The Gate

Great stuff John,

We can focus on this properly once you've had the chance to report back on the first experiment (choosing between two objects), Some good examples given above and you're obviously starting to observe very nicely how it's all happening but we'll hold off until your next post which only needs to concentrate on the two choice exercise.

Mike :-)

Please place two objects in front of you, (fairly randomly). Next make a choice as to which object is picked up. Pay very careful attention to what happens, particularly the exact moment the choice happens. This can be repeated as many times as you like. The important point is that you just look and observe what happens and in what order.

On the first try, I sat there with the two objects in front of me. I notice a preference for the object on the right develop - a mental image of picking it up first. Then "Well let's make sure it's not just because I'm right handed, or the right-hand object is more complex/interesting than the one on the left." So I picked them up and switched places. As soon as I picked them up, I realized that I picked up the one on the right first and that the choice had been made.

So now, with them switched positions, again I sat looking at them, with curiosity about which one would be picked up first. Just looking at them, studying their visual attributes, hands poised next to each one. Typing here. Then returning attention to the objects, I picked them up and shifted them slightly to the left, readying them for the exercise. And noticed that I'd picked them up again without having "made" a choice about it. This time, the more interesting item (on the left) was picked up just a little sooner.

OK so third time, let's see if "I" can just let them sit there until a choice arises without fidgeting or switching positions. Hands at the ready beside each one. Looking at colors with curiosity. Hmmm, the one on the left has a bit of wax piece on the top (it's a candle) that could be removed. But typing here rather than actually doing anything with it. Noticed that the one on the right has a crumb on it - that needs attending to for sure. But no, just let it sit there. Noticing bowel pressure and the thought "I can't sit here all day waiting for an object to get picked up." Back to looking, hands poised next to each. Mentally trying on each possibility - inner vision seeing each one being picked up, trying the right and then the left. And "Shit, I need to pick one or the other up, report about the experience, and get on to the day's activities!" Returned to poised readiness. "OK just do it." Chuckle. Type. The right hand moves from its readiness position and picks up the object on the right. No choice, it just happened. There. Now I can send this off and get about the activities of the day.

Thanks!

Hi John,

What a great step by step account of you doing this exercise - haven't ever had anyone report back with quite so much detail before!

From this exercise, it sounds like you're beginning to see that because we cannot 'control or choose' the thoughts that pop up, nor can we make choices - they are just the same, thoughts popping up. To make a true choice, we'd need to control which thoughts came up and which didn't. But this is further explored as we look at what we might consider 'intellectual choice making'. We think, consider the pro's and cons etc... and then make a choice..... Or is that really how it happens?

Let's look a bit more closely to the decision you made to go out and buy some things that were needed, and how after remembering the item for your dog, the route was modified to accommodate this etc...

First we have a condition which gives rise to a response - the condition being perhaps that some items were needed, the response was that John would get what was needed. But let's consider the alternatives... John decides to stay home to watch a film instead. So given these two possible responses, staying home to watch a film didn't arise in thought or if it did, there was enough desire to get the job done or aversion to sitting film-watching, to make the 'choice' that happened happen. So given the conditions that items were needed, and given the conditions that watching a film was the less desirable option (eg: a thought might have arisen that if you watched the film, then you'd be behind on getting things done and you might not like that feeling). So given this simplistic version of events, it's a machine response - items needed, John goes to get items.

In this particular situation, this was set to automatic (eg: the route planned and anything else that needed to be sorted). Then a thought came up of needing the item for the dog - we could say that this thought might have come up or might not have come up? Either way, how much control over this do you have? Can you choose to make a thought come up to remind you of something you'd forgotten? Could you have chosen for it to not come up? One way or another, the thought comes up, and the response is to re-calculate and then proceed.

Let's continue with this a little more:

Please choose any Dog breed and let me know which dog-breed name you choose.

Thanks

Mike :-)

Hi John,

What a great step by step account of you doing this exercise - haven't ever had anyone report back with quite so much detail before!

Thanks, re-reading it was good entertainment!

From this exercise, it sounds like you're beginning to see that because we cannot 'control or choose' the thoughts that pop up, nor can we make choices - they are just the same, thoughts popping up. To make a true choice, we'd need to control which thoughts came up and which didn't. But this is further explored as we look at what we might consider 'intellectual choice making'. We think, consider the pro's and cons etc... and then make a choice..... Or is that really how it happens?

Yes, life is just occurring, things happening and noticed in this space, including a running commentary about it all. Lately the commentary includes a lot of "Wait - if I really have no choice, then I also never had a choice. After all, the only thing that's changing is the recognition of what is already occurring." And when doubts come up about this (as they are wont to do), the only thing that needs to be done is to investigate direct experience again and see what is already happening. Life unfolding choicelessly.

But where's the freedom in that? And what about personal responsibility? But these are philosophical indulgences which I trust will either be resolved by experience and continued investigation, or maybe the questions will simply fall away and no longer arise. (Suspect the latter, but another objection: "How will I explain this to my friends? And especially my family?" Again, more speculation. Not to worry, just see how life unfolds.)

