Final Push ...

[devindra]

Rest a hand on a table or flat surface . . . is there a 'you' or 'hand' or 'body' that is doing the touching.
Are there two clear parts to the experience 1) The 'I' that is touching and 2) The table that is being touched?
Further . . . without the 'idea' that it is a table . . . would you know a table was being touched?
Is there 'touching a table' or is there just a sensation alone?

With eyes closed and hand resting on the table I took turns becoming aware of touch and hearing.

In the case of touching there are the sensations of cold, smoothness, resistance etc. It is clear that there is an idea that there is a 'hand' touching a 'table'. There is also an idea that this 'hand' is part of a 'body'. The idea of the 'hand' or the 'table' or the 'body' are not derived from the sensations they all co-exist together. I was then tempted when 'looking' to think that naturally there would be an idea of an 'I' having this experience, that the sense of 'I' is part of some kind of natural hierarchy of mental experience. I discovered that unlike the sensations, body and object constructs which are contingent upon one another there is no 'I' contingent upon them - it is an imposition, a fabrication that does not flow naturally from the experience itself.

With sound there is the same basic quality of the sound itself loud, soft, pitch ... and ideas of hearing objects in the world 'out there'. Again the sound as well as ideas of train or dog etc. are all contingent and co-exist in an amazing 3-dimensional construct of the world! Again when 'looking' closely there is no 'I' concept contingent upon any of this.

It is only when conveying this experience to you, to answer your questions, do I resort to using language and, of course, in this context it makes perfect sense to say I was touching the table, I looked closely and dissected the sensations from ideas about the body, I made this amazing discovery that the idea 'I' is not contingent on the experience itself etc. I'm beginning to see clearly that in the same way that I communicate these ideas to you, there is also an internal monologue or commentary on experience. There is identification with this monologue and, not surprisingly, in that monologue 'I' is used all the time!

[Xain]

It is only when conveying this experience to you, to answer your questions, do I resort to using language and, of course, in this context it makes perfect sense to say I was touching the table

Yes.
This is very good.
With the examination of 'I' comes the delineation of what it is.
Is it a 'real thing' that exists separately from all else . . . and something that can be discovered.
Or is it just a language convention. An idea. A concept. A thought.
So much of life is based on the assumption that 'I' is a real separate 'existing thing'.
When examined closely, such a thing cannot be found outside of ideas / concepts / thought.

Let's examine choice and control now.

Choose one of the arms, it doesn't matter which one.
Now raise that arm into the air.

Now from the experience itself, can it be found what 'I' did the choosing?
What made that choice?
Was a 'real choice' made? (Or just the idea that one had been made?)

Also what controlled the arm? What made the muscles contract?
What 'I' moved the arm into the air?

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Hi Again Xain!

I've done some arm raising and found the following ...

Now from the experience itself, can it be found what 'I' did the choosing?

Close observations reveals no abstract 'I' pushing some mysterious button labelled 'raise arm'. In the act of arm raising all that can definitively be said is - an impulse to raise the arm happens as an idea in the mind and the arm is raised.

What made that choice?
Was a 'real choice' made? (Or just the idea that one had been made?)

The problem I had here was unpacking my understanding of the concept 'choice'. The word is wrapped up in the idea of 'someone' choosing to do 'something'. Like with the direct observation of the senses before ... in the actual act of arm raising there is no discernible entity doing any choosing. I can of course report afterwards to you "I chose to raised my arm" but in the act there was no choice therefore nobody made it.

So what I did then was think to myself "OK let me first decide to raise my right arm and then raise it". I raised my right arm. So this was somewhat tricksy ... because when looking at the chain of events it would seem reasonable that a decision had been taken to raise the right arm by someone and then the action was carried out. Case closed. I did this a couple of times and all I can definitively report is ... an idea of raising either a right or a left arm is entertained in the mind. This idea leads to the same impulse observed before to raise the arm. Therefore there is a clear connection between an idea to move and the movement itself, they are contingent upon each other in just the same way that the sound of a dog barking and the idea of a dog barking are contingent in the mind. However, the thought of a decision to raise the arm by someone comes in after the fact and is part of the narrative used to convey what happened - either to yourself or myself :)

Also what controlled the arm? What made the muscles contract?
What 'I' moved the arm into the air?

Clear observation reveals no 'mover' - it's all actually an awesomely complex interplay of mental process, nerve impulses and muscle contractions.

Xain ♥[/quote]

[Xain]

an impulse to raise the arm happens as an idea in the mind and the arm is raised.

Ok. That seems fair.
Is there anything that can be found creating the impulses? Or do they 'just happen'?
Is there anything that can be found causing the arm to raise? Or does it 'just happen'?
(We will go on to 'ideas in the mind' shortly).
Although you mention that there is an impulse and the arm moves, does the one necessarily cause the other.
Or is it more fair just to say that that is the pattern of apparent events?

