The Gate

A direct experience is like the tea cup experiment. An indirect experience is like looking at a picture of a tea cup, the picture itself is a direct experience, but anything you experience about the tea cup in the picture is inferred from your prior experiences, beliefs, habits etc..

Not in my mind. And i'm not going to use 'direct' and 'indirect'. I'm simply going to use 'experience'
If I am observing a tea cup, that is my experience.
If i am observing a picture of a tea cup, that is my experience.
If i have observed one tea cup, will observing another tea cup be an indirect experience?
Not in my mind. Each tea cup observation will be my experience.
Regardless of previous memories of other tea cups or pictures of tea cups, each object i am currently observing is my experience.
And this whole tea cup thing has taken us far away from my original question, of which i will re ask at the end of this post

Memory, from a psychology perspective, is considered an indirect experience.

I don't see why. In the moment i am recalling my memories, that is my experience.
My experience is recalling memories.

Using your example of food poisoning, the experience took place each moment over a period of time. When you go check you will not have 100% recall of exactly every moment of every second, minute, hour, day etc. of that period of time - but you will have an overall memory of the experience, which isn't the experience itself.

I agree. memories are not the experiences, they are stored accounts of them.
But what has the defining of memory and experience got to do with the theory that there is no self?
Self experiences and self memorizes and can recall memories.

Lots of psychology studies out there show that what we store either in short term or long term memories are what the brain deems to be likely the most valuable......and what are deemed to be non-essential are left out. There is a high correlation between what is essential (ie gets stored) and what is familiar. Why two people who have same experience have different memories of the experience. Also why scientists have found that the simple fact of having an observer changes the results of an experiement.

And this has what to do with proving there is no self?

Taking this a bit further, try this short test. Remember the food poisoning experience. Now hold the memory or though. Notice that the thought that is being remembered is not actually present. What is present is the memory, which is another thought. The present memory thought is different from the remembered thought. It is present, and the remembered thought is not present.

Considering the process of remembering is done be recalling stored accounts of previous experiences, I'd say the current remembered thought i am having of my food poisoning experience is the same one i stored in my memory.
This is the whole point of the process of remembrance and memory.

See, this is the bit that i find highly irrational.
You say, "Remember the food poisoning" which means to recall from memory, the account of my food poisoning, to recall the stored thoughts(memories) of that experience.
You then say to hold these thoughts(memories), but then you say these thoughts, which are my memories of that experience, are not my memories of that experience.
And you also say while i am holding these thoughts, that these thoughts are not present.
HUH? What am i holding onto if they are not present?
And you say that the thought that i am remembering (my memories) is not present but what is present are my memories.
A jolly big WHA?
Then you say the current memory...oh never mind.

Now try to picture the arising of that previous thought. When it arose, the memory-thought was not present. Try to feel this. Notice that the two thoughts are never present at the same time. When the original thought arose, the memory thought wasn't yet present.

The original thought is created within the experience of the food poisoning. Any thought classified as a memory is after the experience.
So yeah, there was no memory of the food poisoning while i was experiencing the food poisoning.
Memory thoughts are labeled as memories only when recalling stored thoughts of previous experiences.
There are no memories during the experience, as the thoughts that can later be recalled have only just been created.

and when the memory thought arises, the remembered though is no longer present.

Memory thoughts and remembered thoughts are one and the same thoughts.

the two thoughts never touch each other.

They can't touch each other because its the one and the same thought.

The memory claims to refer to the previous thought,

Memory is not a conscious being, it can't claim anything.
Memory is just a label attached to thoughts that are recalled, or a label signifying a storage area within self.

You may have the direct experience of standing on the weight scale and being 10 pounds less so you have other direct experience you were sick - but the memory is an indirect, inferred, thought.

What has an experience of standing on a scale got to do with memory recall of food poisoning?

Laughter arose spontaneously when I read your comment that humans evolved from trees - there was no judgement or thought about it - just laughter. I have no thoughts on where we evolved from - I don't know. I know of the evolutionary theory, the space theory and now the tree theory......

Judgement - The cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions.
In order for you to have chosen to laugh, you must have thought about it to reach a conclusion it was funny....unless you don't think and choose your actions.
And where in this....

How would you prove to someone else that your thoughts come from your self. Be as specific as you can.

Sure, I am now recalling from memory my indepth and lengthy thoughts regarding my theory that humans evolved from trees.
Did you have these thoughts denhamer?
Did you have the thoughts to memory recall the theory or the original thoughts of this theory? I'm going with, "no".
Who did have these thoughts? I'm going with, "me".

Laughing at this one.

Please note, i am not the least bit offended you are laughing, i achieved unoffendability back in 2009.
i simply have no idea what you are laughing about FD. Is it my theory, is it my conclusion that i have proved my thoughts come from myself...what?
You asked if i could prove that my thoughts come from my self, i have offered my thesis, and instead of discussing it, agreeing or disagreeing with my findings, you laugh.
Please, laugh, but also please communicate your thoughts of our discussion.
I have no idea if you agree or disagree that i have proved my thoughts come from my self.

...have i enquired about how you chose to laugh, or if you have thoughts about how humans evolved? None that i can see.
You asked me...

How would you prove to someone else that your thoughts come from your self.

To which i did, and i assume your request was of import toward this discussion.
To which i assumed you would comment on my proof that my thoughts come from me...
but alas, you are still avoiding this and continue to go on about laughing, even though you asked for proof in the first place.
Are you going to ask me questions, ask me to conduct experiments and ask that i answer questions and share my thoughts on experiments
but then you simply will not discuss what i say in my responses?

After viewing please try the following..........look up something on the internet that you have no experience of and no memories of - eg quantum physics......read something - observe did any thoughts come up - where did they come from?

Watched the vids this arvie. Yes, of course thoughts came up...they came from me.
I think the conclusions the guy has about experience and memory are huge unsubstanciated leaps that defy logic.

I don't see the point of calling it direct experience. Is there an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts?

Please don't start talking about tea cups and any other physical objects.
I am asking for an explanation of what is an indirect experience of being aware of one's thoughts.
Because when I am aware of my thoughts, that is an experience i am having.

My expectations are to understand the theory of no self and how that equates to liberation and awakening.( two different meanings in my mind) 'Cus if i cannot comprehend the concept i cannot proceed with the process.

