Humble request to help me realize the truth

[Xain]

You are doing really well, Omar - Keep on this track.

Incidentally, this investigation is not to suggest any particular thought is 'wrong' - It is simply to note what is happening. Ideas that brains and ears and eyes are involved in the senses are perfectly fine and essential for the medical profession.

In this investigation, we examine 'I'. We assume it is something 'real', that it has 'inherent existence' . . . but can it be found outside of the content of thoughts . . .

No, 'I see' is a thought that comes after the direct experience.
Any thoughts of what is doing the hearing is formed after the direct experience.

Good.
If a thought suggesting 'I see' or 'I hear' was also experienced at the same time as that which is being seen or heard, then would that also just be a thought formed about what is responsible? Or would that thought point to or mean something different?

Your comments might suggest that there is either seeing/hearing or thinking but they don't occur together, or thoughts only occur after events happen.
Could a thought about what is happening or what is responsible occur at the same time as the sensation?
Could such a thought be treated in exactly the same way as we are doing now? Or would it be different in some way?

You may use a similar method for yourself to examine the weaker senses of smell and touch.

Let's move to 'touch' now - This is generally considered to be a greater contributor to the belief 'I am this body', as the body/surface of the skin is assumed to perform the function of touch.

Exercise:

Close your eyes.
Reach out and place a hand on a flat surface like a desk or table.
Now focus and 'go to' the experience of (which we normally refer to as) 'hand on desk'.

Inquire.
In the experience itself, are there two things:
1) A desk or table being felt.
2) A hand / body doing the feeling.
Or (as we have found previously in the other experiments) just one sensation of 'feeling'?

In the experience, is there an 'I' doing the function of 'feeling'?
Can anything be found in the experience that is performing the function of 'feeling'?
What can be found?

Can an 'I' be found at all . . . other than in a thought being formed about what is assumed to be responsible.

Xain ♥

[Xain]

Do you wish to continue, Omar?
The guidelines request that you try to reply at least once a day.
If you do not wish to continue, please let me know.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Yes, I wish to continue. Sorry for the lack of response. I will try my best to respond once a day or at least let you know if I need additional time to respond.

Could a thought about what is happening or what is responsible occur at the same time as the sensation?

No, I believe that only one object (i.e. sensation, thought, emotion, form) can be perceived in any given moment.

Could such a thought be treated in exactly the same way as we are doing now? Or would it be different in some way?

I believe I am unable or it is currently out of my ability to comprehend having a thought of 'self' during a direct experience.

In the experience, is there an 'I' doing the function of 'feeling'?

No, only the sensations of feeling the desk (i.e. hardness, texture, temperature) are perceived.

Can anything be found in the experience that is performing the function of 'feeling'?

No, nothing can be found, in the direct experience, that is doing the function of feeling.

[Xain]

No, I believe that only one object (i.e. sensation, thought, emotion, form) can be perceived in any given moment.

Really?
So . . . if a sound if being perceived, do all the other senses switch off?

I believe I am unable or it is currently out of my ability to comprehend having a thought of 'self' during a direct experience.

I don't understand what you by 'during a direct experience'.

'Direct Experience' as is used in LU is a simple pointer to the five senses - seeing, hearing, touch, smell and taste.
You appear to be suggesting that it is impossible for you to hear and see at the same time.
Surely you are not suggesting this?

I am asking if it possible for you to see something and have a thought about what is being seen (or what might be responsible for doing that seeing) at the same time.
In any every-day sense, is this not perfectly acceptable?

Xain ♥

[Xain]

Sorry, I meant 'I don't understand what you MEAN by 'during a direct experience'.

You may consider 'thought' as another sense, perhaps. We can say objects appear in vision, sounds appear in hearing and thoughts appear in thinking. Objects, sounds and thoughts are appearances in each sense.

Reading between the lines, you appear to be referring to 'Direct Experience' as some-sort of altered state of consciousness where the objectifying mind is not present (thoughts not present during experience).
Is that right?
If this is so, although I understand what you may be referring to, that is not what this guidance is about.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Reading between the lines, you appear to be referring to 'Direct Experience' as some-sort of altered state of consciousness where the objectifying mind is not present (thoughts not present during experience).
Is that right?

Currently, I see the totality of life experience as a combination of sensations of objects (physical and mental - namarupa in buddhism) and perceptions of those sensations. Instead of using 'direct experience' It might be better for me to use the term sensate experience. The thinking/perceiving that follow a sensate experience, whether it is about 'self' or something else, would be a thought / perception experience.

