Deconstructing the self

[Alexw]

Hi,

Great looking, well done!

Seeing, hearing, feeling & thinking, happen without effort. In direct experience, there are times that thought seems to be a process that can be started with intention to think, but 99% of the time, thoughts arise on their own.

Yes, "seeing, hearing, feeling & thinking, happen without effort" - no effort, just automatic sensing...
Can you please tell me more about this process - when thought processes seem to be started with intention - meaning: with someone, a controlling entity, that is in charge of intentionally starting this process. Can you please describe the process and also the one that is (or seems to be) in charge.

Careful looking just reveals habits of thinking & explaining processes that lie beyond direct experience. It appears that whatever I can say about things is purely second-hand knowledge. learned by others & repeated like a parrot.

yes... like a parrot... thats funny.. :-)

But you are spot on, whatever you can say about direct experience is just an interpretation that has been acquired over time. There is nothing original to it. It is like a layer of dust on live experience. It really is all about removing these layers of dust until experience shines as it is. No need to explain, not because of being lazy, but simply because it has been realised that there is nothing to explain, that all explanations might have a certain value in our daily life, but that they don't provide an accurate reflection of "what is".

How does this make you feel? That all this "second-hand knowledge" does not really reflect direct experience in the way you might have believed it does? Does it feel scary that there might not be anyone observing, feeling, thinking, controlling at all?

What tells you that there is something "that lies beyond direct experience"? Does there have to be a "beyond" from where things come from / arise?
Please sit down, close your eyes and simply hear and feel. Hear how sounds arise and vanish. Feel how physical sensations arise and vanish. Do they come from somewhere? Do they have to come from somewhere so they can be sensed? Or are they simply here and then they are not here - sensed and then not sensed?
Sure, in our world of scientific explanations we believe that everything has to come from somewhere and it has to go somewhere else - but is this also true for direct experience? Do things come from somewhere and then vanish to somewhere else? Is there a here and there at all? Or does all direct experience arise nowhere - in no specific location at all..?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

Can you please tell me more about this process - when thought processes seem to be started with intention - meaning: with someone, a controlling entity, that is in charge of intentionally starting this process. Can you please describe the process and also the one that is (or seems to be) in charge.

At times, thinking feels deliberate, like when making plans. Today, I was having to think about when I should bring my car for repairs, so there was this deliberate planning process happening, as opposed to random thoughts just popping up unbidden. If I really consider it, I might be tempted to justify an entity needing to plan, but the needing was a feeling of restlessness & urgency in the body + thoughts "I need to make an appointment for the car". And, tangled together, there's the habitual positing of an entity, but, neither the feelings nor the thoughts in themselves is the one in charge.

How does this make you feel? That all this "second-hand knowledge" does not really reflect direct experience in the way you might have believed it does? Does it feel scary that there might not be anyone observing, feeling, thinking, controlling at all?

Well, it makes me realize that I haven't examined enough of my life based on my own experience. It's been taken for granted that whatever has been learned can be counted on, and, in this particular line of questioning, that isn't the case. It's not scary to consider that no one is observing, feeling, thinking, or controlling. A few times, it was seen quite clearly that no one was seeing or hearing. It resulted in a lot of smiling, laughter, & freedom from an apparent barrier to direct experience. Hence the ongoing seeking & this attempt to be guided to a permanent realization of this.

What tells you that there is something "that lies beyond direct experience"? Does there have to be a "beyond" from where things come from / arise?

This is just an assumption, on my part. It would be more accurate to just say that whatever i'm aware of is what can be experienced, since, by definition, something "that lies beyond direct experience" could not arise in awareness/be experienced. So, no, there doesn't need to be a beyond nor do I need to be concerned myself with where things come from.

Please sit down, close your eyes and simply hear and feel. Hear how sounds arise and vanish. Feel how physical sensations arise and vanish. Do they come from somewhere? Do they have to come from somewhere so they can be sensed? Or are they simply here and then they are not here - sensed and then not sensed?
Sure, in our world of scientific explanations we believe that everything has to come from somewhere and it has to go somewhere else - but is this also true for direct experience? Do things come from somewhere and then vanish to somewhere else? Is there a here and there at all? Or does all direct experience arise nowhere - in no specific location at all..?

Sights & sounds are simply known when they are seen/heard, & gone when they are gone. Here & there are relative to one's position at all times. Physical sensations, however, seem to have a specific location in/on the body. For example, I have frequent hip pain that bothers me at night, & I can indicate the place on my body where it is felt. Of course, when it's gone it hasn't vanished elsewhere--it simply doesn't exist.

- MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Today, I was having to think about when I should bring my car for repairs, so there was this deliberate planning process happening, as opposed to random thoughts just popping up unbidden.