The problem I had here was unpacking my understanding of the concept 'choice'. The word is wrapped up in the idea of 'someone' choosing to do 'something'.

That's fair. If we tackle the subject of 'free-will' then that idea has to apply to 'something' i.e. a separate 'thing' that has free-will. Can a separate thing be found choosing?

So what I did then was think to myself "OK let me first decide to raise my right arm and then raise it".

What was doing the thinking? What was choosing to think the thoughts?

However, the thought of a decision to raise the arm by someone comes in after the fact and is part of the narrative used to convey what happened - either to yourself or myself :)

That also seems fair. How about this as a possible pattern of events:

1) A thought appeared 'Ok, I'll raise my arm'
2) The arm rises into the air.
3(Maybe) ) A thought appears 'There we are, I raised my arm'

How exactly are the thoughts and the action related? Other than . . . just an idea itself?
A belief or thought they are some-how co-related?

Clear observation reveals no 'mover' - it's all actually an awesomely complex interplay of mental process, nerve impulses and muscle contractions.

Answer this honestly - Do you witness 'a complex interplay' as you describe? Is that what you experience?
Or is this description just an idea about what is happening based on scientific and medical knowledge?
(Not that there is anything wrong with that at all. But can you see the distinction?)

My deep seated belief is I am the 'realiser' who can look from some higher point of view and analyse, observe, judge but ... as far as I can tell it's just a belief.

Your judgement and consideration is excellent.
Is there a separate believer here? Can one be found?

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Is there anything that can be found creating the impulses? Or do they 'just happen'?
Is there anything that can be found causing the arm to raise? Or does it 'just happen'?
Although you mention that there is an impulse and the arm moves, does the one necessarily cause the other.
Or is it more fair just to say that that is the pattern of apparent events?

OK the closest description of the experience is the apparent causal relationship of:
1. Reading your request to look at the experience of raising my arm.
2. Thoughts around actually doing it and observing what happens.
3. Raising the arm.
4. Thoughts around what happened.
There is awareness of the above events and a feeling that doing is happening but nothing can be found that causes them.

What was doing the thinking? What was choosing to think the thoughts?

Again no thinker can be found. Thoughts arise. The thought 'Let me choose to raise my left arm', is no different from a thought about raising the right arm. Nothing preceded the thought i.e. no 'I' saying I am now going to choose to raise one of my arms.

How exactly are the thoughts and the action related? Other than . . . just an idea itself?
A belief or thought they are some-how co-related?

Thoughts and actions seem to co-exist and arise out of some deeper unconscious level.

Do you witness 'a complex interplay' as you describe? Is that what you experience?
Or is this description just an idea about what is happening based on scientific and medical knowledge?
... But can you see the distinction?

Yes I see your point clearly! I verbosely wrote what I thought MUST OF happened as an interpreted layer on top of just the experience of raising my arm.

My deep seated belief is I am the 'realiser' who can look from some higher point of view and analyse, observe, judge but ... as far as I can tell it's just a belief.

Is there a separate believer here? Can one be found?

Yes, again your point hits home ... 'Who holds this belief?' It's just an assumption. Observation, judgement and analysis happen and don't require an observer, judger or analyser.

Every interaction with you Xain seems to weaken the 'who'. Thanks for your patience!

[Xain]

Thoughts and actions seem to co-exist and arise out of some deeper unconscious level.

They 'seem' to co-exist - Sure.
However, is there a direct co-relation?
Could a thought appear 'raise right arm' and the right arm is NOT raised?

If I take an example of 'driving a car', would a thought precede each and every movement of gear change, brake, indication? Or could the entire journey happen without such deep mental consideration?

Since we are trying to search for what is causing this stuff (usually assumed to be 'I', a separate self), when you say 'arise out of a deeper unconscious level' how is this known?
Not that I am suggesting it is wrong.
But is this findable in the experience itself? Or is this an assumption / an idea?

Every interaction with you Xain seems to weaken the 'who'. Thanks for your patience!

You are welcome, and I genuinely appreciate your deep and honest examination of this.

At this stage, can a chooser be found?
Can a controller be found?

And for a more expansive question . . . is there anything you can find here right now that has any control or choice at all!?