Like when everyone thought the earth was flat was an undeniable truth, or when you thought santa clause was real, it is very difficult if not impossible for the same mind which created the illusion, and keeps daily reinforcing it's 'realness', to give up its control. You have stated a number of times you/self/I - is very well controlled even to the point of being able to control what you think about and when you think about it. Something that no guru or enlightened master in history has stated from their experience they have been able to do. Your responses are consistently asking for proof - or put another way, the mind you are strongly identified with is asking for proof that fits into its existing view of itself- that it (the mind) is not real. Why would the self/I/ego/mind allow this to take place. The construct is going to go down fighting.

The process I am following is to try and create some cracks in the current view you have of yourself to let other possibilities in. Direct experience is simply some words to say that many others have found that a lot of their views, when looked at dispassionately and in-depth, are habits, beliefs and inferences. For me, in my experience, the tea cup example let some cracks form......for you it didn't, which is equally fine.'

I started with trying to show that the self (which you pictured as being behind your eyes) isn't in one place. Science hasn't found any one place to say - ah, that is where the self is. I let that go as didn't feel like right place to keep pushing.

I then went to thoughts. So far my attempts to come up with ways for you to see the potential that thoughts don't come from your mind have been unsuccessful. Suggesting you look at something on the internet you had no knowledge of and see what thoughts arose - resulted in you saying even when you have no knowledge of something, eg quantum physics, whatever thoughts came up for you about the subject were your own unique thoughts.

I then tried memory - which has been scientifically proven to be a repository of a sub set of the direct experience spread in multiple areas of the brain (ie the emotional component is stored in a different place than the physical component etc.) and that is reconstructed to present itself as a memory. Thinking that if there was an ah-ha about memory being a construct there may be something to the i/self/ego also being a construct.

I thought the video's would potentially open up some questions, fears (ie cracks) but as you said, for you, the information involved huge leaps in unsubstantiated logic. As you offered up nothing more on what came up for you when you watched the video's will let that line of inquiry drop as well.

If you are still good to keep going then I will try and get better at questions that open up the possibility for cracks to appear.

Can you please try the following simple things. First go for a short walk. Observe what is taking place. Are you consciously thinking about every step (along with the firing of the muscles, tendons, joints, etc., in the correct sequence) or is walking happening. Same with breathing - watch yourself breathe.....who/what is controlling your breathing. Lastly, just start waving your hand - vary the pace of the waving. Is it your thoughts that are doing the walking, breathing, waving of hand? Observe what happens when you do all three at the same time. Can you keep all three things simultaneously in your conscious mind.

Last point is that you have asked me a few times to enter into debate with you - subject/object approach. As this just reinforces the mind/I/self/ego of its 'subject' perspective no value in that approach. The same mind which constructed itself is just looking for further reinforcement of its 'validity'.

Like when everyone thought the earth was flat was an undeniable truth,

Please provide evidence that everyone thought this.
If you can't, then your claim is speculation\theory only.

or when you thought santa clause was real, it is very difficult if not impossible for the same mind which created the illusion, and keeps daily reinforcing it's 'realness', to give up its control.

Obviously not that difficult. I have not met one adult that believe santa is real.

You have stated a number of times you/self/I - is very well controlled even to the point of being able to control what you think about and when you think about it. Something that no guru or enlightened master in history has stated from their experience they have been able to do.

I have never met a guru or enlightened master or listened or read stuff of their's that they have said this.
However, i see no reason to doubt that you saw this.
If these people lack self mastery, that's their experience, not mine.
I used to be so unaware of myself, and bit by bit, I have re-established a measure of self control.
I cured myself of a lifetime of chronic depression via self awareness, observation and evaluation, of gaining understanding of myself
Once understood, control of oneself is not difficult.

Isn't that similar to what Buddha achieved when he was being verbally abused by the villiages, and that he was not offended by their abuse.
And that he just smiled at them, totally unaffected by their behavior, and that he said if he encountered them previously, when he lacked self awareness, he would have gone into a terrible rage and sliced and diced them till all were dead.
But he just laughed joyfully and said, that is how he used to be and now he can just talk to them politely even though they were very abusive toward him

Your responses are consistently asking for proof -

That's how i roll. If you want me to just believe things you say, to let go of one belief and attach to another...
i don't see that as a step toward freedom.
And yeah, why wouldn't i ask for proof. You claim self is not real, i ask for evidence, 'cus i learnt my lesson on my christian walk to not believe whatever people say, but to test these beliefs\theories\ideas.

or put another way, the mind you are strongly identified with is asking for proof that fits into its existing view of itself-

This is your perception, filtered through your beliefs that mind is not real and mind is some type of conscious entity that has a desire to control and exist.
Those are not my beliefs\theories.
I use my mind to identify not only myself, but everything else i experience.
Your task that you willing chose to do is to prove to me the things you believe in.

that it (the mind) is not real.

You have offered no evidence that this is true. All you keep doing thus far is claim it to be true.
You ask me to do experiments to show me that mind is not real, but each test simply convinces me that mind is real.

Why would the self/I/ego/mind allow this to take place. The construct is going to go down fighting.

Perhaps if you did not view this as a fight, cus I see no fight. I am aware of myself, you believe self does not exist.
Where is the battle?

The process I am following is to try and create some cracks in the current view you have of yourself to let other possibilities in.

Why do you percieve i have not let other possibilities in?
I have received into myself your theories and i have pondered them and openly and willingly done the experiments and have found thus far, no evidence that self does not exist.

Direct experience is simply some words to say that many others have found that a lot of their views, when looked at dispassionately and in-depth, are habits, beliefs and inferences. For me, in my experience, the tea cup example let some cracks form......for you it didn't, which is equally fine.'

What are you trying to break? What do you percieve in/of me that needs to be broken?

I started with trying to show that the self (which you pictured as being behind your eyes) isn't in one place.

I did not say that my self is behind my eyes. I said this is where i percieve from and i said i have no definitive knowledge of who i am.

I then went to thoughts. So far my attempts to come up with ways for you to see the potential that thoughts don't come from your mind have been unsuccessful.

Possibly because my thoughts do come from my self.

Suggesting you look at something on the internet you had no knowledge of and see what thoughts arose - resulted in you saying even when you have no knowledge of something, eg quantum physics, whatever thoughts came up for you about the subject were your own unique thoughts.

i fail to see how you expected i was going to say anything different from what i did.
I experience things, known or unknown things, similar or new experiences.
i then think about these things.
Why would you think that my thoughts were not going to be my thoughts?

I then tried memory - which has been scientifically proven to be a repository of a sub set of the direct experience spread in multiple areas of the brain (ie the emotional component is stored in a different place than the physical component etc.) and that is reconstructed to present itself as a memory. Thinking that if there was an ah-ha about memory being a construct there may be something to the i/self/ego also being a construct.