Let's look a bit more closely to the decision you made to go out and buy some things that were needed, and how after remembering the item for your dog, the route was modified to accommodate this etc...

First we have a condition which gives rise to a response - the condition being perhaps that some items were needed, the response was that John would get what was needed. But let's consider the alternatives... John decides to stay home to watch a film instead. So given these two possible responses, staying home to watch a film didn't arise in thought or if it did, there was enough desire to get the job done or aversion to sitting film-watching, to make the 'choice' that happened happen. So given the conditions that items were needed, and given the conditions that watching a film was the less desirable option (eg: a thought might have arisen that if you watched the film, then you'd be behind on getting things done and you might not like that feeling). So given this simplistic version of events, it's a machine response - items needed, John goes to get items.

In this particular situation, this was set to automatic (eg: the route planned and anything else that needed to be sorted). Then a thought came up of needing the item for the dog - we could say that this thought might have come up or might not have come up? Either way, how much control over this do you have? Can you choose to make a thought come up to remind you of something you'd forgotten? Could you have chosen for it to not come up? One way or another, the thought comes up, and the response is to re-calculate and then proceed.

No, no choice about remembering to pick up the dog item, the items to be obtained from the "outer world", whether to go out and get them rather than watch a film, the desire to have the things in the first place because the door on my home looks a mess and really would be nice to replace, and besides there's probably rot in the woodwork below the door which would be good to fix, and the rust appearing on the door is a symbol of my neglect, because several years ago I sanded and primed the door, but didn't get to the finish coat, and I don't like the style of the door so it's a good thing it's being replaced anyway, but geez if I'd only painted it then I wouldn't have to be replacing it now, and on and on and on. And don't even get me started about the other unfinished projects around the house. :-) No choice about any of what got done or didn't get done. Which triggers the old deficiency story because all this half-finishedness around my home must be saying something meaningful about "me". And thoughts saying "But ... but ... " :-)

Let's continue with this a little more:

Please choose any Dog breed and let me know which dog-breed name you choose.

OK this brought up quite a mental conversation. First, it's easy: "Miniature dachshund," the breed of my dog. But then "OK sure it's easy to use Gracie's breed. But what about something else, like 'poodle?'" I could just use that instead. Then, "No, that's an artificial choice just so I don't give the most immediate and obvious response." Or words to that effect.

Reminds me of the scene in The Princess Bride where Wesley/The Dread Pirate Roberts offers Vizzini the choice of which goblet to drink from: the one with the iocane powder or the one without. (Explaining the scene here in case you haven't seen the movie, which I highly recommend if you haven't.) And Vizzini goes into a dizzying debate about the choice to be made. It's a hilarious scene.

Anyway I'll stick with the immediate and obvious: "Miniature dachshund"

Thanks for listening :-)

Hi John,

Yes, life is just occurring, things happening and noticed in this space, including a running commentary about it all. Lately the commentary includes a lot of "Wait - if I really have no choice, then I also never had a choice. After all, the only thing that's changing is the recognition of what is already occurring." And when doubts come up about this (as they are wont to do), the only thing that needs to be done is to investigate direct experience again and see what is already happening. Life unfolding choicelessly.

But where's the freedom in that? And what about personal responsibility? But these are philosophical indulgences which I trust will either be resolved by experience and continued investigation, or maybe the questions will simply fall away and no longer arise. (Suspect the latter, but another objection: "How will I explain this to my friends? And especially my family?" Again, more speculation. Not to worry, just see how life unfolds.)

There's no doubt about it, thoughts come up saying 'I made this or that choice', they've been doing it since John was about 3 years old - it's quite natural to balance what we're doing now in Direct Experience against what was always thought to be true and it wouldn't be an honest investigation if that were not the case. What starts to clarify things is when we look at undeniable truth verses speculation. It's reasonable to assume we have choice, after all the world has always told us we do, but this only amounts to speculation as it's never really been tested or looked at with clarity. So thoughts will say 'It's ridiculous to question free-will, the whole world 'knows' this is how it is. There's also the thoughts which bring up concern and even fear... 'Do I really want to find out I have no free-will?' - 'Isn't this a search for freedom - it hardly seems like it' - 'It's an awful idea to think I have no control over my life or anything'. etc... All these thoughts and many more come up. The point is, if it's true that John is on automatic, like a machine of cause and response, then this has always been the case anyway - what can change? The only thing that changes, is that you now see it how it really is without delusion.

What's the effect of this? Well - regret over past decisions and choices, it makes no sense to suffer due to something you had no control over - so is it any loss to stop worrying about things that cannot possibly be changed anyway? Worries about the future and what choices we make become a case of sitting back and trusting that what will be will be. And what of how we think of others? If we start to see that 'people' do what they do according to conditions - it's delusional to expect them to do something that they don't do - however bad. Of course, the natural response may be to take someone out of a situation which might cause themselves and others harm (cause and effect), but seeing that if we had exactly the same conditions (same cells in the brain - same life experience - same conditioning) we'd be the 'killer sitting in prison'.

