Looking for a guide

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

Once again, your reply is full of thnking in the form of ideas, theories, speculation, etc., which is great, but not relevant to this investigation. I did stress in my previous post that 'my latest queries were simply to remove any doubt that in direct experience you could find any self-entity present or doing anything in relation to thoughts and thinking... In (your) answers I can find no indication that you've seen any special, separate 'you' present, doing or facilitating thinking in any way. If I've somehow missed something there, please tell me and we'll look at that in more detail.'' I don't want to sound brutal, but this process only concerns what can (and can't) be found in direct experience and so that's all I need to know about from you. As I've also said before, 'as your guide, all I'm here to do is to point you to look in direct experience to see whether a separate self is anywhere to be found. If there isn't, and the only other 'place' a self-entity appears is as thought content, and this is clearly seen for what it truly is and so is not believed, job done.'

So, solely from direct experience, please either confirm that you've been able to find no evidence of a separate self involved in thinking, or let me have details that do appear to show a separate self.

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'?

Thanks for these Pete. I will have a good look at these as I go about my day tomorrow. But let me give some initial response.

Again, you have set out your thinking on this. As before, intellectually, it's really stimulating. But it's not relevant for this enquiry. Really,thoughts are without substance, power or reference. Scott Kiloby puts it far better than I ever could when he says, 'Thoughts are a story, based on memorised concepts, of an unknowable reality called 'life' happening in this moment. Concepts are never the truth. They are only ever telling a story about the truth. It is memory. Past.'

Anyway Ole, I'm looking forward to your observations on 'your' actual experience of doing stuff later today or tomorrow.

Pete x

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

One further thing I forgot to include. You said:

Nothing is really separate from experience or from everything else that exists, I'm quite sure of that.

So am I. And presumably, like me, for you to be sure, that knowing can only derive from what you've seen in direct experience, otherwise it would be mere belief. That being so, how can a separate self exist or be found?


Pete x

[Ole J]

Hi Pete

Once again, your reply is full of thnking in the form of ideas, theories, speculation, etc., which is great, but not relevant to this investigation

I might have been carried away with philosophizing. Perhaps it is difficult to see where direct experience ends and thought begins sometimes. So thanks for pointing out that. I guess the nature of the questions stimulate thought to some degree. In any case, having been walking and working with physical stuff in my studio all day it is very clear that none of these physical actions require the thinking mind. Maybe just another part of the mind.

special, separate 'you' present, doing or facilitating thinking in any way.

I don't find that my physical actions are happening by themselves in the same way as the weather happens without my interferance. I am not a robot, I have volition etc. I don't have to think about drinking a cup of tea. But if the cup is a little too full I have to apply some more mindfulness perhaps. I am not saying this involve a separate me. I am not sure I'm even clear on what separate self means in this context? But I still find that my physical actions are instigated by 'me' in some way. I am not making any claims about any separate me whatever that is. I am just saying that I can raise my arm if I want to and that I have deliberate actions.

So just to be clear: I find that brushing my teeth and walking does not require any thought. But I still feel that they are happening within my control unlike the weather.

But what is the self? I don't think that as I go about my daily business that I'm investing heavily a sense of self in my physical actions. It seems to me that that sense of self is more like a kind of attachment invested much more in the many thoughts I have around what I wish or desire or plan etc, (as I go about my day). I presume that this is also the case for other people.

O x

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

Perhaps it is difficult to see where direct experience ends and thought begins sometimes. So thanks for pointing out that. I guess the nature of the questions stimulate thought to some degree.

Just bear in mind that, for this investigation, you're looking at sense arisings: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching (tactile and kinaesthetic). Thinking is another sense arising, but not the conceptual 'content' which is neither reliable nor ultimately true or real. And yes, the questions and the fundamental nature of this inquiry process, do tend to stimulate thinking, feelings and emotions, almost as if the ego is prompted to throw these up as a smokescreen distraction.