The sensatie experience is comprised of the detection of a stimulus and the transmission of a sensory signal towards the central nervous system. While, perception is the process of taking that sensory information, filtering it, organizing it, and interpreting its meaning to create a subjective or conscious experience related to the sensation.

I, currently, have the belief that there is no separate 'self' (anatta in buddhism) and I feel the anxiety / excitement (dukkha in buddhism) vanish whenever I have a thought of 'self' and it is followed by the belief in anatta. However, this thought process does not always happen and I get caught in the cycle of dukkha. I thought that the LU guidance would help me to realize, not just believe, that there is no separate 'self' to refer these experiences back to.

[Xain]

Hi Omar

I have to say it's very difficult for me to reply to your last post.
I have some knowledge of Buddhist philosophy and scientific terms but your knowledge appears greater than mine in your post.

I see the totality of life experience as a combination of sensations of objects (physical and mental - namarupa in buddhism) and perceptions of those sensations.

Ok, sure. This is a duality. A subject/object relationship. There are objects, and an 'I' that is perceiving those objects. I follow.

The thinking/perceiving that follow a sensate experience, whether it is about 'self' or something else, would be a thought / perception experience.

So you term a 'thought' as a subtle object? I can understand that.
So there is an experience of an object, and a thought about it which is another experienced object - sure.
Notice here though, it does not allow for two (or more) experiences to occur simultaneously. Why not?

This isn't really a big-deal in relation to this guidance. It just struck me how you mentioned that thoughts always occur after experiences.
Could an ambulance be seen, whilst at the same time the ambulance siren is heard, whilst at the same time a thought is experienced 'That's an ambulance with it's siren going'?
So three objects experienced at once?

While, perception is the process of taking that sensory information, filtering it, organizing it, and interpreting its meaning to create a subjective or conscious experience related to the sensation.

Do you understand that perception itself is based on thought (memory)?
When I say 'thought', I am not referring to a thought object but on the automatic labelling performed by the conscious process. This is going far deeper than we need to, but hey . . .

I, currently, have the belief that there is no separate 'self' (anatta in buddhism) and I feel the anxiety / excitement (dukkha in buddhism) vanish whenever I have a thought of 'self' and it is followed by the belief in anatta.

Realisation of anatta is perfectly possible with my guidance.
I understand what you are referring to in what you wrote. Are you expecting (in every-day terms) that something will change?
Are you even expecting what you have just described to stop?
What if there is no separate self right now? This moment, right now, there is no separate self - Just the belief that there is. So right now, there isn't a separate person experiencing life . . . or feeling dukkha . . . or experiencing thoughts . . .
You could realise that.
And (in a self-defeating way) it would also be realised that no separate self ever realised anything! :-)

However, this thought process does not always happen and I get caught in the cycle of dukkha.

Can you see that this line is, itself, a belief that there is an 'I' getting caught up in something?
Can you see that 'I won't be getting caught up in dukkka once I've realised this through LU' is both a belief in the separate self, and also an expectation of any achievement for it?
What if there is just 'no separate self'? Never has been. Never will be.
What could change other than to realise this simple thing?
(I offer that to you for your consideration, rather than a deep guidance question).

I thought that the LU guidance would help me to realize, not just believe, that there is no separate 'self' to refer these experiences back to.

Yes - A realisation is possible.
I feel it necessary to bring up about expectations at this point though, so we both know where we stand and what you can honestly expect.

We've gone off track for a bit of a chat - Let me know your thoughts.
Once we've come to an understanding, we can continue on if you wish to.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Hi Xian,

Thank you for your patience guidance. Yes, I would like to continue.

Do you understand that perception itself is based on thought (memory)?
When I say 'thought', I am not referring to a thought object but on the automatic labelling performed by the conscious process. This is going far deeper than we need to, but hey . . .

Ok, I understand now.

Are you expecting (in every-day terms) that something will change? Are you even expecting what you have just described to stop?

Well, isn't everything always in constant change? My path in buddhism has been gradually working its way up to awareness of no separate 'self', among other insights, through daily effort in mindfulness, concentration, and noting practices. I understand that the insight in no separate 'self' is only the recognition that a once held belief is false. I only expect that your guidance will help me along the path to produce that insight.

[Xain]

Great!
I got in late tonight and I am very tired - I will reply and continue tomorrow.

Best wishes to you
Xain ♥

[Xain]

Well, isn't everything always in constant change?

I agree.
In certain paths (advaita?) they take awareness or experience to be the unchanging background to which all else appears to/through. This is an acceptable 'half-way house' for the purposes of guidance or enquiry. Anyway, I'm going off track . . .