When it comes to friends and family - What others know 'John' to be, is a bundle of conditions, automatic thought, reflex and emotional responses that have come about during life until this point. All of those conditions are still in place - the only difference is that 'John' now sees clearly, what is real and what is unreal.

No, no choice about remembering to pick up the dog item, the items to be obtained from the "outer world", whether to go out and get them rather than watch a film, the desire to have the things in the first place because the door on my home looks a mess and really would be nice to replace, and besides there's probably rot in the woodwork below the door which would be good to fix, and the rust appearing on the door is a symbol of my neglect, because several years ago I sanded and primed the door, but didn't get to the finish coat, and I don't like the style of the door so it's a good thing it's being replaced anyway, but geez if I'd only painted it then I wouldn't have to be replacing it now, and on and on and on. And don't even get me started about the other unfinished projects around the house. :-) No choice about any of what got done or didn't get done. Which triggers the old deficiency story because all this half-finishedness around my home must be saying something meaningful about "me". And thoughts saying "But ... but ... " :-)

Imagine going back to the time when the door needed its finishing coat, I'm sure you realise that given exactly the same conditions - whether they be how busy, motivated, if you had back ache, if you just never had a thought which said 'Right, I really MUST do this' and if you did, if you went to sleep and it just didn't seem as important in the morning plus countless other possible conditions such as having a lot on your mind or needing a new paint brush or just the way you either stick with such things or don't. Given all these identical conditions - the 'choice' would be exactly the same - the only thing which would change that is the change of conditions (even if it was Mike saying 'you will not finish the door because you have no free-will' - this could for example create a motivation to finish it to prove you have free-will - in which case, it was the conditions that changed creating a response that would always happen at that moment given those same conditions).

OK this brought up quite a mental conversation. First, it's easy: "Miniature dachshund," the breed of my dog. But then "OK sure it's easy to use Gracie's breed. But what about something else, like 'poodle?'" I could just use that instead. Then, "No, that's an artificial choice just so I don't give the most immediate and obvious response." Or words to that effect.

Reminds me of the scene in The Princess Bride where Wesley/The Dread Pirate Roberts offers Vizzini the choice of which goblet to drink from: the one with the iocane powder or the one without. (Explaining the scene here in case you haven't seen the movie, which I highly recommend if you haven't.) And Vizzini goes into a dizzying debate about the choice to be made. It's a hilarious scene.

Anyway I'll stick with the immediate and obvious: "Miniature dachshund"

Ok so first of all: Why was that 'choice' not a Catalburun? It may be that you've never heard of such a breed? And what of any others you've never heard of? Were you free to choose them?

Next, how about all those dog breeds who's names never popped up as thoughts? Could we say that we are free to choose that which does not occur to us?

So this brings us perhaps down to two or three dog breeds that arise in thought - so we're already limited in our 'free-will' from all the possible breeds to just two or three because they are the ones which have arisen in thought.

So why the final choice of it being Miniature Dachshund? This was your initial thought, then those other thoughts arose thinking you should not go for the obvious, then another saying it's an artificial choice. Given all the conditions so far in your life, those thoughts came up, you couldn't stop them coming up and you couldn't make different thought responses come up eg: If you'd recently watched a program about a Catalburun, then you may have chosen that since it's such a rare breed and might have made an impact on the thoughts coming up.

Can you think of anything else that you feel able to 'choose' with pure free-will? Do you have any questions or ideas coming up to counter this?

Mike :-)

Mike, let me begin here by expressing my appreciation and gratitude for the detail of your responses, and how they're exactly tailored to mine. Great gratitude here, and I'm really enjoying this conversation and investigation. Thank you!

There's no doubt about it, thoughts come up saying 'I made this or that choice', they've been doing it since John was about 3 years old - it's quite natural to balance what we're doing now in Direct Experience against what was always thought to be true and it wouldn't be an honest investigation if that were not the case. What starts to clarify things is when we look at undeniable truth verses speculation. It's reasonable to assume we have choice, after all the world has always told us we do, but this only amounts to speculation as it's never really been tested or looked at with clarity. So thoughts will say 'It's ridiculous to question free-will, the whole world 'knows' this is how it is. There's also the thoughts which bring up concern and even fear... 'Do I really want to find out I have no free-will?' - 'Isn't this a search for freedom - it hardly seems like it' - 'It's an awful idea to think I have no control over my life or anything'. etc... All these thoughts and many more come up. The point is, if it's true that John is on automatic, like a machine of cause and response, then this has always been the case anyway - what can change? The only thing that changes, is that you now see it how it really is without delusion.

Yes definitely, there's been quite a conversation flowing through here as "I" look for choices that I actually make, cannot actually find any, and mentally object to choicelessness through fear and desire.

What's the effect of this? Well - regret over past decisions and choices, it makes no sense to suffer due to something you had no control over - so is it any loss to stop worrying about things that cannot possibly be changed anyway? Worries about the future and what choices we make become a case of sitting back and trusting that what will be will be. And what of how we think of others? If we start to see that 'people' do what they do according to conditions - it's delusional to expect them to do something that they don't do - however bad. Of course, the natural response may be to take someone out of a situation which might cause themselves and others harm (cause and effect), but seeing that if we had exactly the same conditions (same cells in the brain - same life experience - same conditioning) we'd be the 'killer sitting in prison'.