I don't find that my physical actions are happening by themselves in the same way as the weather happens without my interference. I am not a robot,

Agreed, the word 'automatic' does have that connotation. It's just meant to indicate a lack of any specific agency facilitating actions etc. Life living through us, without the existence of, or need for, a separate self is much freer and more spontaneous, entirely the opposite of robotic. As to a sense of self, it certainly isn't thinking and believing there is a self-entity. For what it's worth, for me it's the underlying 'feeling' of awareness, aliveness, presence that is revealed and remains now that the illusion of being separate has gone; save for I-thoughts that occasionally arise, are seen for what they are and then soon fade out.

But what is the self? I don't think that as I go about my daily business that I'm investing heavily a sense of self in my physical actions. It seems to me that that sense of self is more like a kind of attachment invested much more in the many thoughts I have around what I wish or desire or plan etc, (as I go about my day). I presume that this is also the case for other people.

Or yes, maybe it can be that too.

In any case, having been walking and working with physical stuff in my studio all day it is very clear that none of these physical actions require the thinking.

Good, I'm glad you can see that actions, doing and control don't require thinking. The questions were a bit broader, in that they asked whether, in direct experience, you could find any kind of separate entity involved in any activities. Can you find one?

So just to be clear: I find that brushing my teeth and walking does not require any thought. But I still feel that they are happening within my control unlike the weather.

I note that you say you feel various actions are happening 'within my control'. Please describe how that control appears in direct experience. What does it look like? How does it function? How and why is it yours? Isn't it really just that thought, perhaps combined with bodily feelings, tells you that it is?

I'd like to tidy up before we move on to looking at choosing and deciding. There are a couple of questions remaining unanswered that I'd like straightforward, definite answers to, so that we can move on:

So, solely from direct experience, please either confirm that you've been able to find no evidence of a separate self involved in thinking, or let me have details that do appear to show a separate self.

you said: Nothing is really separate from experience or from everything else that exists, I'm quite sure of that.

So am I. And presumably, like me, for you to be sure, that knowing can only derive from what you've seen in direct experience, otherwise it would be mere belief. That being so, how can a separate self exist or be found?

Pete x

[Ole J]

Thank you for your reply Pete

There are some things you've said that I find helpful.

Thinking is another sense arising, but not the conceptual 'content' which is neither reliable nor ultimately true or real.

This makes it a bit clearer for me. I just want to explain something. Because I've had very strong experiences with just presence awareness I have an underlying conviction that this is fundamental, that what we divide into subjective and objective arise out of that. What I tried to say in previous mails was that even so, when I examine the possibility of thinking or doing as in deiliberating it is more than just passive witnessing. But what you say above is maybe useful in that thought is also a faculty or capacity in some way, without that meaning that all the identification and content of it is real and true, including the idea of a self (in this case thinker) that can stand outside thinking.

Agreed, the word 'automatic' does have that connotation. It's just meant to indicate a lack of any specific agency facilitating actions etc. Life living through us, without the existence of, or need for, a separate self is much freer and more spontaneous, entirely the opposite of robotic. As to a sense of self, it certainly isn't thinking and believing there is a self-entity. For what it's worth, for me it's the underlying 'feeling' of awareness, aliveness, presence that is revealed and remains now that the illusion of being separate has gone; save for I-thoughts that occasionally arise, are seen for what they are and then soon fade out.

This is also helpful. I was getting a little frustrated in that this idea of a special self-entity is easy to dismiss. That seems to me a little too intellectual or cold to just say yes there is no entity. What kind of change does that mean? At a deeper level what becomes a sense of self or delusion of separation must have to do with how we relate to all the rich inner life of all our feelings etc, where we become attached and so on? Otherwise just saying there is no separate self seems like a quick-fix we can all easily agree on. Nobody can find any 'entity'. And we've heard extreme materialists who say we're just automates. So I agree with you that awareness, aliveness, presence with all the different arising emotions and responses is part of us. And I agree to the sense that this content is somehow living through us in some ways. We want to be aware and gain insight about what is going on in the deeper levels of ourselves no? So I think we share this underlying sense of life happening. Self-entity sounds like something too obviously unreal. Perhaps this delusion of self is more like the kind of contraction we feel in reaction to life (my this my that etc)?

I note that you say you feel various actions are happening 'within my control'. Please describe how that control appears in direct experience. What does it look like? How does it function? How and why is it yours? Isn't it really just that thought, perhaps combined with bodily feelings, tells you that it is?