The reason why that doesn't add up for me is one needs to be, to exist, in order to have memories.
If a self doesn't exist, there will be no memories.
So any discussion about memories potentially might verify my understanding that self does exist.

I thought the video's would potentially open up some questions, fears (ie cracks) but as you said, for you, the information involved huge leaps in unsubstantiated logic. As you offered up nothing more on what came up for you when you watched the video's will let that line of inquiry drop as well.

Please explain why you regard cracks as fears.
And also, why you are trying to induce fear in me, 'cus you said...

The process I am following is to try and create some cracks

If you are still good to keep going then I will try and get better at questions that open up the possibility for cracks to appear.

Perhaps you could share your theory of why self does not exist, instead of beating around the bush with leading questions.
And again, why the desire/intention to create fear in me?

Can you please try the following simple things. First go for a short walk. Observe what is taking place. Are you consciously thinking about every step (along with the firing of the muscles, tendons, joints, etc., in the correct sequence) or is walking happening.

Only when i focus the conscious part of my mind on these things.
I know all to well about being aware of things. Of Silent Mind observing as Zen masters\practitioners call it.

Same with breathing - watch yourself breathe.....who/what is controlling your breathing. Lastly, just start waving your hand - vary the pace of the waving. Is it your thoughts that are doing the walking, breathing, waving of hand?

If it's my breath, my hand, my legs, then it's me who is controling them.
i may not be consciously aware 24/7, but I am confident to conclude it's me who is doing the controling.

Observe what happens when you do all three at the same time. Can you keep all three things simultaneously in your conscious mind.

Yes i can. I can be aware of doing all three things at the same time.
Can I think of all three things at the same time? No. I can only think of one at a time, even though I am aware i am doing all three simultaniously.

Similar to the multitasking that computers do.
A person can have three programs running on a puta simultaniously, but upon deeper inspection, going into the electronic mechanisms of the puta, thya re not running simultaniously.
The CPU + BIOS + OS will allocate a few milliseconds of processing to one program at a time,
then switch over and allocate a few milliseconds to the second program,
and same again, switch over and allocate a few milliseconds to another program.

It does this cyclic timesharing thing continuoulsly with any programs that are running.
And because it changes from one program to another in milliseconds, it gives the appearance that all the programs are running simultaniously, but they are not.

Last point is that you have asked me a few times to enter into debate with you - subject/object approach.

I have not.
I have said I willing choose to explore the theory that self does not exist.
So this allegation is void...

As this just reinforces the mind/I/self/ego of its 'subject' perspective no value in that approach. The same mind which constructed itself is just looking for further reinforcement of its 'validity'.

...so all your'e doing here isre-enforcing your beliefs.

Carpark - do you want to wake up or do you want to debate why you don't believe in awareness, enlightenment or whatever term you feel best working with. As adyastanti articulates - first there needs to be sincere desire - burning desire - to see what is real. If you are just curious then we are wasting both our time. Your call. If you would like another guide I will pass on the thread to others and see if they will take on.

fergus

Carpark - do you want to wake up or do you want to debate why you don't believe in awareness, enlightenment or whatever term you feel best working with. As adyastanti articulates - first there needs to be sincere desire - burning desire - to see what is real. If you are just curious then we are wasting both our time. Your call. If you would like another guide I will pass on the thread to others and see if they will take on.

fergus

Here's my opening remarks of why I have entered into this discussion.

My expectations are to understand the theory of no self and how that equates to liberation and awakening.( two different meanings in my mind)
'Cus if i cannot comprehend the concept i cannot proceed with the process.
I have been reading several threads in the one on one section and i don't get the idea that there is no self or what that has to do with awakening or freedom.

You have tried to show me that there is no self and failed or have given up trying.
Please don't project your failure or giving up to do so as it being me who is argumentative, or stubborn or not interested.

I came here to see if someone can show me that there is no self. You have thus far not convinced me in the slightest.
It appears that many here believe a realization of no self equates to freedom and liberation.
I have been on a 20ish year journey of obtaining increased amounts of freedom and self awareness.
People here claim realization of no self is a major breakthrough into freedom, so i have come to experience.
You have thus far, not helped in my journey to understand the no self theory.

Carpark - do you want to wake up or do you want to debate why you don't believe in awareness, enlightenment or whatever term you feel best working with.

You also assume i don't believe in awareness. Why you have done this is a mystery to me, considering i have shared I have been and am still on a self awareness journey.

If you would like another guide I will pass on the thread to others and see if they will take on.

If you think they can help, if you have given up, yes please, 'cus that's why i'm here.

We have discussed.
You have openly and honestly shared your perception of things.
I have read and pondered and openly and honestly shared my conclusions and opinions of what you have shared.
It's your call if you wish to judge me as argumentative and not having sincere desire, of which i assume was triggered by your frustration of I either do not comprehend what you are saying or that i disagree with your conclusions.

I probe, explore, ponder, reason, test evaluate things that are said to me.
If that troubles you, then it troubles you. It has nothing to do with my inquisitve explorative nature to understand the meaning of reality,
in that your negative reaction will not influence me to change how I roll.
I have achieved many breakthroughs using these innate abilities, and i see no logical reason to dispense with them just because it upsets others.

Carpark, thank you for your response. Another guide has offered to be of service to you and will be jumping in right away. Good luck with your search.

fergus

Hello AC,

Let me just start by saying that this is by far the most extraordinary, amazing, momentous thing I have ever encountered. It is also the most ordinary and obvious. The truth is not hidden, it is in plain sight, we just don’t know to look. This realization pretty much goes completely against everything we’ve ever been taught and everything we think we know about life and how it works.

The realization is this: you do not exist. The you that you think you are, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story.

In order to see this, we need to look at a couple of things. First, there are raw experiences. Hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. There are sensations in the body (hunger, thirst, pain). This is what we refer to as direct experience. This is the level of experience of cats, dogs, birds, newborn babies.

Second, as humans develop, we begin to have thoughts. Thoughts layer concepts over these raw experiences. A thought (concept or label) is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual and some point to other thoughts. The content of every single thought is just a story. Either a story about the actual or a story about another story, but a thought/story cannot be the actual.

You are not the actual. You are a thought, a story. A thought that points to nothing in actuality. A fictional character.

The goal is not to convince you of this. Even if I did, it would do nothing for you. Just another belief to add to the countless other beliefs stored in the brain. What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves. We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.

I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me. I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

If at any point in my own ongoing investigation I were to find that this is false, I’d drop it gladly and move on. I am only interested in the truth.

If you want to continue looking, I’d be happy to work with you.