Yes, quite so. My concern has habitually been more with what others thought about me, but that too is a product of conditioning and habit of which 'others' have no control.

When it comes to friends and family - What others know 'John' to be, is a bundle of conditions, automatic thought, reflex and emotional responses that have come about during life until this point. All of those conditions are still in place - the only difference is that 'John' now sees clearly, what is real and what is unreal.

Yes.

Imagine going back to the time when the door needed its finishing coat, I'm sure you realise that given exactly the same conditions - whether they be how busy, motivated, if you had back ache, if you just never had a thought which said 'Right, I really MUST do this' and if you did, if you went to sleep and it just didn't seem as important in the morning plus countless other possible conditions such as having a lot on your mind or needing a new paint brush or just the way you either stick with such things or don't. Given all these identical conditions - the 'choice' would be exactly the same - the only thing which would change that is the change of conditions (even if it was Mike saying 'you will not finish the door because you have no free-will' - this could for example create a motivation to finish it to prove you have free-will - in which case, it was the conditions that changed creating a response that would always happen at that moment given those same conditions).

Anyway I'll stick with the immediate and obvious: "Miniature dachshund"

Ok so first of all: Why was that 'choice' not a Catalburun? It may be that you've never heard of such a breed? And what of any others you've never heard of? Were you free to choose them?

No, never heard of Catalburun, so of course that wouldn't be a possible choice.

Next, how about all those dog breeds who's names never popped up as thoughts? Could we say that we are free to choose that which does not occur to us?

Of course not.

So this brings us perhaps down to two or three dog breeds that arise in thought - so we're already limited in our 'free-will' from all the possible breeds to just two or three because they are the ones which have arisen in thought.

Yes, that's the size of it - two or three is about all that occurred to thought.

So why the final choice of it being Miniature Dachshund? This was your initial thought, then those other thoughts arose thinking you should not go for the obvious, then another saying it's an artificial choice. Given all the conditions so far in your life, those thoughts came up, you couldn't stop them coming up and you couldn't make different thought responses come up eg: If you'd recently watched a program about a Catalburun, then you may have chosen that since it's such a rare breed and might have made an impact on the thoughts coming up.

Quite so. It's clear that I can't choose the thoughts that arise - they're conditioned on memory and what is happening right now. Also that choices and decisions are mental constructs, that is to say, thought-forms, and they generally arise as after-the-fact claims that "I chose" or "I did" something. And even when a thought like "It's time to go to the store" arises, I don't have the control over that thought and therefore did not actually make the choice to go to the store.

Can you think of anything else that you feel able to 'choose' with pure free-will? Do you have any questions or ideas coming up to counter this?

There are plenty of ideas coming up to counter this, but I'll continue to watch this in actual experience, and will let you know if I actually find a pure free-will choice. Don't hold your breath though. :-)

I can find or imagine no differentiating factor between the "trivial" case of seeing which of two items sitting in front of me is picked up first, and so-called major decisions like buying or selling a house, entering into or leaving a relationship or job, engaging in a particular form of self-inquiry or with a particular spiritual teacher, and so on and so forth. The major "decisions" involve a lot more "consideration" of pros and cons, and imagining possible outcomes and consequences and so on, but these again are all thoughts occurring without choice, and the essential nature of the ability to choose is the same as with the trivial case. So I have to conclude that "my choice" is a conceptual illusion.

Lovely detailed response again John - it's a real pleasure to walk through this with you.

You're sure to be realising by now that there's really nothing 'mystical' about this investigation.

We've looked at choice/free-will, John being the 'controller' of body and mind. Now let's look at John 'the experiencer', after all Isn't it John that experiences: John that sees, hears, tastes, feels, can smell and has thoughts?

Look at an object or listen to a sound (any of the senses is ok), look at your direct experience here and now and report back on what happens: Is there a 'seer' seeing, or is there just 'sight' happening. Can any 'seer' or observer be found in your direct experience, if so, where is it, please describe it. Turn to thoughts happening.... Is there a 'thinker' there thinking those thoughts or do thoughts just happen and there is awareness of them.

This is certainly something you can look at in any environment and during any activity. Many have said that it's particularly useful to try this in a natural environment - trees, birds, a garden etc... but it's by no means vital.

Please respond once you've had a chance to look at this in direct experience or if you have any questions re: this task please feel free to ask away.

Mike :-)

Lovely detailed response again John - it's a real pleasure to walk through this with you.

You're sure to be realising by now that there's really nothing 'mystical' about this investigation.

Indeed, just paying attention to experiencing now at ground level.

Look at an object or listen to a sound (any of the senses is ok), look at your direct experience here and now and report back on what happens: Is there a 'seer' seeing, or is there just 'sight' happening. Can any 'seer' or observer be found in your direct experience, if so, where is it, please describe it. Turn to thoughts happening.... Is there a 'thinker' there thinking those thoughts or do thoughts just happen and there is awareness of them.

This is easier for me than the free will investigation, because I've had more experience working with this; more practice teasing apart the assumptions from the actual fact.