Ok. As I said when I check to see what I am at some essential level, I find awareness, presence, love, peace (depending on how well I face and accept what comes up). But even though we are all connected in this way, miraculously I can move my body etc, I can't move yours. So I have this capacity as an individuated being. That is all I meant. Just because moving does not require thinking, it doesn't mean it does not require mind or 'mindfullness'.
There is this possibility, to move, to follow a logical argument, to talk etc. Is it yours? - you ask. Lets just say that this is a function we have then. Maybe my feeling of being the 'owner' of this capacity is an added thing? I am willing to accept that. Certainly all the heavy identification with me and mine etc would be added. Perhaps I could say it is the universe talking through me or something. But I think this could easily be another (advaita style) delusion. For now I feel it is better to take responsibility for how I do and act, paying attention to whether I act from added sense of ego or not.

So, solely from direct experience, please either confirm that you've been able to find no evidence of a separate self involved in thinking, or let me have details that do appear to show a separate self.

Thought is happening whether I want it to or not. As with movement there is a capacity for attention. With attention I am able to write this reply. But the feeling of 'me' if that was some separate idea would be stuck on top. I am sorry for being difficult. This is not speculation. A 'separate entity' is just fiction whatever that is. Maybe a feeling of 'me' is just a fleeting thing stuck on top of what's happening. But does that mean that everything happens by itself? We have the capacity to play and take part in this whole big happening thing, with or without added attachments.

O

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

This makes it a bit clearer for me. I just want to explain something. Because I've had very strong experiences with just presence awareness I have an underlying conviction that this is fundamental, that what we divide into subjective and objective arise out of that. What I tried to say in previous mails was that even so, when I examine the possibility of thinking or doing as in deiliberating it is more than just passive witnessing. But what you say above is maybe useful in that thought is also a faculty or capacity in some way, without that meaning that all the identification and content of it is real and true, including the idea of a self (in this case thinker) that can stand outside thinking.

That's fine. I share that 'underlying conviction'

So I agree with you that awareness, aliveness, presence with all the different arising emotions and responses is part of us. And I agree to the sense that this content is somehow living through us in some ways. We want to be aware and gain insight about what is going on in the deeper levels of ourselves no? So I think we share this underlying sense of life happening. Self-entity sounds like something too obviously unreal. Perhaps this delusion of self is more like the kind of contraction we feel in reaction to life (my this my that etc)?

I'm glad that we now know for sure that we're agreed on this. It's a mystery, but I like your idea of a 'contraction'. Before seeing through the illusion of a separate self, we believe the constantly arising thoughts that tell us, implicitly, that this self is real. Belief is really just a thought pattern coming from memory. It is not new or fresh. It is old, stale, rigid and inflexible. Belief cannot see what is here now because it is memory.

Ok. As I said when I check to see what I am at some essential level, I find awareness, presence, love, peace (depending on how well I face and accept what comes up). But even though we are all connected in this way, miraculously I can move my body etc, I can't move yours. So I have this capacity as an individuated being. That is all I meant. Just because moving does not require thinking, it doesn't mean it does not require mind or 'mindfulness'.

That's for sure. Tanks for clarifying that.

Thought is happening whether I want it to or not. As with movement there is a capacity for attention. With attention I am able to write this reply. But the feeling of 'me' if that was some separate idea would be stuck on top. I am sorry for being difficult. This is not speculation. A 'separate entity' is just fiction whatever that is. Maybe a feeling of 'me' is just a fleeting thing stuck on top of what's happening. But does that mean that everything happens by itself? We have the capacity to play and take part in this whole big happening thing, with or without added attachments.

Splendid. We are agreed.

There's one question that you still haven't answered directly, although I suspect you have within your other answers. But it's a good one, so here it is again. Please answer it.

You said: Nothing is really separate from experience or from everything else that exists, I'm quite sure of that.

I said: So am I. And presumably, like me, for you to be sure, that knowing can only derive from what you've seen in direct experience, otherwise it would be mere belief. That being so, how can a separate self exist or be found?