Chris

Hello AC,

Let me just start by saying that this is by far the most extraordinary, amazing, momentous thing I have ever encountered. It is also the most ordinary and obvious. The truth is not hidden, it is in plain sight, we just don’t know to look. This realization pretty much goes completely against everything we’ve ever been taught and everything we think we know about life and how it works.

Hello Chris.
I am in agreement that truths are not hidden, that they are in plain sight and one reason for not seeing is it's a person's lack of sight or something hindering their sight that stops one from seeing the bleedin' obvious.
Such is the way of increased awareness\self illumination\awakening. The growth of one's insight.

And i understand your declaration that 'no self' is by far the most extraordinary, amazing, momentous thing you have ever encountered.
I considered the truths in the christian bible the same way when i first encountered that path.
Learning over the years however, that what was once considered absolute truth, turned out to be nothing of the sort.
And it is by learning through that experience that I don't simply attach 'truth' labels to what others say or even my own conclusions.
I spend a great deal of time exploring and evaluating the valdity of ideas, concepts, theories, beliefs and claimed truths.

The realization is this: you do not exist. The you that you think you are, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story.

Please share your definition of realization, for to me, realization means a person has clearly and distinctly understood something.
To me, realization does not mean a thing is absolute truth. It just means an individual has gained complete understanding of something, and I speculate that the person then may choose to label it any way they choose.

In order to see this, we need to look at a couple of things. First, there are raw experiences. Hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. There are sensations in the body (hunger, thirst, pain). This is what we refer to as direct experience. This is the level of experience of cats, dogs, birds, newborn babies.

Well, they are the five senses of the body, but the experiences are not percieved unless their is a self to percieve them, and that the person has to be conscious also.
The actual experience is felt\percieved in the mind of the individual self.
If touch were in the body, surgeons would not be able to operate on anesthetised people as they would be flailing around in pain whenever the surgeon sliced them open.
Same with sound, which is not experienced with the ears, but with the mind, the self, which processes the energy wave signals coming in from the ear sersors and translates it into sound that is heard inside the head\mind.
The direct experience is still an experience of the mind, the self.

Second, as humans develop, we begin to have thoughts. Thoughts layer concepts over these raw experiences. A thought (concept or label) is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual and some point to other thoughts. The content of every single thought is just a story. Either a story about the actual or a story about another story, but a thought/story cannot be the actual.

I agree that self's thoughts are a type of recording of self's experiences and that these thoughts are not the experiences.
They are a record keeping(memory) or a means of identification or translation process of incoming sensory data into language(image(reflection) and words) in order to communicate one's experiences with another individual.

However, I do not see how thoughts can be layered over experiences.
The experience is sensed\felt, and then the data is translated into thought, the language of the mind, the self.
Please explain what you mean by thoughts cover over experiences.

You are not the actual. You are a thought, a story. A thought that points to nothing in actuality. A fictional character.

In the light of what you have thus far shared, I cannot see how you came to this conclusion.
You have established that there is a self that can experience, can percieve, can create thoughts...but then you take this illogical leap to claiming that the self is just a thought.
Please explain how you went from a self has thoughts, to a self is a thought.

The goal is not to convince you of this. Even if I did, it would do nothing for you. Just another belief to add to the countless other beliefs stored in the brain.

Please clarify because to me you appear to be saying that "You are not the actual. You are a thought, a story. A thought that points to nothing in actuality. A fictional character." is merely a belief.
And as i said to denhamer, I'm not interested in beliefs.

What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves.
We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.
I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me. I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

That's what i did with denhamer, and look how that ended.
I assume you are saying these things to re-assure me that I will not be negatively judged.
Not that it bothers me in the slightest, as i prefer honesty over fake niceness and holding back what one really feels or wants to say.

If at any point in my own ongoing investigation I were to find that this is false, I’d drop it gladly and move on. I am only interested in the truth.

Yeah, but there's two types of truth.
- a fact that has been verified.
- that which a person attaches a a truth label to and believe it is truth.

If you want to continue looking, I’d be happy to work with you.

Chris

Okey dokey...ready when you are Chris.

Hello again AC, thanks for the quick reply!

The following was me letting you know what we do here at LU:

What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves.
We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.
I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me. I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

Again, we are not here to convince, debate, discuss or share opinions. We offer exercises and pointers for people who are interested in seeing this for themselves.

If you are interested in debate, discussion or sharing of opinions about this, there are many other forums available for just that.

In answer to your questions in the last post:

Please share your definition of realization

Realize was a poor choice of words on my part, instead I’d like to use “see” defined as: to perceive directly.

I do not see how thoughts can be layered over experiences.

The point of my explanation was to define direct experience and to show that all experience outside of direct experience is thought. Either thought about direct experience or thought about thought. I wanted to illustrate how thought is never the actual. Also, the registering of sensation does require a conscious brain, but it does not require thought.

I define self as the controller and owner of an individual life. Not as the body/brain. Self is a concept. Body/brain is there whether you think about it or not.

When I watch my thoughts, I see that they are triggered by either some sort of external stimulus or other internal thoughts and not by a self, a thinker who creates and controls them. Can you honestly say that if you take the time to sit quietly and observe your thoughts that they do not appear in the way that I described? If you can control your thoughts, why do you think negative or unpleasant thoughts?

Take care AC and hope to hear from you soon!

Hello again AC, thanks for the quick reply!

I do not know of the time parameters of online conversations to determine if my response time was quick or not.
If it makes you happy, then it makes you happy.
Please let me know what length of time makes you unhappy and i will try to respond under that time,
otherwise i will simply continue to respond how i nornmally do, and that is i respond when i respond.

The following was me letting you know what we do here at LU:
(1)What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves.
(2)We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.
(3)(a)I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me. (b)I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

1: It's ok, i read Ilona's synopsis of what LU is about, that's why I have chosen to be shown by you guys this freedom that comes from percieving there is no self.
2: To which i have done. Why...do you you percieve i haven't?
3a: Translation - you want me to think for myself, to which i always do.
3b: I have, and thus far, denhamer has not provided any information that leads me to think there in no self,
and thus far nor have you, but we are only just getting started,
and off to a bad start going by your latest response.
Apparently you aren't happy with my responses already, even though i am adhering to the specific parameters set out by Ilona.

Again, we are not here to convince, debate, discuss or share opinions. We offer exercises and pointers for people who are interested in seeing this for themselves.

Let me just start by saying that this is by far the most extraordinary, amazing, momentous thing I have ever encountered. It is also the most ordinary and obvious. The truth is not hidden, it is in plain sight, we just don’t know to look. This realization pretty much goes completely against everything we’ve ever been taught and everything we think we know about life and how it works.