As I see or hear or sense anything, there is just seeing hearing or sensing, accompanied by a mental narrative about the experience. Similarly paying attention to thought, there is just awareness of the thought stream and a commentary that it is occurring to "me". Also an assumption about a narrator, but not an actual narrator, just narration. All sense and thought awareness seems to occur at a single point which cannot be definitely located, but most often is imagined somewhere in my head, behind the eyes. Sometimes involvement in the thought stream dominates experience, and the separate self is fully believed. But when attention is drawn to direct experience, there is the recognition that there is no experiencer, just experiencing.

This is partly a response from memory, but looking at this occurs instantaneously and the recognition is available. Whenever I actually look, there is just seeing, hearing, sensing, thinking happening and known. I will continue to focus on this freshly as I move through the day and report further.

It's kind of like this body mind is a Tardis-like cave, where outside the cave is the experience of the world, the walls are the experience of the body-mind, and the inside space, which is vastly bigger than is actually contained by the walls of the cave, is just the knowing of all of it.

Fantastic again John, this is often a very 'tricky' part of the investigation for many and often takes some time as it's all quite subtle and the 'I' thought can be quite strong when it's seen as 'the experiencer'.

It's kind of like this body mind is a Tardis-like cave, where outside the cave is the experience of the world, the walls are the experience of the body-mind, and the inside space, which is vastly bigger than is actually contained by the walls of the cave, is just the knowing of all of it.

The above is a great descriptive 'imagining' of how things are, however, remember that here, imagining isn't enough - there's no certainty in it.

Let's look a little deeper into the above, we looked at the concept of 'time' (past and future) earlier, now let's look at 'space/location'.

Again, sense the world of sight, hearing, thinking, touch etc... Where is it all happening? A useful discussion scenario is to imagine a church bell a few streets or more away (though please do this with real sensory experience too). Where is the bell sound happening?

1) Is it HERE?
2) Is it THERE?
3) Is it 'INSIDE'?
4) Is it 'OUTSIDE'?
5) Is it in MULTIPLE PLACES (inside).
6) Is it in MULTIPLE PLACES (outside)
7) Is it both 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE'?
8) Is it 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE?
9) Is it both 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE' AND 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE'
10) Is it neither 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE' NOR 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE'
11) If it's in the body - where exactly in the body is it?
12) If it's outside the body - where exactly outside is it?
13) If it's in the 'mind', where is that mind located - is it in the body?
14) Is the mind outside the body? If so, where?

If the above questions don't 'dislocate' your mind - I'll look forward to hearing what comes up :-)

Mike :-)

Fantastic again John, this is often a very 'tricky' part of the investigation for many and often takes some time as it's all quite subtle and the 'I' thought can be quite strong when it's seen as 'the experiencer'.

Oh yes, that the "I" thought still predominates my experience is the reason I'm here. When I look, there is just experiencing. But habits developed over a lifetime seem to have a certain momentum.

It's kind of like this body mind is a Tardis-like cave, where outside the cave is the experience of the world, the walls are the experience of the body-mind, and the inside space, which is vastly bigger than is actually contained by the walls of the cave, is just the knowing of all of it.

The above is a great descriptive 'imagining' of how things are, however, remember that here, imagining isn't enough - there's no certainty in it.

Yes, OK. I saw it more as an attempt to use metaphor as a model of actual experience, but it's still an imaginary overlay.

Let's look a little deeper into the above, we looked at the concept of 'time' (past and future) earlier, now let's look at 'space/location'.

Again, sense the world of sight, hearing, thinking, touch etc... Where is it all happening? A useful discussion scenario is to imagine a church bell a few streets or more away (though please do this with real sensory experience too). Where is the bell sound happening?

1) Is it HERE?
2) Is it THERE?
3) Is it 'INSIDE'?
4) Is it 'OUTSIDE'?
5) Is it in MULTIPLE PLACES (inside).
6) Is it in MULTIPLE PLACES (outside)
7) Is it both 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE'?
8) Is it 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE?
9) Is it both 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE' AND 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE'
10) Is it neither 'INSIDE AND OUTSIDE' NOR 'NEITHER INSIDE NOR OUTSIDE'
11) If it's in the body - where exactly in the body is it?
12) If it's outside the body - where exactly outside is it?
13) If it's in the 'mind', where is that mind located - is it in the body?
14) Is the mind outside the body? If so, where?

If the above questions don't 'dislocate' your mind - I'll look forward to hearing what comes up :-)

Rather than using imagination or waiting for an actual church bell to occur, I used the hum of the refrigerator in the other room, and the bathroom fan while I was in the shower.

The best answer I can give about where sound happens is "I don't know." There is an apparent outside noise - the sensing apparatus can pinpoint the source of sound to a fairly accurate degree. But that noise and its apparent location are only ever registered/noticed/experienced here, where "here" is not really an identifiable place, and since it is where all experience occurs, could not be said to have an opposite "there" apart from appearances. Same with sight: apparent distance and separation with amazing fidelity, but only ever known here.