So Ole, let's now move on to looking at whether a self-entity can be found when choosing and deciding. Obviously, there's quite an overlap with actions and control but it's useful to look more closely at what happens (and doesn't happen) when decisions/choices are made.

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Finally, can I ask you to have a look at the following video clip from Sam Harris:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zZLyYq_QQ ... e=youtu.be
It's really the first 35 minutes that are particularly relevant. (The q&a session that follows is interesting too, but not so much). Sam Harris talks about free will and explains clearly, logically and scientifically, why there is never an 'I' making choices and decisions There is no substitute for looking in direct experience, but this is excellent 'conventional' corroboration for what is to be found, or rather not found, in direct experience.

Pete x

[Ole J]

Hi Pete

I am glad that we hopefully cleared a few things. I am serious about doing this examination not because I have ready made opinions on everything, but because I feel that any illusion I have of a kind of egoic/attached/suffering self need addressing.

I said: So am I. And presumably, like me, for you to be sure, that knowing can only derive from what you've seen in direct experience, otherwise it would be mere belief. That being so, how can a separate self exist or be found?

I only really trust direct experience, which I see as a 'first-person empiricism'. We can't find any free-floating entity but of course we can find grasping/clinging/attachment/reification which, when we recognise primal awareness we can start to let go of, hopefully not just intellectually/logically, as I don't think that works, but deep emotionally etc.

Sam Harris talks about free will and explains clearly, logically and scientifically, why there is never an 'I' making choices and decisions

We talked about the importance of not getting lost in philosophy. But I'm afraid I can only comment on this by addressing some of these philosophical issues here. Dennett and Dawkins and many other current neurophysicists, the raise of new realism in philosophy etc, the materialist world view is in a stronger position than we have ever seen it in the history of mankind. There is very little resitance to the idea that science (that is physics) define reality and everything else is cosmetics (we are talking very orthodox Newtonian science here). Interestingly some answers are seemingly the same There was a famous book by a recent neuroscientist (I can find his name when I get back to London, I'm at the hotel in Brum just now) on why there is no self, just as the view we find in advaita circles, Buddhism and other places. So clearly these tow views coincide? It is extremely important to the future of the planet and the evolution of consciousness that we see that they are diametrically opposite I think. I can't go into this massively, cause it will take too much time. But if I ever write a book it will be on this. But basically the science view is that matter existed on its own until a point when consciousness happened as a consequence of complexity and that consciousness in any case is an epiphenomenon of the brain. It is about taking mind out of the equation of the mind body problem to say only physical stuff is real. Consciousness itself is an illusion because it is only the underlying movement of neurons that are real. I think it is important to know that this is where this stuff is coming from. The mystical view as I see it is that consciousness is non-local. That when you look to see if any material 'stuff' actually exists idepenedently of our experience you can't find any. The opposite view in short. But that doesn't mean I think the question of 'free will' is easy. It is almost impossible.

I can't go through this in every detail but just to address some points. So this guy has the opinion that things are predetermined and another guy has another view. When these two people discuss this the guy with the first view is as equally convinced that his view is the most rational as the other guy. Their investment in the subconscious idea of an ego capable of deciding on an opinion on this are in reality equal. The premise that it could be otherwise leaves no premise for having the debate in the first place. So even to have a discussion we have to at least conventionally assign some degree of 'will' to the debaters.