It doesn't mean that thoughts have to be completely random and that no "logical" chain of thought is possible without a separate controller... maybe it is "self controlling"..?

I might be tempted to justify an entity needing to plan, but the needing was a feeling of restlessness & urgency in the body + thoughts "I need to make an appointment for the car"

Yes, there is the idea that an entity is required for planning, but when looking for it... can it be found?
When this happens again and you become aware of these sensations (e.g. restlessness & urgency) then try to stop right there. Alternatively and maybe the better way to go is that you induce this situation "artificially" by finding a sentence that describes a current issue that requires your attention/decision and then when intoning the statement you look at the physical sensations that arise. "I need to make an appointment for the car" is the sentence for the situation that you have been describing, but you can find a different one for each situation. See if you find a sentence that describes a current issue that requires a decision and then sit down, relax and intone it a few times. It is the right sentence if certain uncomfortable sensations arise...
Now, see how the physical sensations arise and also note how they put you in an "uncomfortable spot" - you feel you need to get out of this spot and you need to do something... See how the potential reactions arise on the horizon - see how thoughts of planning arise - see these reactions but don't do anything. Stay with the sensations.

Now, and this is important, please find the planner, the controller that basically bridges the gap between the perceived need, which seems to be increased in urgency by these physical sensations, and the result, the planning.
Really LOOK for this planner/controller - it is very important that you really look into this gap when sensations are present - look for the one that decides to leave these sensations behind and that approves the reactive thought. What is there in this gap?

This kind of inquiry can be taken to a much greater depth and is also the key to breaking a range of selfing processes like aversion, desire, fear etc etc... but for now lets use it to investigate the controller, the planner...
See if you find this planner in between the physical sensations and the reactions (the thoughts that are the formulated plan).

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Hi Alex,

My apologies for writing a bit later in the day.

Yes, there is the idea that an entity is required for planning, but when looking for it... can it be found?
When this happens again and you become aware of these sensations (e.g. restlessness & urgency) then try to stop right there. Alternatively and maybe the better way to go is that you induce this situation "artificially" by finding a sentence that describes a current issue that requires your attention/decision and then when intoning the statement you look at the physical sensations that arise. "I need to make an appointment for the car" is the sentence for the situation that you have been describing, but you can find a different one for each situation. See if you find a sentence that describes a current issue that requires a decision and then sit down, relax and intone it a few times. It is the right sentence if certain uncomfortable sensations arise...
Now, see how the physical sensations arise and also note how they put you in an "uncomfortable spot" - you feel you need to get out of this spot and you need to do something... See how the potential reactions arise on the horizon - see how thoughts of planning arise - see these reactions but don't do anything. Stay with the sensations.

Here's a current thought that triggers tons of discomfort: I hate my f*cking job, & I have to find a way out of there! Right there, implied in language, is an "I" who hates her job. Along with the thought, images of being at work & the difficult people there arise, and those are followed by tension in the shoulders & abdomen along with acid & heat in the stomach. Of course, the thought is only a thought, the images are only images, & the feelings are only feelings. Each thing, in & of itself, is only that thing, not an entity or a me.

If I just stay with the bare sensations, they feel like crap, but they eventually fade. Once more thoughts arise, they feed the unpleasant feelings again. When the sensations are felt & not reconnected to anything, they lose their charge.

Now, and this is important, please find the planner, the controller that basically bridges the gap between the perceived need, which seems to be increased in urgency by these physical sensations, and the result, the planning.
Really LOOK for this planner/controller - it is very important that you really look into this gap when sensations are present - look for the one that decides to leave these sensations behind and that approves the reactive thought. What is there in this gap?

There is no planner/controller. The perceived need is really just a thought that arises after negative thoughts & unpleasant feelings about the job. The planning is just more thinking & when it stops there's nothing there, just silence. The "one" that decides to leave sensations behind is also a decision/thought. Aprroving the reactive thought is just another thought, and again, in the gap is nothing/no-thing.

So, there's no planner in between physical sensations & reactive thoughts. Just chains of arising/passing thoughts & arising/passing physical sensations.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Aprroving the reactive thought is just another thought, and again, in the gap is nothing/no-thing.

Yes, well seen, the gap is perfectly empty - no controller anywhere to be found...

there's no planner in between physical sensations & reactive thoughts. Just chains of arising/passing thoughts & arising/passing physical sensations

Yes, true.

So when this thought arises "I hate my f*cking job, & I have to find a way out of there!" and then these uncomfortable sensations arise.. what happens next? Is there anger or aversion triggering a certain reaction? Can you please describe the process as it normally happens.

