Looking for a guide.

[Padraic]

I will look into what you have suggested. By all means I would appreciate a private message about the quote function.

[Tyler]

I sent you a private message. Let me know if you aren't seeing it. It's in my outbox rather than sent. Not sure why. Take care

[Padraic]

I sent you a private message. Let me know if you aren't seeing it. It's in my outbox rather than sent. Not sure why. Take care

Just checking to see if it works.

[Tyler]

Looks good to me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Padraic]

So can a mental image ever be exactly like reality? If so, can a self-image ever be found true in reality?

In reality there is no self image. Self image is totally thought based. It's reality is only as real as thought.

This brings up a good point to explore further. Are you in the body or are you the body? Does the body experience sensations or can you find a self, an experiencer, within the body that feels sensation? Also, does the body experience thought or is it just another thought label for sensations? One more question, do any particular body parts seem to house the self more so than others?

I'm not in the body. I can't find anyone in it. It feels like I'm the body because all sense impressions and thoughts appear to be sensed via the body however there isn't an experiencer inside. Scratch that. Thoughts interpret sensations so the body doesn't experience thought. Thinking isn't in the body so where is it I wonder?
When I look there is some tension behind the eyes and around the forehead that has felt like a me but when I notice that, it relaxes and is clearly merely sensation. Also I notice that those sensations correlate with thinking so maybe I have been believing that thinking is taking place there. In fact it feels true to say that it isn't happening anywhere in reality.

[Padraic]

So can a mental image ever be exactly like reality? If so, can a self-image ever be found true in reality?

My last post went a bit wrong and missed out my response to this.

The mental image is an approximation/interpretation so is not exactly like reality. A self image can't be found in true reality. It's thought based.

[Tyler]

Thinking isn't in the body so where is it I wonder?

You tell me. Where is thinking taking place? It looks like you try to answer it in the quote below. You may be on to something, so go ahead and look at this a little more.

When I look there is some tension behind the eyes and around the forehead that has felt like a me but when I notice that, it relaxes and is clearly merely sensation. Also I notice that those sensations correlate with thinking so maybe I have been believing that thinking is taking place there. In fact it feels true to say that it isn't happening anywhere in reality.

Good stuff about sensation. Are you saying thought may not happen in reality? Without the thought, "I am thinking," is thought happening? Can thought happen without a self to experience it?

Your saying some really great stuff. This great stuff can be summed up with this:

A self image can't be found in true reality. It's thought based.

Is this a recent realization, maybe one that came while walking your dog? What has changed for you in regard to seeing through the illusion of self?

[Padraic]

Where is thinking taking place?

It's taking place within awareness. It is possible for thought to exist without a thinker because that's what is happening. I can't find a self but I can certainly find thoughts.
T

A self image can't be found in true reality. It's thought based.

Is this a recent realization, maybe one that came while walking your dog? What has changed for you in regard to seeing through the illusion of self?

The tension around the eyes has been fooling me that thoughts were in the physical body.
This is more of a direct perception than before as in a way I thought I already knew this, so it's a new seeing of this.

[Tyler]

Sounds like things are happening! So let's move things along. Here is a series of questions that could help us find any areas that need to be cleared. Take a good look at each one and answer honestly.

Is I the thinker of thoughts?
Is I the feeler of feelings?
Is I the doer of actions?
Is I the body you see when you look at the mirror?
Is I the brain or any other organ in the body?
Is I the body or the owner of this body?
Is I the decider or controller of “your life”?
Is I the owner of “your life”?
Is I the experiencer of experiences?
Is I something other than a word used to communicate?
Is I your emotional reactions?
Is I the observer making this investigation happen or the seeker that started it?
Is I the hearer of sounds
Is I the looker behind your eyes
Is I the taster of flavors
Is I the smeller of smells
Is I what experiences the texture of what is touched?

[Padraic]

No, I isn't the thinker of thoughts. It appears that there is an ability to wilfully attend to thoughts though.
I isn't the feeler of feelings. They do feel personal though.
I isn't the doer of actions. It can't be if there isn't one. In the moment though, it does feel like a choice can be made.
I isn't the body I see in the mirror. It's strange to say this. It does have a sense of being 'mine' though.
I clearly isn't the brain or an organ.
i isn't the body. There is a sense of it being mine though. That's weird because it can't be mine unless there is an I to own it.
What I'm realising is that none of these statements can be true if there is no I to be found anywhere. Except for the statement 'I 'being a word used to communicate.
It does feel like there is a decider though. Or perhaps it is just deciding.

