Good to hear from you :)
Thanks for the consideration Jim, let's see if we can wrap this up before your sojourn eh?Thank you for your efforts in guiding during the chaos of moving. Do what you can, but please don't overextend. FYI, I will be available until the end of the month and then completely out of internet access for a month.
Great that you have this insight. When you say here "I can see", could you readily replace that with "I can tell" or "I can understand" or "I can theorise"?I can see how the totally pervasive effect of this entire web of conditions is beyond our perception and comprehension, and how readily we can construct a self around it.
The above, whilst a lovely, tantalising and seducing discussion, will only cause to detract us from the inquiry. What is of interest within this scope is:However, there seems to be something else in the mix. I can see that 99.9% of what arises is due to the past. However, new causes and conditions also come into play in the present moment. I can see clearly that "free will" is a very rare occurrence, but there seems to be a rare element of agency that manifests as a condition. Yes, I realize that agency is a forbidden word in direct experience inquiries, but is there a reason to equate agency or free will with the existence of a self? Does one necessarily represent the other or is it a matter of seeing through the construct? It seems that one does not have to identify with the rare occurrence of agency, to create a self out of agency. Agency too is a condition, but a rather mysterious one. I don't see a contradiction or problem here. This rare free will, for lack of a better term, is also empty of intrinsic existence, not a self unless I want to relate to it as such.
The above starts taking us into the area of the Two Truths, ultimate and conventional. I do not agree with your suggestion that philosophy is a form of selfing. It is the way we process, explain and understand in conventional terms and language what is seen in direct experience. Try turning on your computer and engaging with this dialog in direct experience.
1. Has Jim seen that there is no personal/separate self
2. Can Jim convince his guide of the same :)
Once we get into the sort of discussion of the "subtleties" of reality, we can find multiple reasons to disagree. However, in the above point 1. and 2., we have to be completely clear for the sake of our current inquiry. For this reason, I will be focused on ascertaining the truth of these by keeping our focus on the inquiry itself - I hope this is agreeable.
What we need to ensure is that your argument for agency, together with the elaborate rationalisation, is not another means for the self to sneak through this inquiry.I am looking forward to hearing from you about the question of Agency = Self.
These models about the stages of disillusionment are yet more abstraction at this stage. Let's keep it simple, so that we can move forward.Seeing through the grosser illusion of self (1st fetter) may attenuate delusion at the leading edge of practice, but it does not necessarily see through it. It is a different matter when talking about the more subtle illusion of self (8th fetter).
If I were to ask you to explain the illusion of a personal self to me as if I were a 10 year old - in layman's terms and as simply as possible - what would you tell me?