We can agree that legality is unrealistic. Most of the time people are acting on impulses and retribution makes no sense. I am with him on that. That is why the Buddhist saint Santideva and Spinoza both said why when I know why a man acted as he was compelled to do would I be more angry with him than I am with the weather. Causes are produced by other causes it is true, and Harris argues that choice itself is just one such cause. (To defend against possible accusations of physicalism he says that even if you had a soul it would be pregiven). The psychopath is just a psychopath etc. We can get confused when someone like Nisargadatta Maharaj says there is no free will. I think what Nisargadatta says is that there is no separate agency that can have that will, so therefore it makes no sense. From the Dzogchen perspective, since ultimately everything is awareness there is even no cause and effect. But that is not the level this Harris guy is talking from. He could never acknowldge the idea of awakening or libertaion in the first place.If awakening and liberation is to have any sense it can't just the absence of a self. We might as well just be zombies then. But though we can teoretically imagine (as David Chalmers points out) a zombie that has all the same beahvior as us there is nothing it feels like to be this zombie) ie. it has no phenomenal consciousness. Without awareness it makes no sense to talk about any liberation. There has to be something there once the self is seen to be abscent. Anyway, I think Spinoza was quite good here to say there are degrees of freedom. To the degree that I have awareness and introspection I can gain further insights into what makes me act the way I do, and that way I'm acting less automatically with some more chance of not just following reactionary patterns such as acting from a sense of very strong self-identity with no compassion. The problem with this Harris guy is that as he doesn't know what consciousness is he can't really know what is the base of compassion either, as a part of what is there when you recognise awareness, as just the natural energy of primoridal awareness. If this were not the case it would be no point in any type of practice at all. The one example that is always quoted for these type of scientism ideas are the idea of the delayed response that he mentions. I think these experiments are just misunderstood. I can go more into why, but just for a start it also makes no sense to talk about being in the present or the now or anything like this if we subscribe to this reductionist view. There can be a brain-consciousness and there can be thought. And perhaps these are always in the past, or thought is always stuck on retrospectivly But is the point of discovery not to find that we're more than thought?

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Thought is retrospective. The thought "I want to raise my arm' is retrospective and not needed to perform this action. That is why it appears as if it is happening without any intervention at all. It is possible with training to listen for the earlier intention for movement to occur. I know from 16 years of tai chi training that that is so. My teacher can by putting his hand on my body feel my intention to move before my body has moved and before I even know myself that I have that intention. So this is something that I have experienced that we can train to find intentions forming earlier. They are not thought, but they are part of the mind. I am not saying there is an entity there that is separate. Ultimately it is a mystery that there is this capacity for individual action. Maybe this also springs out of the non-local ground of awareness. I don't know the why of this from direct experience. Who is it that has this intention? When we look we find that the whole fantasy person has nothing to do with it. But at a basic level there is this pontential totally beyond something as surface as my sense of identity or personal story.

O

[Ole J]

p.s. I do feel very passionate about this issue of materialism. There is a band of neurologists at the moment that are pushing very heavily for reductionism and physicalism (with suits pseudo-fascists like Dawkins and others). When I talk about evolution of consciousness it doesn't mean that I believe that the ground of awareness can evolve. That is beyond good and evil or time. But on the relative level, if we're starting to indoctrinate children with the view that they're only a set of neurological events (which is already happening) we can do a lot of damage to their spiritual potential. Of course the legal subject is just a convenient fiction, Harris is right on that, but that is not the issue here. What is spontaneity and creativity ? - I don't mean for a buddha but at our ordinary level. It can't be the case that it is a massively controlling ego. That is not what 'inspiration' is about. But is spontaneity predetermined? Is it not that by loosening our fixed ideas of identity we can more creatively align ourselves with the potential of the present moment?

You are right that when raising your arm it is very hard to pinpoint the exact moment an intention forms. But there are clearly degrees of how we can listen to this, and it is not disconnected from say a command such as Raise your arm (soldiers) or whatever. It is true that only the present is real if we mean timeless awareness. But a more interesting theory on this problem of delay that Harris and others always refer to is that we're actually more attuned to the potential of the future than we think. If you're with a very advanced practitioner, they might have a sense of what you're about to say before you do. The moment (in time) has massive potential that we are attuned to in terms of what a likely outcome is. In fact many experiments have been done on retroactive causality to show that we 'know' more than we think we do in this way. Harris tries unconvincingly to distinguish between determinism and fatalism, saying that of course you make choices but they are conditioned. That is very true that most of our responses to situations are heavily conditioned. But there would not be any point in any type of awareness practice if this could not be addressed. Whether people are destined to wake up, or are already always awake from the start etc is really a different question that has to do with cosmic awareness. On the level of collective mind it is very harmful to sign up to determinism.

O

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

I only really trust direct experience, which I see as a 'first-person empiricism'. We can't find any free-floating entity but of course we can find grasping/clinging/attachment/reification which, when we recognise primal awareness we can start to let go of, hopefully not just intellectually/logically, as I don't think that works, but deep emotionally etc.