I don't know about you Chris, but this opening remark from you sure looks like you are trying to convince me of something, and it sure looks like you are sharing you opinion.

And this is the bit i really don't get.
In this thread, you will speak of exercises and pointers for me to do and ponder, and i will respond with my thoughts of them.
Yet we are not to discuss any of this, as what you will write\share is your opinion, and what i will write\share is my opinion.
How can we have a discussion withouth sharing our thoughts.
Basically, how can we discuss without discussing?

As for debating. Thus far only you and denhamer have used this word.
I can only conclude that you both are under the impression that a debate is in progress.
And i can only surmise you have come to this conclusion because i do not see what you guys see in your information\exercises shared,
and that i express my thoughts and they differ from yours.

Well guess what, if I was liberated like you guys apparently are, I wouldn't have a different opinion would i?
I would be in agreement. I wouldn't be in the one on one section asking someone to show me this no self liberation thing would i?

Debating is purposely trying to prove the other wrong. I am not debating. I never debate theories\concepts\beliefs\ideas, i explore them, test them, evaluate them.
If i had already decided this no self thing is wrong, I simply would not waste my time here.
I would be off exploring other things in search of more freedom and awakening.

You are sharing your information, I am pondering what you say and sharing my thoughts on the subject.
And there is no way i am going to apologise, or feel like i have done something wrong for sharing my thoughts on your information, especially when this is what is requested of me, what is part of this process you guys speak of.

If you are interested in debate, discussion or sharing of opinions about this, there are many other forums available for just that.

Not interested in debate, never have been , never will be.
Again, discussion and sharing thoughts however...

What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves. We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.

...you speak your thoughts(opinion) on the subject, i listen and respond with my thoughts on the subject, you listen to my responses and formulate more things to share.
This is conmmonly referred to as a discussion via sharing each other's views on a subject.

In answer to your questions in the last post:
Realize was a poor choice of words on my part, instead I’d like to use “see” defined as: to perceive directly.

Not a problem, word choice is not as easy as it seems and also one person's meaning of a word may be different from another person's.
That's why if i'm not sure what a person is saying or it doesn't add up for me, i ask questions, I request clarification as I have learnt that a lot of miscommunication is simply from the things i mentioned.
A simple enquire usually fixes up most communication glitches, if both parties are open and willing to take the time to sort it out.

So, you are now changing 'realization to 'see'.
And you define 'seeing' as - to perceive directly...so, going back to your statement i was unclear on and adding the new word...

"The seeing, the direct experience is this: you do not exist. The you that you think you are, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story."
Yet...

In order to see this, we need to look at a couple of things. First, there are raw experiences. Hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. There are sensations in the body (hunger, thirst, pain). This is what we refer to as direct experience. This is the level of experience of cats, dogs, birds, newborn babies.

Soo, going by your definition of direct experience, you are saying that the truth that self is not real is achieved\seen through the 5 senses?
That through self's body and mind, one becomes aware that a self does not exist.
Bu then along comes a Zen Master and hits you on the head with his stick.
You say,"Ow, that hurt me"
And the Zen Master asks, "Hurt is who?"
Or if you really believe you don't exist, "Ow that hurt" <-- see, not admission of there being a self here.
The Zen Master will then ask, "What felt pain?"

Also...i requested this...

Please share your definition of realization

...to which you bypassed.

I do not see how thoughts can be layered over experiences.

The point of my explanation was to define direct experience and to show that all experience outside of direct experience is thought. Either thought about direct experience or thought about thought. I wanted to illustrate how thought is never the actual. Also, the registering of sensation does require a conscious brain, but it does not require thought.

I don't get your response, i said i don't understand how thought is layered over experiences.
I see no explanation about the covering affect of thoughts.
Please define thought.

I define self as the controller and owner of an individual life. Not as the body/brain. Self is a concept. Body/brain is there whether you think about it or not.

This i also don't understand.
You have just defined what a self is, acknowledged it's existence, but then say a self is just a concept.
The whole point of what you guys do here is to show people that a self does not exist.
This has not been made clear to me yet.

When I watch my thoughts, I see that they are triggered by either some sort of external stimulus or other internal thoughts and not by a self, a thinker who creates and controls them.

This looks to me that you simply lack self awareness.
A trigger is an event that affects something other than itself.
In the context of this discussion, this something is commonly referred to as the self.
ie "that event triggered a feeling or thought in me"
You say "when i watch my thoughts"...whose thoughts? who is watching?...you said "I"...and that looks like a self to me.

Can you honestly say that if you take the time to sit quietly and observe your thoughts that they do not appear in the way that I described?

I have been Still Mind\Clear Mind observing myself for quite a few years now, and my thoughts i create are due to stimulation from this interactive environment called life.
And in doing so i have become more aware of my self.
I do not see how others have come up with the theory that a self does not exist.
So far, everything you, denhamer and others in other threads have said, i evaluate this imformation and i conclude a self does exist
I am hoping this forum could explain it to me, so far this has not happened, but I am open and willing to continue the exploration.

If you can control your thoughts, why do you think negative or unpleasant thoughts?

Because deeper inside oneself, below the surface self are all the thoughts\beliefs self has created from one's harsh experiences.
The thoughts\beliefs that reside in the so called subconscious, which is merely the part of oneself that self is not yet aware of, self has not yet illuminated.

Negative or unpleasant thoughts? How about depression as an example.
My life long depression destroyed a lot of my life to the point of a genuine suicide attempt back in 2008.
Depression is merely an uncontrolled ocean of negative and destructive thoughts that have been accumilated since birth.
in 2009, after 7 years of learning i had the illness, of journeying inside myself, of sheding light into the darkened areas of myself, i found the source of me depression.
It was one belief that i created way back when i was a little kid, and it was buried under an ocean of other self created negative thoughts\beliefs all growing from that one belief.

I fixed it as simply as flicking a switch and no longer have the illness.
And on this self discovery journey, I have learnt that i simply lacked self mastery, self control, because i wasn't aware of all of me, all of the self that was deeper in.

If you believe yout thoughts are controlled by your experiences, then that is how it shall be for you.
I have learnt that I choose my thoughts and feelings, and any thoughts or feelings that appreaed wer not my doing, were, i just simply was not aware of this, i could not see it.
A person, a self, controls their thoughts to the degree to which the person realizes\sees\knows\accepts\believes they are responsible for their thoughts.

Hence the concept of self enlightenment, self awareness, self being awakened.