[MoonChild625]

So when this thought arises "I hate my f*cking job, & I have to find a way out of there!" and then these uncomfortable sensations arise.. what happens next? Is there anger or aversion triggering a certain reaction? Can you please describe the process as it normally happens.

Hi Alex,

When the thought "I hate my f*cking job, & I have to find a way out of there!" arises, unpleasant feelings arise.

There is anger/aversion to the feelings: "I hate feeling like this"---->blame: "Ah, it's because I hate the job that I feel shitty" (It's really the thoughts about the job that trigger the unpleasant bodily sensations).

Then, planning thoughts: "Because of how I feel about the job, I must find/create a new job. Leaving this one will solve things."

With the possibility of changing the situation, the unpleasant feelings fade, & thoughts of hope arise: "Yes, I can be happy once I get out of this situation".

And on & on it goes, thoughts (aversive or positive) triggering feelings (pleasant or unpleasant) triggering thoughts, etc.

There's no separate entity "behind" each thought or feeling. Just patterns of thoughts & feelings fueling each other.

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

There's no separate entity "behind" each thought or feeling. Just patterns of thoughts & feelings fueling each other.

Yes, well seen!

What makes this pattern/emotion powerful is the combination of sensation and thought - one part alone is never a real issue, but when thoughts and sensations "combine" into an emotion like aversion, fear or desire then there seems to be an urge to act on this emotion.

Please intone this statement again until these unpleasant sensations arise - now try to simply stay with these sensations. See how reactive thought patters form on the "far side" of the gap, but don't pay attention to them. Let them be there and let them go. Stay with the sensations. Now, there should be something like "anger" or "aversion" that takes control and then bridges the gap so that reactive thoughts and activities happen - so that emotional reactions happen. There should be an emotion, something that is a real, perceivable fusion/combination of thought and sensation (not only a simple sensation and a few thoughts) - a real emotion should be more than just a simple sensation and a few afterthoughts, no?
See if you can find this emotion, this anger/aversion that triggers the reactive pattern. It should be there in this gap, shouldn't it?

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Please intone this statement again until these unpleasant sensations arise - now try to simply stay with these sensations. See how reactive thought patterns form on the "far side" of the gap, but don't pay attention to them. Let them be there and let them go. Stay with the sensations. Now, there should be something like "anger" or "aversion" that takes control and then bridges the gap so that reactive thoughts and activities happen - so that emotional reactions happen. There should be an emotion, something that is a real, perceivable fusion/combination of thought and sensation (not only a simple sensation and a few thoughts) - a real emotion should be more than just a simple sensation and a few afterthoughts, no?
See if you can find this emotion, this anger/aversion that triggers the reactive pattern. It should be there in this gap, shouldn't it?

Hi Alex,

I feel that I need clarification on the bold phrases that are in the quote box. In my experience, reactive thoughts follow quite quickly after unpleasant sensations. They seem to be commenting on/layered onto the unpleasant sensations without being on the "far side" of a gap. Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding this.

Something like "anger" or "aversion" that takes control and then bridges the gap so that reactive thoughts and activities happen? This seems unclear to me. The only thing I can come up with here is not perceiving the feelings & thoughts as separate arisings & labeling them together as "anger" or "aversion". So there's the creation of something called "anger" out of unpleasant sensations & negative/critical thoughts.

I don't find a pure emotion, anger/aversion that triggers the reactive pattern, just intensity of unpleasant feelings in the body, a mindstate/thought that claims that I'm feeling angered (the reaction), but no gap.

In my experience there are only gaps where there are no narratives, mental commentary, or thoughts.

- MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

I know this "gap" can be difficult to notice when in a real life situation. This is why it is beneficial to look at it from a laboratory perspective. First we look for a statement that has a certain negative charge, that, when intoned leads to uncomfortable physical sensations. In daily life these sensations come up very fast and then a reaction follows that we label as "I acted in anger" or something similar. When looking at this process in the lab you will find that when intoning the statement and putting yourself artificially in this stressful situation the same sensations will arise, but as soon as they arise you will be able to simply stay there. You stay with the sensations but you don't react - this is the "gap". You might see thoughts arising about what you would/should be doing, but you don't do anything and you don't buy into these thoughts, you remain in the gap looking at the sensations and looking for the trigger that makes you react. That turns the option of reacting into a fact - where is this trigger that makes you act? Where is this anger that is responsible for angry reactions?
When remaining in this gap you will find... well... look and let me know.

Does this explain it better?
Can you please try to do this exercise again and see if you can find this gap, this uncomfortable position where physical sensations are present but you don't act on them - where you wait for the action to be initiated by the emotional controller...