All sense experiencing and ideas of distinctions and differences, along with the "I" idea and commentary about it all, only ever occurring here.

I feel like to give this more attention and give a fuller account as time permits.

Hiya John :-)

Rather than using imagination or waiting for an actual church bell to occur, I used the hum of the refrigerator in the other room, and the bathroom fan while I was in the shower.

The best answer I can give about where sound happens is "I don't know." There is an apparent outside noise - the sensing apparatus can pinpoint the source of sound to a fairly accurate degree. But that noise and its apparent location are only ever registered/noticed/experienced here, where "here" is not really an identifiable place, and since it is where all experience occurs, could not be said to have an opposite "there" apart from appearances. Same with sight: apparent distance and separation with amazing fidelity, but only ever known here.

All sense experiencing and ideas of distinctions and differences, along with the "I" idea and commentary about it all, only ever occurring here.

I feel like to give this more attention and give a fuller account as time permits.

There's no need to give this any more attention John, the above is as good an answer as 'I' could ever expect. There's some very astute observations you've made here. What is seen when looking in this way is Pure reality (Non-duality, if you've come across the term). The mind and it's thoughts only ever operate in a dualistic way - separating things, concepts require separation where as pure/non-dual Reality is something which can never be described using 'words' or 'language', these both exist only in the realm of duality (conventional reality). There's no need to get too 'into' these concepts as that's all they are - just concepts BUT, what you describe, cannot be accurately described in words - it can be seen and it can be known directly - that's exactly what is important here.

'I don't know' - is as good as any way to describe something that you can't put into language, YET, it's clear that John Does see and does know this 'place' (for want of a better term). This place is 'Here' in the sense that it's the same place it's always been, the same place that all awareness takes place, the same place that EVERYTHING takes place it defies location, in/out, distance etc... Where it's useful to look, is at what happens once the mind begins it's commentary. The mind separates here from there, quiet from loud, imagines a location, adds an experiencer and all sorts of other details.

There is probably a fan or noise coming from your computer right now - did it exist as something separate from 'awareness' as identifiably separate until the mind began to focus on it in response to this question? Did the sensation of whatever your hands or feet are in contact with, exist as a distinct separate things before the mind did it's separating trick?

Ok - time to look at 'Self'!

Is the body the 'self'? Does John have a body? If John has a body - does that mean the 'self' has a 'self'? If you had a leg chopped off, would a proportion of the self be contained within that leg? Does the body experience emotion?

Is the mind the 'self'?, Does John have a mind? Where is the mind exactly?

Is the Body and Mind the 'self'? Again does this mean that there are two selves?

Is the 'self' something else? If so, what and where?

Mike :-)

There is probably a fan or noise coming from your computer right now - did it exist as something separate from 'awareness' as identifiably separate until the mind began to focus on it in response to this question? Did the sensation of whatever your hands or feet are in contact with, exist as a distinct separate things before the mind did it's separating trick?

No, nonexistent as separate from awareness until attention drawn to them. In fact I can't even say they existed until recognized in awareness. But this is preposterous, says thought.

Ok - time to look at 'Self'!

Is the body the 'self'? Does John have a body? If John has a body - does that mean the 'self' has a 'self'? If you had a leg chopped off, would a proportion of the self be contained within that leg? Does the body experience emotion?

Is the mind the 'self'?, Does John have a mind? Where is the mind exactly?

Is the Body and Mind the 'self'? Again does this mean that there are two selves?

Is the 'self' something else? If so, what and where?

First off, I'll define the self at that which I refer to as "I" or "me," whatever it is or isn't. :-)

And it's obvious to my experience that there's only one self with that label "I." Whether or not there's only one (or none) of those anywhere at all is partly what we're on about here.

Now this self that I call "I" has a unique perspective on the world, if there is such a thing. I can see that the world appears as sense impressions to (or in) me, but the predominant belief that I appear in the world and not the other way around is still present. I very much believe myself to be, and behave as, a separate entity moving through the world.

That entity (the self) has a body and a mind, or more accurately, experiences sensations, perceptions, and thoughts and labels them as "mine". Or more accurately, I cannot honestly say that I know that the self actually exists, since there are just sensations, perceptions, and thoughts occurring and known, with the self occurring only as a belief and assumption, which apparently is in turn, only thought. I still don't understand Rupert Spira's instance that "we believe and more importantly feel ourselves to be separate and finite," because in my experience, feelings (in the sense of emotions rather than touch) are nothing more than sensations coupled with thoughts about them. The sensations can occur without any trouble at all, but it is the mind (as nothing more than the currently occurring thought) that creates the "me/I" label and applies it to the apparent locus of experiencing.

So where does that leave us? Only one self, connected somehow to an apparent body and mind, experiencing from an apparently unique perspective. And when actually looked for, never found to be an actual entity apart from the "I" assumption/belief/thought. Seems pretty nebulous and not worthy of a noun at all! :-)

Hi John,

Yes it's good to define what we think of as 'self'.

Just so there's no confusion here regarding your post:

And it's obvious to my experience that there's only one self with that label "I." Whether or not there's only one (or none) of those anywhere at all is partly what we're on about here.

