you' or any kind of entity that has some kind of control or influence over other thoughts may continue to arise for a while, even when it's been for certain seen that there's no thinker/controller; just as a whole variety of I-thoughts can continue to arise even when the illusion of separate self has been seen to be just that. So long as these are seen for what they are - impersonal arisings that may relay information that is useful for practical purposes, but essentially have no referents in direct experience - there can be no problem.

Pete x

[Andy Blackford]

Oh dear. I thought I had it but it's gone again. 'You' are telling me to look inside - so 'I' look inside and come to conclusions about what is and what isn't there? Is this not me, directing/controlling my thoughts?
Where I'm getting hung up is on Volition. The reality you're pointing at seems entirely passive - things just occur - without any room for effort, will or choice.
Help me out here, please!
And forgive the plonky typing - I'm on my iPhone in the prison car park...
Andy

[moondog]

Hi Andy,

Oh dear. I thought I had it but it's gone again. 'You' are telling me to look inside - so 'I' look inside and come to conclusions about what is and what isn't there? Is this not me, directing/controlling my thoughts?
Where I'm getting hung up is on Volition. The reality you're pointing at seems entirely passive - things just occur - without any room for effort, will or choice.

Ok, it might be helpful if I break this down to try and clarify unambiguously what's going on here.

Oh dear. I thought I had it but it's gone again.

The following isn't a trick question, or me being a smartarse( for a change); I'm just trying to see where you're at with all of this. Bearing in mind that this is solely about seeing in direct experience whether there's any separate self to be found at all, or ever was, what is it that you think you had, but is now gone again?

'You' are telling me to look inside - so 'I' look inside and come to conclusions about what is and what isn't there?

All I'm asking you to do is look at your everyday experience using your senses. Given that, earlier, you said that you could see no seer, only seeing, no hearer, only hearing (you haven't yet confirmed that this also applies to the other senses but I'm assuming so), I'm not sure why you refer to looking 'inside'. If there's no seer etc., how can there be an inside or outside? There's just experiencing. Just look in direct experience. Can you find an inside, or an outside?

so 'I' look inside and come to conclusions about what is and what isn't there?

'Coming to conclusions' suggests the culmination of thought processes which have absolutely no part to play in this, as I've stressed before. When you gaze out of the window and see a tree or whatever, or hear kids playing in the street, isn't there just the experiencing of that, without any effort required and no concluding necessary? So, when you see (i.e. there is seeing), hear, taste, smell, touch, in exactly that same way, is there a 'you' seen/heard/tasted/smelled/touched as an entity, directing or controlling thoughts or indeed doing anything, or present at all?

Where I'm getting hung up is on Volition.

Looking at the whole area around volition follows on quite naturally from this, and we'll look at that specifically soon. Let's continue looking at thinking for now.

The reality you're pointing at seems entirely passive - things just occur - without any room for effort, will or choice.

Tedious repetition I know, but all I'm asking you to do is look at 'your' direct experience to see if you can find a self there. If you can't, there ain't one. There's just life living itself as it always has and yes, things do just occur - without any effort, will or choice, because there's nothing, no entity actually there doing or directing anything. Only thoughts tell us different. Calling this 'passive' can only have any meaning or make any sense with reference to a separate self. Can you find one?

Anyway Andy, I really hope that this helps clarify all of this for you. Looking forward to your replies to this and the three questions from my post from a couple of days ago.

Pete x

[Andy Blackford]

Hi Pete, I'm sorry to be a nuisance - I've interrupted you so much, I've lost track of which three questions I still need to answer.

[Andy Blackford]

Got the questions, Pete - posted as part of your reply to me on Tuesday. Back later.

[moondog]

Hi Andy.

No problem, it's these (plus the overlooked one on sense arisings, listed first):

For the sake of completeness, can you just confirm that you find the same in experiencing touch, taste and smell as well.

I follow all that you say about control, or rather lack of control of thoughts, but I'm puzzled when you say I have a limited control of my thoughts. This indicates that you do have some control over your thoughts. Not at all from what you think but just from direct experience, please describe to me how this control, or partial control, manifests itself. What can you see that is doing this controlling? How does it work? If there is no evidence of such a controller or controlling mechanism in 'your' direct experience, is it really just thinking that is telling you this? If neither, what else can it be?

Again, is this not a memory or thought story? Looking in direct experience, can you find any evidence of anything, any entity or mechanism, that slows down thoughts. If so, please describe how this happens and what exactly does it.

I agree that it may seem like thoughts can develop in linear progression but, aside from other thoughts telling you that, is there anything you can see in direct experience that shows that thoughts can organise themselves in such a way?

There's no rush to answer these Andy. Just relax, take your time and let me know what you can (and can't) see.

Pete x

[moondog]

We crossed.

P

[Andy Blackford]

Hello Pete,

Well. I’ve had an interesting couple of days, alternating between anger (directed at myself, you, the process…) and bouts of almost-tearful self-pity!

I’ve been astonished at the depth of the feelings – resentment, frustration, inadequacy, anxiety – that have been aroused by our dialogue. Yesterday, I was sure that either I wasn’t ‘up to it’, or that it was all nonsense: “Of COURSE I have/am a Self, otherwise there wouldn’t even be a ‘me’ to obey your instruction to look for one!”

Anyway, I woke early and sat for a while this morning, contemplating the three questions (+ the remainder of the questions from the earlier post).