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Greetings Xain! ... change in format here. Good meditation this morning! Everything wen't in the same usual direction with sitting comfortably and settling into breath. There was at some point what can best be described as an 'opening out' into spacious consciousness ... and wup! ...there it was clear as the sky ... just sitting, occasional thoughts, just breathing, just sounds and a clear seeing that no 'I' is present. Of course thoughts cropped up and memories of our discourse together ... the simple question arose, "Can a 'someone' be found here, sitting in meditation?" and the realisation dawned this is exactly like asking ... "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Looking into where is the 'I' is the THE Koan! Thoughts about 'I' and any discursive topic all just arise naturally, as naturally as hearing, seeing or activity. The centre imagined as some sort of mathematical strange attractor that creates the 'I' is now seen to be more like a clinging to thoughts of 'I'. This is all clear and simple as you said. Nothing complicated. Completely available. Kind of like falling out of love with yourself.

And for a more expansive question . . . is there anything you can find here right now that has any control or choice at all!?

No

[Xain]

Of course thoughts cropped up and memories of our discourse together

This will be another thing we can examine next.

Can a 'someone' be found here, sitting in meditation?

Yes, good consideration.
Notice that thoughts usually have an element of 'time' to them - past or future.
A thought could be 'I sat in meditation' or 'Tomorrow, I will sit in meditation'.
However, through your own introspection, you examine the present moment . . . is there an 'I' that is sat in meditation RIGHT NOW? What is that? What form does this meditating 'I' take?
Something real existing separate 'thing' that exists outside of thoughts and ideas?

This is all clear and simple as you said. Nothing complicated. Completely available. Kind of like falling out of love with yourself.

Yes :-)

Let us now look at thoughts - You seem to have forged ahead really well but I am going through this step by step so everything is clear. It may help.

What about thoughts?
Is there a separate self, an 'I' having the thoughts?

Think a thought - Anything will do.
In the experience of the thought, can what created it be located?
Is there a 'Devindra' creating the thoughts?

Do the thoughts have an actual 'location'?
You could try to imagine an orange - Make the imaginary orange as real as possible.
Now, does that imaginary orange have a 'location'? A place where it is?

The thoughts and the imaginary things - Are they 'yours'?
What is the owner? Can an owner be found?

We saw that there was no separate self with choice or control so . . . is there any choice or control over thoughts?
If we could control thoughts, surely we could choose to have nice thoughts all the time - Does it work like that?

If a thought appears with an 'I' in it (for example), 'I am meditating' . . .
Is there an 'I' that could stop that thought from happening?
Is the thought appearing to an 'I'?
Does the 'I' in the thought, actually relate to anything at all? Other than perhaps, another thought?

Lots of questions there - Feel free to expand and let me know what appears clear (or if there is any confusion).

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Hi Xain - off on a long weekend camping and hiking in the mountains with friends. Will reconnect when I get back on Tuesday next week.

Ciao,
Devindra.

[devindra]

Hi Xian - back from break and ready to see this through ...

Lots of questions there - Feel free to expand and let me know what appears clear (or if there is any confusion).

I'll do my best :)

Is there a separate self, an 'I' having the thoughts?

Thoughts are 'seen' to be no different to other aspects of consciousness. They arise and pass or they arise and are given special 'attention'. While being given special attention, thoughts can carry awareness along to the exclusion of other objects of awareness like sights and sounds. I notice this in meditation ... thoughts come and almost always they are related to 'me'. Someone said something to me, I said something to someone, things I must do or have done ... the script that endlessly writes the story of 'our' lives. What is slowly eroding at the moment is not the thoughts but the 'idea' that this is 'my' story. There is definitely less tension in trying to hold it all together. No point in trying to not hold onto the thoughts, push them away - because there is less ignorant assumption that there is someone doing the holding or pushing ;) If holding to thought, not holding onto thought or pushing thoughts away happens ... well they happen!

Think a thought - Anything will do.

I think about my weekend. Thoughts of good conversation, delicious food and great sunsets arise. They are just thoughts arising - no thinker necessary nor seen.

Do the thoughts have an actual 'location'?

The most accurate thing to be said here is ... thoughts appear in awareness. That they occur in this brain inside this head is undoubtedly scientifically accurate but the experience itself suggests a mere appearance ... and disappearance :) The previous habit of continually living in thought, after the direct experience of WHAT IS is still happening but is less sticky. I've seen this phrase been used before and it now really does make sense! The weekend away with friends also highlights something interesting to me ... the stickiness of a sense of 'I' strengthens in the presence of friends who know you. It feels fairly obvious why this is so ...

If a thought appears with an 'I' in it (for example), 'I am meditating' . . .
Does the 'I' in the thought, actually relate to anything at all? ...

"I am ... [anything whatsoever]" ... is as far as can be determined just a useful thought expressing a state of affairs. It merely suggests that there is this body (in the case of meditation) just sitting and that mediation is being performed. "I am a web developer" ... suggests that web development regularly gets done ... but not by 'someone' ;) Of course, in the continually unfolding story there is a flawed character doing his best to survive. He has a name, a wife, children, hobbies, friends etc. etc. ... but again this is happening to no one!