Thank you. Well put.

Thanks for your comments on the clip. As always, I found your views and perspective very interesting. I'm glad you found the Sam Harris video so stimulating! As I said, it's merely an add-on for 'conventional "corroboration"' and not part of our investigation of direct experience.

Raise your right arm (or don’t). In that process of raising the right arm (or not), a decision is made, or at least something happens (or doesn’t). But can you pinpoint the actual moment of choice and find the actual entity that appears to be making that choice? In direct experience, can that moment of choice, that apparent chooser, actually be found? Or does the idea 'I just chose to (not) raise my right arm' come after the event itself?

Thought is retrospective. The thought "I want to raise my arm' is retrospective and not needed to perform this action. That is why it appears as if it is happening without any intervention at all...They are not thought, but they are part of the mind. I am not saying there is an entity there that is separate. Ultimately it is a mystery that there is this capacity for individual action. Maybe this also springs out of the non-local ground of awareness. I don't know the why of this from direct experience...When we look we find that the whole fantasy person has nothing to do with it.

And of course, looking in direct experience has no whys, just noticing what's there (and not there). It's clear from what you say that a self-entity doing any choosing or deciding cannot be found.

So, excellent Ole. This still seems to be going really well. So far, you've been able to see that there's just no separate self present in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, doing, controlling, deciding or choosing. So, what about the body? Let's look to see whether there's a separate self to be found in or as the body:

Solely from experience:

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

I'm still really enjoying this inquiry. Hope you are too :)

Pete x

[Ole J]

Hi Pete

Good you're not put off by my longish rant against this particular type of materialism. Yes I found it stimulating, and it is useful at a more intellectual level to see a presentation by someone that articulates the main views that I strongly oppose! It is important I think to know that these views do not support the nondual perspective because they are plainly physicalist. And sadly there is a great normative support for these views, that actually are not scientific as in factual but mere assumptions. But enough about that!

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

This one seems more familiar to me. When we have our eyes open and look at a body part and label it we have this idea of objectivity that we have with anything 3rd person. But when we close our eyes, we see that this idea 'foot', 'hand' etc disappears, it was only connected to the idea of the thing as image. What is there when we check are just a series of undulating sensations. So yes the body is just another label for experiences. It is better to say that the body is in the mind than to say that the mind is in the body. What we have are experiences and sensations. The body is just a conventional label for sure. But we definitely have experience. We're nothing but experience (unlike what the physicalists say who want to do away with experience altogether and reify the 3rd person view as factual).

So this one I don't find a stumbling block at all. As might have been clear so far, I find the 'do we have will or can we make choices' more something that I can't easily dismiss. I have said so far that the actual agency or feeling of being separate, 'my' body and 'my' mind does not refer to anything real. But that does not mean that we can just say everything happens automatically end of story. If we look in direct experience at the body, I think I said before that it is clear that we can if we choose place our full attention in our little finger. We can listen inwardly to sensations in the little finger. As I said this is not thought, it is mindfulness or attention. I don't think that can be dismissed as a capacity or faculty or whatever you want to call it that is individuated. You can turn it around and say that everything is in the world, that individuation could not happen without the totality of the world, but this is an abstraction, not direct experience.Also you can definitely raise your arm for example and generate that intention. It is not purely stimulation as in a zombie response happening as part of an insentient causal change!

best

Ole

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

Good you're not put off by my longish rant against this particular type of materialism.

Far from it. I fully take your point and agree with what you say, for what it's worth. I also explained why it's useful as a supplementary to this guiding. There used to be a nice clip from BBC's Horizon series, called The Secret You on Neuroscience and Freewill but, sadly, that's no longer available.

When we have our eyes open and look at a body part and label it we have this idea of objectivity that we have with anything 3rd person. But when we close our eyes, we see that this idea 'foot', 'hand' etc disappears, it was only connected to the idea of the thing as image. What is there when we check are just a series of undulating sensations. So yes the body is just another label for experiences. It is better to say that the body is in the mind than to say that the mind is in the body. What we have are experiences and sensations. The body is just a conventional label for sure. But we definitely have experience. We're nothing but experience (unlike what the physicalists say who want to do away with experience altogether and reify the 3rd person view as factual).