Alex

[MoonChild625]

You stay with the sensations but you don't react - this is the "gap". You might see thoughts arising about what you would/should be doing, but you don't do anything and you don't buy into these thoughts, you remain in the gap looking at the sensations and looking for the trigger that makes you react. That turns the option of reacting into a fact - where is this trigger that makes you act? Where is this anger that is responsible for angry reactions?
When remaining in this gap you will find... well... look and let me know.

Does this explain it better?
Can you please try to do this exercise again and see if you can find this gap, this uncomfortable position where physical sensations are present but you don't act on them - where you wait for the action to be initiated by the emotional controller...

Alex

Hi Alex,

Yes, this explanation is clearer & easier for me to work with.

I'm thinking about another thorny situation at work where unpleasant feelings that are associated with anger also arise. As those feelings come up, there's a very intense accumulation of energy that usually does precede thoughts about how I should do/I'm going to do...And, yes, usually I buy into the thoughts, automatically.

While sitting with those feelings right now, it appears like the reaction is simply based on the inability to just stay with the building discomfort. The reaction to do something doesn't have to follow, but if I think about how it usually does, it appears to be a way to project/discharge the energy out & away from me, ie, to send it back to whatever/whomever I perceive as being responsible for how I feel. If I just stay with the feelings instead of following thoughts or reacting, they fade in intensity & disappear altogether. There isn't an emotional controller that initiates action, only separate feelings of discomfort or thoughts about what to do.

The thoughts don't have to be believed, even the thoughts that say I have a good reason to react the way I do. It's all just habitual thought patterns.

In the gap there is just the observation of the feelings & thoughts without participation, without fueling feelings/thoughts & without acting.

- MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Yes, great observation!

In a way these uncomfortable sensations are thus not a bad thing - they indicate that something will be happening soon, that some egoic reaction will be happening. Try to be aware of these physical sensations and the more you get used to this practice the easier it will be to apply this in daily life. Negative reactivity will then soon be a thing of the past - and with this reactivity vanishing even the uncomfortable sensations will be gone soon as they simply don't have any good reason to show up anymore. If something is seen but not acted on it will eventually dissolve. It is clear seeing that is required, no doing on your part :-)

You can use this technique on different topics/problems and see how that works - it is essentially always the same - you look at what is here (sensations etc) and what the conditioned response would be to the current situation... is the response necessary at all? (sure, certain responses are perfectly fine, but many are simply superfluous and will only lead to suffering).

Alex

[MoonChild625]

Try to be aware of these physical sensations and the more you get used to this practice the easier it will be to apply this in daily life. Negative reactivity will then soon be a thing of the past - and with this reactivity vanishing even the uncomfortable sensations will be gone soon as they simply don't have any good reason to show up anymore. If something is seen but not acted on it will eventually dissolve. It is clear seeing that is required, no doing on your part :-)

You can use this technique on different topics/problems and see how that works - it is essentially always the same - you look at what is here (sensations etc) and what the conditioned response would be to the current situation... is the response necessary at all? (sure, certain responses are perfectly fine, but many are simply superfluous and will only lead to suffering).

Alex

Hi Alex,

Starting today, clear seeing & staying at the level of sensations is what will be at the forefront of investigation. I'm using this at work today, since the job seems to be linked to the bulk of negative emotions, and I'll resort to this way of looking in all situations where there seems to be the most reactivity.

And, no, response isn't necessary, it's just a learned habit that can be dropped, especially if it's the kind of response that doesn't give rise to anything helpful/skillful/constructive.

MoonChild625

[Alexw]

OK, great, I am looking forward to hearing how you are going with this inquiry.

[MoonChild625]

OK, great, I am looking forward to hearing how you are going with this inquiry.

Hi Alex,

I fell into a funk with thinking/reactivity at work this morning, but, upon remembering the exercise, I turned attention away from fueling thoughts to feeling bodily sensations. This was helpful, and soon afterward an insight arose. The unpleasant feelings called anger/frustration are only labeled that way because of the thoughts arising in a situation deemed unpleasant. The same types of unpleasant bodily sensations could easily arise due to pain, indigestion, etc. & without any kind of thoughts to trigger them.

I will be using this inquiry daily in varying situations.

Where do we go from here in uprooting the misconception of I/self?

-MoonChild625

[Alexw]

Hi,

Yes, well seen, the sensations are nothing special - they appear in a very similar way in many other situations that are not emotionally charged.

When you look at these sensations, can you find a separate feeler of these sensations? Or are they simply present without a feeler, controller or owner?
When thoughts about these sensations arise, do you find a separate thinker of these thoughts? Or are they again simply present without a thinker or owner?

When looking at these sensations is there a sense/feeling of "I am looking at sensations?"?
If so, where is this feeling located? Is there something like a perceived centre of the sense of I/self? If so, where is it? How does it feel?

Alex