Where you say 'it's obvious to my experience' Are you referring to your thoughts or actual experience? It's easy to confuse the two in the sense that within the story of John's life, that 'self' has featured very prominently. So if thinking in terms of what we might call 'life experience', this is certainly the case. However we will move on shortly to whether this belief is the truth or just an assumption.

Now this self that I call "I" has a unique perspective on the world, if there is such a thing. I can see that the world appears as sense impressions to (or in) me, but the predominant belief that I appear in the world and not the other way around is still present. I very much believe myself to be, and behave as, a separate entity moving through the world.

Again, the above is certainly how it seems when we think about it, but it's important to distinguish between how much of this is mind made/thought speculation. We began to look at how the mind likes to separate things such as in and out - it also likes to separate things like 'John gets it' or 'John doesn't get it' plus 'John in the world' or 'The world in John'. It looks like you already see this but just want to clarify and re-state, the difference between intellectual insight and direct insight.

That entity (the self) has a body and a mind, or more accurately, experiences sensations, perceptions, and thoughts and labels them as "mine". Or more accurately, I cannot honestly say that I know that the self actually exists, since there are just sensations, perceptions, and thoughts occurring and known, with the self occurring only as a belief and assumption, which apparently is in turn, only thought. I still don't understand Rupert Spira's instance that "we believe and more importantly feel ourselves to be separate and finite," because in my experience, feelings (in the sense of emotions rather than touch) are nothing more than sensations coupled with thoughts about them. The sensations can occur without any trouble at all, but it is the mind (as nothing more than the currently occurring thought) that creates the "me/I" label and applies it to the apparent locus of experiencing.

So where does that leave us? Only one self, connected somehow to an apparent body and mind, experiencing from an apparently unique perspective. And when actually looked for, never found to be an actual entity apart from the "I" assumption/belief/thought. Seems pretty nebulous and not worthy of a noun at all! :-)

The purpose of this particular investigation is to investigate the 'assumed' or perhaps conventional view of 'self' as a separate entity controlling, deciding, feeling joy, suffering, etc... It's this 'self' which causes all the problems. As to what 'I' truly points to may be something for further investigation after this particular dialogue. There are many ways to view this, eg: some may say we are awareness, some may say we are God, some me say we are nothing, some may say we are everything and the list goes on. The important point about all of those 'views' is that they are simply just views - ways the mind finds to make sense of insight as it comes.

One way to point to how it really is, and you may have heard often on here and other places, is the idea of the 'self' in the conventional sense ultimately being a story eg: the story of John, the history, the ideas and views, the relationships throughout life, the places he's visited, the jobs and skills he has. The good and bad decisions he's made etc... This is all 'virtual', it's a collection of thoughts - none of them being Reality itself directly.

As you point out, emotions are things with thoughts attached, body sensations, perhaps a sick feeling in the gut, raised adrenaline etc... In what way is the feeling of 'Being in love as a teenager' different from 'fear'? It tends to be largely the story that accompanies that sensation. If we believe the story that presents itself to be total truth, we will travel through life with the normal highs and lows - much like a cork on the sea - we simply respond and if life throws us something good then great, but we all know that's not the only thing life throws us.

To see things how they really are - to be aware of the story but know it's just a story, creates new conditions. Conditions where we have a realistic perspective. Life and whatever it throws our way, is life happening, it's the mind which creates attraction or aversion. When we see this, it may be that nothing changes immediately (though for some it does). A good simile which points to what happens when insight arises is: When the tap-root of the tree is cut, it looks and acts exactly as it always has - no one even notices. However the tree (Delusion), may appear fully intact but it will die, this is a certainty - one by one the branches will whither as more and more delusion is cut through. Once this particular insight happens - it leads to the end of all delusion - this may be quick on rare occasions, it may take years (or depending on your belief), lifetimes but the fact is - the tree will die, it is not longer being fed water.

Whilst the above may all be quite interesting - none of it is anything more than the mind shuffling around ideas - nothing in the above can lead to insight - pure direct un-deniable knowing.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The REAL stuff!

To lead you into three very simple questions, it would be good to describe how it 'feels' when the flash of Reality hits. Mikes experience was much like this but John's could be very different.

For some, it feels like a monumental event, for some it's so ordinary, they aren't even sure it's happened until some time afterwards. For some it's ridiculously TOO simple, they can only laugh at the great cosmic joke - all the books, all the searching, all the mystical teachers etc... For some, they feel angry and cheated that it simply cannot be 'this' simple!

Imagine John has always loved Ferrari cars - since being a boy, he'd dream of one day owning one. He has books and pictures of them, visits all the websites dedicated to his favourite car, he sits day dreaming imagining owning one for himself. Then imagine one day, a friend visits and points out that there is a Ferrari shaped object under a large piece of cloth right there in the room. John says 'well yes, that's always been there' but what I want is a Ferrari! The friend suggests maybe taking a look under the cloth just to see. John finds this preposterous - 'well of course if that was a Ferrari I'd have been driving one around for years!' He tells his friend to not insult his intelligence and even gets a bit pissed off at being treated like a fool. His friend leaves and John, thinks about it and settles the certainty in his mind at his friends ridiculous suggestion. A few weeks later, the friend visits again and see's that John would really benefit from realising the truth - he has no transport, he's looking a bit down - he again suggests that John just be open enough to take a look - an argument takes place, John says 'of course I've always had that Ferrari shaped object here - of course it's not a Ferrari and in frustration at his friends stupidity walks over and rips the cloth off and there it is! What goes through his mind? It's been there right in front of him his whole life but his assumption was so strong - it really never occurred to him to look. The whole fabric of society has always reinforced the belief that Ferrari shaped objects under a cloth means you do not have a Ferrari!