Think about this for a moment.
You guys claim there is no self.
Then who is being liberated, who is awakening, who is achieving freedom?

My logical answer is, a self. But you guys claim there is no self, so I am very interested in understanding what you guys mean by this.

Like i said before, this is not going too well, but i'm willing to keep exploring.

I do not know of the time parameters of online conversations to determine if my response time was quick or not.
If it makes you happy, then it makes you happy.
Please let me know what length of time makes you unhappy and i will try to respond under that time,
otherwise i will simply continue to respond how i nornmally do, and that is i respond when i respond.

Please take all the time you need to prepare your responses.

The following was me letting you know what we do here at LU:
(1)What we do here at LU is point people in the right direction to see this for themselves.
(2)We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.
(3)(a)I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me. (b)I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

1: It's ok, i read Ilona's synopsis of what LU is about, that's why I have chosen to be shown by you guys this freedom that comes from percieving there is no self.

Ok, let’s proceed.

2: To which i have done. Why...do you you percieve i haven't?

Because you haven’t seen one thing we have pointed you to yet, but don’t worry, we’ll work on that.

3a: Translation - you want me to think for myself, to which i always do.

Not think for yourself. Not ponder and analyze, but LOOK for yourself at what we are pointing to here. Look, observe. How would you look to see if there was a cup on the table? Normal, everyday looking.

If all you do is think about this and analyze it, you will never see what we are pointing to. Hence the exercises and pointers. Through analysis and thinking, you may come to an intellectual understanding. It has no effect and is not what we are trying to accomplish here.

3b: I have, and thus far, denhamer has not provided any information that leads me to think there in no self,
and thus far nor have you, but we are only just getting started,
and off to a bad start going by your latest response.

Again, we are not asking you to think about information that we are provinding. We are asking you to look at what we are pointing to.

And this is the bit i really don't get.
In this thread, you will speak of exercises and pointers for me to do and ponder, and i will respond with my thoughts of them.

We are not looking for your thoughts about the pointers or exercises. Or at least not just your thoughts about them. Your OBSERVATIONS are the most important thing to report back to us. A description of what you saw when you did the exercise, not what you thought about it. So far, from your posts I have read, it’s all about what you think and why you think it. We have helped hundreds of people see this and I can tell from your replies, you are not really looking.

Yet we are not to discuss any of this, as what you will write\share is your opinion, and what i will write\share is my opinion.
How can we have a discussion withouth sharing our thoughts.
Basically, how can we discuss without discussing?

Discussion may get you an intellectual understanding. Yes, it will be necessary to clarify some points and discuss your observations as they come up. I have not seen you report back with anything that resembles an honest description of what you have directly experienced. It’s all interpreted. No raw data. In your posts it seems quite clear that you have made your conclusions about what you observed based on your current beliefs about how the world works. That technique, or whatever you want to call it is not going to get you anywhere with this. Looking at what we point to using the filter of “there is no me doing this”, looking at what we are pointing to and testing if what we state is an accurate description of what you observe is a useful way to approach this. Check what we say in your own experience. Is it possible that our description of what you are observing is accurate?

Well guess what, if I was liberated like you guys apparently are, I wouldn't have a different opinion would i?

It’s not an opinion. We have seen something that you have not. That is the only difference. You are here to see that same thing and we are here to help.

Debating is purposely trying to prove the other wrong. I am not debating. I never debate theories\concepts\beliefs\ideas, i explore them, test them, evaluate them. If i had already decided this no self thing is wrong, I simply would not waste my time here.

There’s hope for you yet. 

You are sharing your information, I am pondering what you say and sharing my thoughts on the subject.

Please don’t ponder, LOOK!!

...you speak your thoughts(opinion) on the subject,

We claim to have seen something that you have not. We are pointing at it so you can see it too. We are pointing at something, not telling you our opinion of it.

So, you are now changing 'realization to 'see'.
And you define 'seeing' as - to perceive directly...so, going back to your statement i was unclear on and adding the new word...

"The seeing, the direct experience is this: you do not exist. The you that you think you are, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story."

I would like to completely amend the first sentence to simply: You do not exist. Sorry if the original was confusing. It was worded poorly. I should have just stated: “You do not exist” and left it at that. I did not realize (def: comprehend completely or correctly ) this, I saw that this was true in that it was an accurate description of what I was directly experiencing.

In order to see this, we need to look at a couple of things. First, there are raw experiences. Hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. There are sensations in the body (hunger, thirst, pain). This is what we refer to as direct experience. This is the level of experience of cats, dogs, birds, newborn babies.

The point is that cats, dogs, birds and newborn babies do not have a self that is acting and thinking and claiming ownership of things. This self develops over time in humans. Self, I, is a concept.

That through self's body and mind

You believe there is a self that owns the body and brain. Where is it? Can you see it? Can you touch it? Can you point it out to me?

one becomes aware that a self does not exist.
Bu then along comes a Zen Master and hits you on the head with his stick.
You say,"Ow, that hurt me"
And the Zen Master asks, "Hurt is who?"
Or if you really believe you don't exist, "Ow that hurt" <-- see, not admission of there being a self here.
The Zen Master will then ask, "What felt pain?"

The point is not to get rid of pronouns. The point is to look for that self, that me who felt the pain. There was an experience of pain, is there a me that owns the pain? Or, did a body feel pain and then a thought followed claiming ownership of the pain?

Also...i requested this...
AC wrote:Please share your definition of realization

Realize: To comprehend completely or correctly. As I stated above, it was a poor choice of words as this was not a realization, but an observation.

AC: I do not see how thoughts can be layered over experiences.

C: The point of my explanation was to define direct experience and to show that all experience outside of direct experience is thought. Either thought about direct experience or thought about thought. I wanted to illustrate how thought is never the actual. Also, the registering of sensation does require a conscious brain, but it does not require thought.

I don't get your response, i said i don't understand how thought is layered over experiences.
I see no explanation about the covering affect of thoughts.

Thought comes after experience. Attention is paid to the thought about the experience rather than the actual experience before thought comes in with labels, judgements, etc. We mistake the thought for the actual.

Please define thought.

Mind activity. Labeling, judging, analyzing, narrating, commenting, etc. Usually ”heard” as your voice in your native language. I’d even include the “pictures” envisioned in the mind. That’s the best I can come up with right now. I am hoping our definitions are similar.

C: I define self as the controller and owner of an individual life. Not as the body/brain. Self is a concept. Body/brain is there whether you think about it or not.

AC: This i also don't understand.
You have just defined what a self is, acknowledged it's existence, but then say a self is just a concept.