Well said. I couldn't agree more; except the last bit. I've really no idea what the physicalists want. But it's certainly not to be found in direct experience :)

Anyway, it's clear from what you say that you cannot find a separate self in or as the body.

So Ole, you've now looked and looked everywhere there is to look in direct experience and you haven't been able to find even a trace of a self-entity lurking anywhere. But, before we review and revisit any areas that might be needed, let's just look from a different perspective:

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

Pete x

[Ole J]

Hi Pete

Thanks again for your mail.

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?

It is certainly worth looking at what's there as a mere absence of something might not otherwise make much difference. I think it is best for me to start at the bottom, what I'm more certain of and work towards the top which I'm less certain of.

What is aware? - There is just awareness, it just is without any what. This is all that really is available in direct experience. It must be immanent to any content not transcendent to it.

So what I believe on top is not proven. But the Dzogchen view that awareness is like the base of everything resonates with me. It might be helpful to think of that just as cosmic background radiation or non-local or other hints that it is not subjective or in my head. Though the presence or recognition of that has to be individuated in a way. As it is not clear that if I recognise this lucidity everybody else will automatically do so too.

What does? This is a little tricky question. So again we have to separate between ideas and direct experience. In terms of ideas we can say that if awareness is the base, it is that primordial potential present in the ground that does. Or we can say that life does, as you hinted at,so there is no doer etc. But unless we have some flash of cosmic insight at times that it might be so, our everyday experience still tells us that we have a capacity as individuals to do at the relative level. The accompanying feeling of selfhood is not in itself the doer, but that does not mean that we can say that everything just happens automatically or that our preferences and choices however much conditioned are without any efficacy.

What thinks? We can't say 'I think therefore I am' because it does not follow from thought that there is an I that thinks. Thoughts mostly just happen. But we have the capacity to follow thoughts and its content in a more directed way because we have capacity for attention. So again, as I pointed out before, it is too simplistic to just say oh everything happens just like that. Attention is not thought, but it is some kind of faculty that is individuated. It doesn't mean that it could exist in isolation from the rest of totality, but then nothing can.

What experiences? We can see now that what experiences and what is aware is not the same type of question as what thinks and what does. With experience it is more easy to say that everything is experience, there is nothing outside experience. So experience doesn't point to a subject. But there is some kind of difference between experience and awareness. In that anything you can point to as an experience or if you like the content of experience, whether a special mental state or some object of perception is not in itself the ground of awareness, but neither is it separate from it, hence awareness is immanent or has potential. We can test that directly, as is famously pointed out in that I am not the content of my experiences type of neti neti.

With 'me' as a story of thought what remains? Tricky again. Of course awareness and presence remains. But even if the you is a story it is too easy to say that it just disappear. My preferences, likes and dislikes are fully operational even if they are constructed or habituated or only falsely associated with a separate 'me'. Though there can be more of a loosening of this I guess.

So far I feel that the absence of a self-entity as some kind of logical conclusion can be a bit too much of a 'head' idea. I am not sure it makes any massive difference. I feel that recognising awareness makes a difference because it is not based on thought, it is what is always there. But that is why I thought it would be good to also address the habitual self. I'm just not sure yet if that makes it less operational.

best

O x

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

What is aware? - There is just awareness, it just is without any what. This is all that really is available in direct experience. It must be immanent to any content not transcendent to it.

Thanks for your considered replies which, as ever were intellectually stimulating, as well as elegantly put. I've quoted the section above because it simply states that underlying 'all objects' there is 'only' awareness.

None of what you have said throughout our thread indicates to me that you either believe in a self-entity or, fundamentally, have been able to find a separate self in direct experience.

So Ole, before we move to 'final questions' (I'll explain about them in the next post), I'd like briefly to review everything we've done so far; just to see if you need to revisit any aspects to look in more depth for any evidence of a self-entity anywhere at all.

As always, in direct experience:

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

And finally:

Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?