My path in buddhism has been gradually working its way up to awareness of no separate 'self', among other insights, through daily effort in mindfulness, concentration, and noting practices. I understand that the insight in no separate 'self' is only the recognition that a once held belief is false. I only expect that your guidance will help me along the path to produce that insight.

Great!
Let's continue on . . .

Hopefully at this stage, you will have seen that in seeing and hearing in the experiences themselves, an 'I' (inherently existing separate self) is not something which can be found that is performing these senses.
To suggest what IS performing these senses can only come from thought/memory - Does this seem fair?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I want this realisation to be clear for you - Let me know if it is or not and we can explore further.

You may examine the weaker senses of smell and taste in a similar way if you wish to.

Let's move to 'feeling' now. This sense is generally considered to be close to home in relation to the body, as it is assumed that the body is doing the feeling of the external world (external to the body, and the body being 'me').

Exercise:
Reach out and place and hand on a flat surface like a desk or table
Now focus on (go to) the sensation that we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk'.

Inquire:
In the experience itself, how many things are there?
Are there two things?
1) A hand/body doing the feeling
2) A desk being felt
Or is there just a sensation?

In the experience is there an 'I' actively performing a function called 'feeling'?
Is the body doing it?

If it is suggested that 'I am doing the feeling', what is the 'I' here? - Answer from what appears clear to you.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Does this seem fair?

Yes, I agree.

In the experience itself, how many things are there? Are there two things?

No, there is only the sensation. An 'I' cannot be found, in the experience.

Is the body doing it?

In the experience, there is nothing that can be found doing the feeling.

...what is the'I' here?

The body and mind.

[Xain]

...what is the'I' here?
The body and mind.

Let's back-track.

In a conventional sense, the word/concept 'I' is used to denote the body and mind.
It is assumed that the 'I' is an inherently existing 'thing' / person / separate self.

We examined 'feeling' . . .

Is the body doing it?
In the experience, there is nothing that can be found doing the feeling.

Ok - Good - No 'body' found doing the feeling.

So if it said 'I am feeling', what is the 'I'?

Xain ♥

[Xain]

My terminology might not work for you.
You seem to reference 'thought' as a subtle object / experience and I can understand that point of view.

However, we need to try to establish a framework for discussing these things.
To try to put it into other words . . .

It is assumed that 'I' is an inherently existing 'thing' / person / separate self, usually denoted as the body and mind.
Is it assumed that the 'I' (specifically the body) is responsible for the sense of touch.

It seems clear to you that in your inquiry, there was no 'I' responsible for the sense of touch - nor was a body responsible for it. There was just 'sensation'.

So if it is said 'I am feeling' - What is this 'I'?
Is it an inherently existing 'thing' as it is assumed to be? If not, how would you refer to it?

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Ok, the framework is understood. 'I' = body/mind

So if it said 'I am feeling', what is the 'I'?

'I' is a only a thought.

Is it assumed that the 'I' (specifically the body) is responsible for the sense of touch.

No, there is nothing specifically responsible for the sense of touch.

Is it an inherently existing 'thing' as it is assumed to be? If not, how would you refer to it?

'I' is only a label.

[Xain]

Is it an inherently existing 'thing' as it is assumed to be? If not, how would you refer to it?
'I' is only a label.

That works for me. Good.

So we have ranged over all the senses now.
Is it realised that in the experience of all the senses, that 'I' is only ever a label. It is not something can be found actively performing any of the senses?

Let us move to choice and control now.

Exercise:
Choose one of the hands - It doesn't matter which.
When you feel you wish to, raise the chosen hand into the air.

Do this as many times as you wish to, and each time inquire:
In the experience itself of 'choosing' what is making the decision?
Is there an 'I' to be found making the choice?
Can whatever is making the choice be found at all?

'I' as we have said in a general sense refers to 'body' and 'mind'.
Do you find a body making the choice? Do you find a mind making the choice?
If not . . . if it is said 'I am choosing' what is the 'I' in the statement?

Similarly with control.
In the experience of raising the hand into the air, what was making that happen?
What was causing the muscles to contract and the limb to raise?
Is there an 'I' making that happen to be found in the experience?
Can whatever is making that happen be found at all?

'I' as we have said in a general sense refers to 'body' and 'mind'.
Do you find a body actively controlling the muscles and making the hand rise?
Do you find a mind making the hand rise?
If not . . . if it is said 'I am controlling the hand, I am making the hand rise' what is the 'I' in the statement?

Xain ♥