You are convinced that there is a controller and owner of an individual life. I am saying that owner/controller is just a concept. Body/brain = there whether you think about it or not ie. real. Self (controller/owner of life) = only exists in thought. Can’t touch it, can’t see it, etc.

C: When I watch my thoughts, I see that they are triggered by either some sort of external stimulus or other internal thoughts and not by a self, a thinker who creates and controls them.

AC: This looks to me that you simply lack self awareness.
A trigger is an event that affects something other than itself.
In the context of this discussion, this something is commonly referred to as the self.
ie "that event triggered a feeling or thought in me"
You say "when i watch my thoughts"...whose thoughts? who is watching?...you said "I"...and that looks like a self to me.

Until you see this for yourself, the things I say about it will be paradoxical. I can’t explain this to you. What I can do is point you where to look. It is up to you to look.

Can you honestly say that if you take the time to sit quietly and observe your thoughts that they do not appear in the way that I described?

I have been Still Mind\Clear Mind observing myself for quite a few years now, and my thoughts i create are due to stimulation from this interactive environment called life.
And in doing so i have become more aware of my self.
I do not see how others have come up with the theory that a self does not exist.

It will remain a theory for you until you test it. Please test it using the pointers we have provided.

So far, everything you, denhamer and others in other threads have said, i evaluate this imformation and i conclude a self does exist
I am hoping this forum could explain it to me, so far this has not happened, but I am open and willing to continue the exploration.
If you can control your thoughts, why do you think negative or unpleasant thoughts?

Because deeper inside oneself, below the surface self are all the thoughts\beliefs self has created from one's harsh experiences.
The thoughts\beliefs that reside in the so called subconscious, which is merely the part of oneself that self is not yet aware of, self has not yet illuminated.

Negative or unpleasant thoughts? How about depression as an example.
My life long depression destroyed a lot of my life to the point of a genuine suicide attempt back in 2008.
Depression is merely an uncontrolled ocean of negative and destructive thoughts that have been accumilated since birth.
in 2009, after 7 years of learning i had the illness, of journeying inside myself, of sheding light into the darkened areas of myself, i found the source of me depression.
It was one belief that i created way back when i was a little kid, and it was buried under an ocean of other self created negative thoughts\beliefs all growing from that one belief.

I fixed it as simply as flicking a switch and no longer have the illness.
And on this self discovery journey, I have learnt that i simply lacked self mastery, self control, because i wasn't aware of all of me, all of the self that was deeper in.

If you believe yout thoughts are controlled by your experiences, then that is how it shall be for you.

I have seen that thoughts are mental noise full of unfounded beliefs and what if’s and if only’s and why’s. I have seen them for what they are and they have absolutely no power. They all refer to a fictional character that exists only in the mind. ME

I have learnt that I choose my thoughts and feelings, and any thoughts or feelings that appreaed wer not my doing, were, i just simply was not aware of this, i could not see it.
A person, a self, controls their thoughts to the degree to which the person realizes\sees\knows\accepts\believes they are responsible for their thoughts.

Hence the concept of self enlightenment, self awareness, self being awakened.

Think about this for a moment.
You guys claim there is no self.
Then who is being liberated, who is awakening, who is achieving freedom?

My logical answer is, a self. But you guys claim there is no self, so I am very interested in understanding what you guys mean by this.

Like i said before, this is not going too well, but i'm willing to keep exploring.

There is no one to be liberated. There is no one to be freed. There is an assumption, a belief that there is a you who controls your life. Once it is seen that control is an illusion, that the chooser is a concept, the belief in a controller drops. It was never there in the first place. It was only ever a concept, not an actuality. Is it possible that all those thoughts and decisions and discoveries you mention above are just life happening? Just how things are playing out without some controller steering the course? The bad things just happened and then the search of a solution to the problems they caused created a desire for relief. Solutions were sought and found and applied. But not by some controller, they just occurred. One occurance leading to another leading to another. All of this was experienced. Can there be experience without an experiencer? Is there really an experiencer experiencing experiences? Is there truly any division like that in life. Is anything separate somehow standing outside of life “running the show” except in concept?

Hello Again AC,

One more quick thing. I think it would help you if you could "get out of your head" a little. Try to let thoughts and feelings that come up just be without analyzing or judging or dwelling on them. Let them pass. They all do. See if you can ignore the constant pull to think about everything. Try to relax without getting pulled into the content of the thoughts.

Take Care!
Chris

Please take all the time you need to prepare your responses.

Thanks Chris, as i regard these types of explorations are hindered by time limits.
And thanks for taking the time to clarify some things.
In order to help me see what you are pointing to, it helps me to understand where you are pointing from,
and also to clarify certain words or phrases so that i may know we are meaning the same thing.

Ok, let’s proceed.

I never stopped.
----------------

The following was me letting you know what we do here at LU:
(2)We ask them questions and request that they answer with honesty and from their own experience.

2: To which i have done. Why...do you you percieve i haven't?

Because you haven’t seen one thing we have pointed you to yet, but don’t worry, we’ll work on that.

You appear to be accusing me of being dishonest and or not expressing my own experiences.
So if you and i look at a painting in a gallery, and you share your opinion of it and i share mine, but mine is different from yours, you equate that to me lying?

(3)(a)I don’t want you to believe me or agree with me.

3a: Translation - you want me to think for myself, to which i always do.

Not think for yourself. Not ponder and analyze, but LOOK for yourself at what we are pointing to here. Look, observe. How would you look to see if there was a cup on the table? Normal, everyday looking.

I look with my eyes. You want me to look with my eyes at something that cannot be detected with eyes?
But i digress. You said "look to see", and those are two different actions, or two distinct actions of the one process of realization.

Look - The act of directing the eyes toward something and perceiving it visually.
See - Perceive (an idea or situation) mentally.; Make sense of; assign a meaning to.; Find out, learn, or determine with certainty, usually by making an inquiry or other effort.

A self may have the physical ability to detect something with thier eyes, but a self needs a mind to comprehend what they are viewing, to make sense of what they are looking at.
Hence my comment that you want me to think for myself.
But alas, you don't want me to understand, to comprehend what i'm looking at, you just want me to look.
Perhaps you want to do the thinking for me. You want me to look at the painting, not think about it, not come to any conclusion, and you want me to accept your conclusion?

If all you do is think about this and analyze it, you will never see what we are pointing to.

Well it's a good thing then that thinking and analysing is not all i do.

Hence the exercises and pointers. Through analysis and thinking, you may come to an intellectual understanding. It has no effect and is not what we are trying to accomplish here.