1. I am not able to detect a self in the operation of any of my senses.
2. The control, or partial control, of my senses is indeed illusory. It is a theory I have added later – a kind of schema or diagrammatic representation I create to ‘explain’ in conventional, subject/object terms what is actually a spontaneous and orderless phenomenon.
3. The same is true of ‘slowing down’ my thoughts. Something happens during meditation, a calming of mental activity, but ‘I’ am not doing it.
4. Thoughts do not organise themselves in a progression, nor in any other way: this is again a construct imposed in retrospect to rationalise an event that is essentially too fast and subtle to describe.

Yesterday I was intending to write to you, complaining that whenever I wanted or intended to examine my consciousness – to ‘look’ for evidence of self, as instructed – I sort of veered off. I could seem to do anything EXCEPT what you were instructing me to do. It was as if a police investigation were being thwarted by a sinister conspiracy, determined to protect the guilty!

This morning I realised that I was finding it so frustrating and difficult to look for a Self, not out of fear or incompetence or lack of self-discipline or a conspiracy by friends of the Self, but simply because there isn’t one there.

Lastly, I struggled with the instruction to ‘look’. For me, it’s the wrong word (although it seems to be the one most used in LU). It implies an activity which in turn assumes a duality. For me, it reinforces the idea of an ‘I’ – one that is required to ‘do’ things. Just being AWARE works better for me: or WATCHING rather than actively looking.

I know this might sound like nit-picking but for me it’s an important distinction. Once I just settled and watched, it became clear that the experience of the moment is an entirely different ORDER of thing from the analysing, ordering and structure-imposing that we do when trying to describe or explain experience.

I think that describing experience is a bit like writing a CV in which we post-rationalise our ‘career’ as though it were a well-thought-out, logical path – when really it was the outcome of a supremely complex web of conditionality.

Finally, part of me wants to jump around and yell this morning, but I daren’t. I still feel cautious and slightly suspicious.

Your problem child,

Andy

[moondog]

Hi Andy,

Well. I’ve had an interesting couple of days, alternating between anger (directed at myself, you, the process…) and bouts of almost-tearful self-pity! I’ve been astonished at the depth of the feelings – resentment, frustration, inadequacy, anxiety – that have been aroused by our dialogue. Yesterday, I was sure that either I wasn’t ‘up to it’, or that it was all nonsense: “Of COURSE I have/am a Self, otherwise there wouldn’t even be a ‘me’ to obey your instruction to look for one!” This morning I realised that I was finding it so frustrating and difficult to look for a Self, not out of fear or incompetence or lack of self-discipline or a conspiracy by friends of the Self, but simply because there isn’t one there.

Yeah, I could tell you were having a 'dark night of the soul' type event, stirred up by all this searching, and as a reaction by 'your ego' to try and abort this. I'm very glad that's it's much clearer now. And your understanding will be that much clearer and stable because of the process you've gone through to arrive at it.

Thanks for your clear, unambiguous answers. As I said earlier, I did think you'd 'got it' regarding thinking and there being no thinker, but it's now clear that you needed to do some more looking in experience to see with full clarity.

Lastly, I struggled with the instruction to ‘look’. For me, it’s the wrong word (although it seems to be the one most used in LU). It implies an activity which in turn assumes a duality. For me, it reinforces the idea of an ‘I’ – one that is required to ‘do’ things. Just being AWARE works better for me: or WATCHING rather than actively looking.

I think your point is a good one, and is along the same lines as my suggestion that you do this 'looking' in exactly the same way as gazing out of a window, hearing kids playing etc, and I'm pleased that his helped do the trick. Weirdly, I'd decided to follow that up by writing to you this morning, stressing that 'looking' used as it is in this context should not be interpreted to mean any kind of wilful or effortful searching, just being aware, like gazing out of a window, or at some scenery, or a carpet, anything really. Anyway, I'm pleased you beat me to it.

So, this looking at thoughts and thinking has been good and thorough, and I reckon also helpful for you in the way you can now approach this whole process. So, now 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'?

I'm pleased with how this is going Andy.

Pete x

[Andy Blackford]

Hi Pete I'm at small-day event at the Centre but will try to write later: it's all going well, though - no self in actions. If I can't write today, tomorrow morning latest. Andy x

[moondog]

No problem Andy.

Enjoy your day.

Catch you later.


Pete x

[Andy Blackford]

Hello Pete,

1.

I can’t find a Self behind my everyday actions. This seems more obviously absent than in the ‘thoughts and feelings’ exercise. Perhaps about the same as in the 'sense perceptions' one.

‘No self’ is most evident of all when driving and walking. 'Driving on auto-pilot’, of course, is often used as a metaphor for the way we sleepwalk through life.

2.

‘Automatic’ sounds like ‘robotic’ or ‘like an automaton’ – it’s not quite as machine-like as that seems to imply: more fluid and subtle. More intelligent, perhaps. But nevertheless, not captained by a Self.

3.

There is never a thought: ‘I did that’. Is that because the thing I did wasn’t very remarkable? Or because there isn’t time, I’m already on to the next thing? Instead I think it’s because there’s no instinctive attribution of the action to a Self. (This question makes a particularly good Self Test, I think). My response applies to quite complex tasks, too: for instance, when I write a poem I’m completely engaged in every moment of the process – but as soon as it’s ‘finished’, I no longer feel a sense of personal engagement with it. It’s as if someone else wrote it – even to the point where I feel like a bit of an imposter when I enter it into a competition, or when someone praises it. (I notice I’m not quite so detached when someone slags it off, however…).

4. So with my slight reservations about the associations of the word, ‘automatic’, I’d say yes, all actions do share that Selfless quality.

Best wishes,

Andy x