[Tyler]

Alright. Thanks so much for answering these. I noticed a pattern. Here's what you said:

They do feel personal though.
In the moment though, it does feel like a choice can be made.
It does have a sense of being 'mine' though.
There is a sense of it being mine though.

Notice how you use the words "feel" and "sense." This is a good pointer. Let's take a look at the self that senses and feels experience. In direct experience, can you find an “I” that experiences experience? Is there a seer separate from the seen? A hearer that hears? A feeler that feels? A sensor that senses?

You also say:

I isn't the thinker of thoughts. It appears that there is an ability to willfully attend to thoughts though.

Can you find a self that attends to thoughts? a self that attends to anything?

It feels as if there is a self, so from looking in direct experience, how would you explain why this feeling exists.

[Padraic]

I can't find a feeler, seer,hearer or senser in direct experience.

I can't find a self that is attending although attending happens.

The feeling of a self exists because of a belief that all of the sensory data and thought stream refer to an entity. Particularly the contacted feeling I mentioned early in our exchanges has been interpreted to be a 'me'.
I had an odd sense the other day that no such entity exists in a persistent way and that all of it is only happening in the moment. Hard to describe. kind of that there is no Padraic persisting in time but 'Padraicing' moment by moment.

[Tyler]

Code: Select all

I had an odd sense the other day that no such entity exists in a persistent way and that all of it is only happening in the moment. Hard to describe. kind of that there is no Padraic persisting in time but 'Padraicing' moment by moment.

It seems like you are doing very well with this process. Your answers read as if you are writing from a place of seeing. Are there any areas where you feel stuck? I don't see answers to a couple of the short statements I listed a couple days ago. Just to be sure, I'll ask again. Is there an I that controls or owns "your life"?

It looks like it's time to ask: Have you seen through the illusion of self?

[Padraic]

There isn't an 'i' doing any of those things in your earlier questions. It's more accurate to say they are 'happenings'.
There is still a sense of struggle or lack when entranced by the emotional reactions and accompanying thinking.
It's odd because I see that there can't be an 'I' doing this so these are also 'happenings.'
It's sinking in that there is no 'time' as conventionally thought, just ever-changing content (thoughts, feelings and sensations) presently happening.
The sense of 'I' is really an assumtion that there is something inside in control, constant and persisting over time. There isn't. Only sensations, thoughts and impulses arising presently.
The content is very compelling and feels very personal and immediate. The key question is about control.
The sense of 'lack' centres around attempts to control the content. Attempts to control are also 'content' though.
This enquiry is pointing towards the context which is unchanging.
Have I seen through the illusion of self? Well, I see how it all operates. There hasn't been any big bangs of realization, just some quite subtle pennies dropping. I think I have been looking in the wrong place, looking for change in the content. The context can't change and doesn't need to. That's the only constant, regardless of circumstances, comfort or discomfort. I am that context which includes, and is inseperable from, all content.
The 'inseperable from' from part of the last sentence is important I feel and perhaps the implications of this need to sink in a bit.

[Tyler]

There is still a sense of struggle or lack when entranced by the emotional reactions and accompanying thinking. It's odd because I see that there can't be an 'I' doing this so these are also 'happenings.'

Yes. It's important to point out that we are not working toward an end. The gate is a beginning. People often get hung up thinking that this is some kind of absolute enlightenment. It's not. It's about seeing what is real, and allowing conditioned ideas about self and the world to crumble, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Once it is seen, it can be seen more and more clearly, as obstacles of seeing fall away.

There is a difference, as I think you are seeing, between a sense of self and a genuine, separate self. The sense of self will remain present at times (they call this "selfing"). Why would it not? It's been happening all along without a real self to back it up. Over time, this sense of self is taken less and less seriously.

Have I seen through the illusion of self? Well, I see how it all operates.

If you saw how a magician did a trick, would you not say you have seen through the illusion?

There hasn't been any big bangs of realization, just some quite subtle pennies dropping.

Yes. People often get hung up on waiting for an earth shattering, parting-of-the-clouds kind of realization, but that's often not the case. Were you expecting something bigger than pennies dropping?

I think I have been looking in the wrong place, looking for change in the content. The context can't change and doesn't need to. That's the only constant, regardless of circumstances, comfort or discomfort. I am that context which includes, and is inseperable from, all content. The 'inseperable from' from part of the last sentence is important I feel and perhaps the implications of this need to sink in a bit.

I think I get what you are saying, but will you explain a little further what you mean about "context'" and "content"? (I'm thinking this is a typo. Maybe you meant for both words to be content.) When you say, "I am that context which includes, and is inseperable from, all content," can you find a self within the context and/or content? Also, what is the you that needs the implications of it to sink in?