It might seem like a bit if a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, of course, there's something you want to examine some more. Very often, a one-word answer will suffice, It doesn't look to me as if there's likely to be much, if anything, but basically, we just need to tidy up and identify any areas that need to be looked into a bit more deeply, or clarified.



Pete x

[Ole J]

Hi Pete

Thanks for listening to me going through all this stuff. If you don't think that any of what I've said really amounts to a false belief then then I guess that is ok. Testing and reflecting post-testing on these inquiries it seems that the biggest issue I've had would be around volition and also about how we define the 'self'. That might be evident through my response to the following:

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

The body is an easy one. Yes it is another thought label for tactile and kinesthtic experience.
The five body senses are part of a pre-existing capacity. The self accompanies the mental conceptualisation of the senses but it is not what brings them into being.

Is there a self 'in here' as opposed to what is 'out there'? I take it that all is in experience. Just because my attention is limited to what is within my field (for example I don't hear your thoughts) that does not mean that they are separated.

Is there a self that makes decisions? The conclusion I've reached through this examination is that the 'sense of self' our sense of being a person or a center of experience accompanies what goes on, rather than it being the cause. But if we look at the phrasing of this sentence, 'is there a self' is easy to dismiss because it suggests a cut off god-like agency. But it is still my experience that whatever sense of self I have I as an individual can make decisions. There is some kind of intention forming when I decide to reply to this e-mail. That event does not happen in utter darkness as if I was a machine. But that is a simple faculty. It does not mean that all the various feelings I might have about 'me' and 'mine' is the stuff that makes that decision. Although on the other hand the disposition I have towards making this reply has an effect. Again it is not happening in the dark.

The same applies to thinking and doing. Doing might be triggered by things. This is the kind of behaviourist idea of the physicalists. It is not entirely wrong. But I still have an 'inward' life that affects my doing. I am not a zombie. It is the same with thoughts. If I try not to think, or don't particularly want to think, thinking still arises. This is fairly passive. But directing thought like I'm doing this very moment, yes thoughts enter my mind, but it is more directed by my capacity for attention (I say 'my' here only conventionally as far as there is no other way of putting it).

Is there a self that is the experiencer? I'd like to say that everything is part of experience, that nothing exists outside of experience, so no, the self is just another object of experience. But this is where we often get confused because there is a witnessing part of experience that seems to be other than the content. Sometimes people say they are only this witness. That again is a passive illusion, as I might form intentions or direct my attention, While I do that there is a part of my mind that is witnessing that at the same time. It would lead to some split-psyche if I said that these were different. Hence both intention, more related to 'will' and witnessing more related to listening to what's going on is happening at the same time. Because I have experience of awareness beyond this split, I'd say that witnessing and individuated intention both are part of a more fundamental awareness that is who I am 'beyond the mind'.

Is the self a mental fabrication? It is like a mirror reflection in a sense in that we imbue this self-reflecsivity with lots of projected stuff, that then feels separate. The lucidity of awareness accompanies all that we do. But the sense of 'me' and 'I'm this person' etc. is an added thing to the lucidity. But even if we're all connected, this does not mean that we're all one soup. Individuation is part of it, the capacity to follow thoughts or to act. So my conclusion is that the 'sense of self' is not itself an agency. To say that is separate, (separate from what?) is not even computable. But to say everything happens by itself, I have no volition etc is also not true, or we would not be having this conversation.

O x

[moondog]

Hi Ole,

Thanks for your comprehensive answers which, inter alia, confirm to me that you see for certain that there's no separate self to be found in direct experience.

So, here are the final questions. When answering question 5, please give specific and very recent examples from direct experience. Once I get your answers, and have clarified anything I might need to, I'll put them forward for to the guides for any comments. I'll then arrange for you to get access to the aftercare and various other groups on Facebook and the LU site. These are very friendly, helpful and supportive forums where you can discuss any issues relating to having seen that there's no separate self. Initially, it can be very helpful to talk with other folks who have also recently gated. So, if you do want to join the FB groups, please either let me know your details here or, if you prefer, PM them to me.

Always from direct experience:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

Please give examples from recent experience.

6) Anything to add?

It's been great pointing out where to look for you, Ole :)

Pete x