Three questions:

1) Is there an elephant sitting on your lap right now - if it's there you will KNOW. If it's there please describe it.

2) Is there hands at the end of of your arms right now - if they are there you will KNOW. If so, please describe them.

3) Is there a separate self anywhere to be found - if it's there you will KNOW. If so please describe it.

If something exists, it can be found in your direct experience right now. Things are either REAL or IMAGINED.

Mike :-)

Hi Mike, thanks again for your detailed and comprehensive reply.

Just so there's no confusion here regarding your post:

And it's obvious to my experience that there's only one self with that label "I." Whether or not there's only one (or none) of those anywhere at all is partly what we're on about here.

Where you say 'it's obvious to my experience' Are you referring to your thoughts or actual experience? It's easy to confuse the two in the sense that within the story of John's life, that 'self' has featured very prominently. So if thinking in terms of what we might call 'life experience', this is certainly the case. However we will move on shortly to whether this belief is the truth or just an assumption.

It's more than just the story though. In memory, there are scenes recorded from a particular perspective.

Again, the above is certainly how it seems when we think about it, but it's important to distinguish between how much of this is mind made/thought speculation. We began to look at how the mind likes to separate things such as in and out - it also likes to separate things like 'John gets it' or 'John doesn't get it' plus 'John in the world' or 'The world in John'. It looks like you already see this but just want to clarify and re-state, the difference between intellectual insight and direct insight.

Yes, I see that there is actual experience, which is real--sensation, perception, and thinking occurring--as distinct from the content of thought which interprets the actual experience, and which is imaginary. The difference has been coming into sharper focus.

It also seems (and this is why I'm here) that while the nondual understanding is sometimes seen directly, most often it is just another layer of concepts piled on top of the core belief in separation. Intellectual rather than direct insight.

The important point about all of those 'views' is that they are simply just views - ways the mind finds to make sense of insight as it comes.

One way to point to how it really is, and you may have heard often on here and other places, is the idea of the 'self' in the conventional sense ultimately being a story eg: the story of John, the history, the ideas and views, the relationships throughout life, the places he's visited, the jobs and skills he has. The good and bad decisions he's made etc... This is all 'virtual', it's a collection of thoughts - none of them being Reality itself directly.

As you point out, emotions are things with thoughts attached, body sensations, perhaps a sick feeling in the gut, raised adrenaline etc... In what way is the feeling of 'Being in love as a teenager' different from 'fear'? It tends to be largely the story that accompanies that sensation. If we believe the story that presents itself to be total truth, we will travel through life with the normal highs and lows - much like a cork on the sea - we simply respond and if life throws us something good then great, but we all know that's not the only thing life throws us.

Yes, even as I engage in this investigation, sleep has been lacking, with a torrent of thoughts and emotions about the door construction project I'm engaged with, and a family situation that is causing concern. I'm still quite solidly invested in the story, and suffering is taking a front seat.

A good simile which points to what happens when insight arises is: When the tap-root of the tree is cut, it looks and acts exactly as it always has - no one even notices. However the tree (Delusion), may appear fully intact but it will die, this is a certainty - one by one the branches will whither as more and more delusion is cut through. Once this particular insight happens - it leads to the end of all delusion - this may be quick on rare occasions, it may take years (or depending on your belief), lifetimes but the fact is - the tree will die, it is not longer being fed water.

I wonder if the tap root has already been cut, or has yet to be cut - whether the core insight has been fully seen and it's just the momentum of habitual thinking that continues to play out, or it has yet to come. I've had moments of realization that This is just so simple, and felt disappointed actually (as you describe later) - all this seeking, and for what? The simple recognition of what has always been present.

Three questions:

1) Is there an elephant sitting on your lap right now - if it's there you will KNOW. If it's there please describe it.

There is no elephant sitting on my lap right now.

2) Is there hands at the end of of your arms right now - if they are there you will KNOW. If so, please describe them.

There are hands at the end of my arms right now. They are flesh colored with 10 extensions that are moving over the keyboard typing words. Different shades of color with ridges of bluish color, and where they are attached to the end of the arms, little dark- and white-colored filaments (called hairs). As sensation, I notice pressure on the fingertips and where they are resting against the computer, a tingling vibration that seems to be in the same shape as what is seen.

3) Is there a separate self anywhere to be found - if it's there you will KNOW. If so please describe it.

If something exists, it can be found in your direct experience right now. Things are either REAL or IMAGINED.

There is no actual separate self available to direct experience. It is imagined only.