Thanks again for your patience,
D.

[Xain]

Hi again, Devindra - Welcome back.

Thoughts are 'seen' to be no different to other aspects of consciousness.

Yes. They can be considered in exactly the same way as all other things.

I notice this in meditation ... thoughts come and almost always they are related to 'me'.
Someone said something to me, I said something to someone, things I must do or have done . . .

I understand. Well, potentially two ways of looking at this.

The thoughts may contain a 'me' in exactly the way you suggest . . . but is there a real separate 'me' that they relate to? In other words, what is the 'truth' of the thought?
Is there any 'me' they relate to? Or is the whole thought nothing more than 'just a thought'?

What is slowly eroding at the moment is not the thoughts but the 'idea' that this is 'my' story.

Yes.
A thought appears - A thought about 'me' - What 'I' have done, what 'I' am going to be doing. 'My story'.
Does it relate to a real separate 'me'?

If holding to thought, not holding onto thought or pushing thoughts away happens ... well they happen!

Yes. Can you track down a pusher or a puller of thoughts? What would that be?
Could it be 'just happening'?

Do the thoughts have an actual 'location'?
The most accurate thing to be said here is ... thoughts appear in awareness. That they occur in this brain inside this head is undoubtedly scientifically accurate but the experience itself suggests a mere appearance

Well I ask this question 'if the thoughts have a 'location'', as we could potentially find an owner - An owner of the space in which they appear (if they did this).
Science certainly presents the theory that the brain is responsible for thoughts. Nothing wrong with that at all.
However, no scientist as yet has managed to dissect a brain to find a thought inside!
Can you see here? The difference between thinking about it, and actually looking!

It merely suggests that there is this body (in the case of meditation) just sitting and that mediation is being performed.

Is the body responsible for doing meditation?
Is there a 'you' responsible for doing meditation?
When meditation is being performed, is there a separate 'you' performing it?

Examine this - Each time, can something be found? Or just a thought with a 'me' in it?

Of course, in the continually unfolding story there is a flawed character doing his best to survive. He has a name, a wife, children, hobbies, friends etc. etc. ... but again this is happening to no one!

Well we must be a little careful here.
We are looking for something separate - A separate self. Can we locate a separate self that this is happening to?
Or can we only find thoughts about one.

What have you managed to find so far?
Is there even a separate 'you' looking . . . . ???

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Is there any 'me' they relate to? Or is the whole thought nothing more than 'just a thought'?

Just thoughts.

Can you see here? The difference between thinking about it, and actually looking!

Yes! The 'opening out' as I've called it before, is looking. A distinct quality of immediacy. Ruminations about what occurred (or is going to occur) is thinking. The thinking happens now though ;)

Examine this - Each time, can something be found? Or just a thought with a 'me' in it?

No separate 'me' can be found meditating :)

Is there even a separate 'you' looking . . . . ???

Can a pure subject be found as an object to be pointed out? Can a pure subject even be thought about and referred to in thought? Pure subject is emptiness ...

In other words, what is the 'truth' of the thought?

The 'truth' of the thought is that it is immediate and empty. No one is left looking at no thing.

What have you managed to find so far?

That no separate self is doing the looking or the finding.

[Xain]

Ok, good. We seem to have made some good progress there.

At this stage, do you have any questions or issues?
What (if anything) is clear?

Xain ♥

[devindra]

Hi Xain!

What (if anything) is clear?

What I may not have made absolutely clear is the deep gratitude for your time and energy in this guiding. This direct transmission happening at here at LU is so important in addressing that strange personality cult inside our heads that is undoubtedly the cause of much suffering in the world. I came to this from a long history of dry and intractable head knowledge, a great deal of personal hubris and some little insight ... but in hindsight, with the right intention! The dialogue with you has clarified the water - so simple and direct - look LOOK ... and there's no one looking. Ha! What a funny business this is.

The direct result is a kind of softening (knots getting loosened) and greater compassion for my fellows.

Keep up the good work Xian and Co!
David.

P.S. Devindra is the yoga name I was given way back. When I joined the forum it seemed like an appropriate username ;) David is my birth name.

[Xain]

The direct result is a kind of softening (knots getting loosened) and greater compassion for my fellows.

Yes. Even though this has been realised (no separate self), we can still say that there is further conditioning to be examined. If persistent thoughts patterns still happen, they can be further looked into . . . and hopefully . . . from a new realised framework.

What I may not have made absolutely clear is the deep gratitude for your time and energy in this guiding.

That is very kind of you. Thank YOU for sticking with the process.

If you are clear that the 'separate self' is only an idea - A thought - That there is no 'separate self' here now and never has been, then there are six questions I can ask you as part of this process which may highlight further areas - Are you ready for them?

Xain ♥