Soo, if i understand there is no self, that won't help me to accept there is no self?
Seriously, this theory you guys attach to is just getting weirder, 'cus in my mind, when i can understand something intellectually, and the math adds up, that's when i accept the premise as being true.

(3)(b)I want you to look for yourself and see if there is truth in what we point to here at LU. That is all.

3b: I have, and thus far, denhamer has not provided any information that leads me to think there in no self,
and thus far nor have you, but we are only just getting started,

Again, we are not asking you to think about information that we are provinding. We are asking you to look at what we are pointing to.

I'm gunna need some clarifiction here Chris.
With what sensor do i look with and why can't i think about the information i will recieve?
What am i to do with this information coming in from said sensor?

And this is the bit i really don't get.
In this thread, you will speak of exercises and pointers for me to do and ponder, and i will respond with my thoughts of them.

We are not looking for your thoughts about the pointers or exercises. Or at least not just your thoughts about them. Your OBSERVATIONS are the most important thing to report back to us. A description of what you saw when you did the exercise, not what you thought about it.

Still not understanding you Chris.
If i am to express my OBSERVATIONS without using my mind to have thoughts to generate words to write, how am i report back to you?
My thoughts about it are my descriptions of what i saw, the same as "there is no self" are your thoughts describing what you see.

So far, from your posts I have read, it’s all about what you think and why you think it. We have helped hundreds of people see this and I can tell from your replies, you are not really looking.

Again with the accusations.
Before, if i see something different to you, i am a liar, here, if i see something different, i am simply not looking.
I am not the hundreds of other people. I, like them, am a separate individual self.
If you're going to use comparitive thinking to conclude i am not looking, think about this...
Here at LU the majority see there is no self, they believe this is truth.
Along comes one person, me, and does not currently see there is no self.
Your conclusion, you being a member of the majority...I am wrong, i am not looking.

But if you and all the others here who believe there is no self, compared your group against another forum with 10, 000 members all seeing there is a self,
then they become the majority and they will say your belief there is no self is wrong and they will accuse you and your kind of not looking.
To me, comparing me to others has no merit.

Yet we are not to discuss any of this, as what you will write\share is your opinion, and what i will write\share is my opinion.
How can we have a discussion withouth sharing our thoughts.
Basically, how can we discuss without discussing?

Discussion may get you an intellectual understanding. Yes, it will be necessary to clarify some points and discuss your observations as they come up.

Well gee thanks, so it's ok to discuss then.

I have not seen you report back with anything that resembles an honest description of what you have directly experienced.

Again with the accustions.
Are you saying you have the ability to experience my experiences, to see through my eyes?
Of course not, that would be silly.
A simpler explanation of your repeated accusations is that when I see something different to you, because you believe so much that there is no self, the only thought you can generate is i must be lying or blind.

It’s all interpreted. No raw data.

If memory serves me correct, raw data is obtained by the five senses only.
So tell me Chris, of which of your five senses do you share everything you have in this thread?

In your posts it seems quite clear that you have made your conclusions about what you observed based on your current beliefs about how the world works.

Just as have you. Everyone does this.

That technique, or whatever you want to call it is not going to get you anywhere with this.

That is your opinion and you are free to have it and share it and i welcome it.
However, my observation is that i am making continuous progress.
I cannot do anything about what you observe.

Looking at what we point to using the filter of “there is no me doing this”, looking at what we are pointing to and testing if what we state is an accurate description of what you observe is a useful way to approach this. Check what we say in your own experience. Is it possible that our description of what you are observing is accurate?

I'm gunna save this one for last because to me it's a core element of this discussion.

Well guess what, if I was liberated like you guys apparently are, I wouldn't have a different opinion would i?

It’s not an opinion. We have seen something that you have not. That is the only difference. You are here to see that same thing and we are here to help.

Opinion:
- A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
- A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people.
- A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

The words that you and i express in this discussion sure look like opinions to me.

You are sharing your information, I am pondering what you say and sharing my thoughts on the subject.

Please don’t ponder, LOOK!!

You want me to LOOK but not think to formulate words to respond and share what I see?

...you speak your thoughts(opinion) on the subject,

We claim to have seen something that you have not. We are pointing at it so you can see it too. We are pointing at something, not telling you our opinion of it.

Opinion:
- A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
- A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people.
- A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

The words that you and i express in this discussion sure like like opinions to me.
You are using your opinions to point to it Chris.
You have observed something and your opinion is there is no self.

In order to see this, we need to look at a couple of things. First, there are raw experiences. Hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting. There are sensations in the body (hunger, thirst, pain). This is what we refer to as direct experience. This is the level of experience of cats, dogs, birds, newborn babies.
The point is that cats, dogs, birds and newborn babies do not have a self that is acting and thinking and claiming ownership of things. This self develops over time in humans. Self, I, is a concept.

The cat species mark their territory.
Cats, dogs and birds know who their offspring are and will defend and protect them.
Birds go back to the same place every year to breed.
Penguins each year can recognise their mate after not seeing them for 12 months.
Animals have self knowledge to know to avoid predators.
Even plants react when there is a threat to their existence.

Some researchers conducted experiments with trees in a forest.
They hooked up measuring instruments to these trees.
Then a person with an axe walked in their vicinity, with the intent to cut one down.
The instruments detected a change in the bioelectric field of these trees.
Then the same person with the axe walked among the trees, but this time, with no intent to cut one down.
The instruments detected no change in the tree's bioelectric fields.
Conclusion: The trees were aware of themselves and of the person and if that person was a threat or not.

You believe there is a self that owns the body and brain. Where is it? Can you see it? Can you touch it? Can you point it out to me?

I currently conclude i am a conscious being that is associated\connected with my body and mind, yes.
With what do you conclude there is no self?

The point is not to get rid of pronouns. The point is to look for that self, that me who felt the pain. There was an experience of pain, is there a me that owns the pain? Or, did a body feel pain and then a thought followed claiming ownership of the pain?

That is the purpose of self discovery, self exploration, to see who is this thing that feels and thinks.
Do you feel pain when you injure your body Chris?
If yes, then there is a self involved in that experience.
Just like when a Zen student proclaims there is no self and the Master hits them on the head and the student says "ouch" and the Master then asks, 'Who said that, who felt the pain?"

Realize: To comprehend completely or correctly. As I stated above, it was a poor choice of words as this was not a realization, but an observation.

Okay, going by your new statement..
Here's your original statement...

The realization is this: you do not exist. The you that you think you are, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story.

It now becomes...
"My observation is this: I do not exist. The me that I think I am, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story."

How did you come to this conclusion from your observations?
This is what I am wanting to understand.

I don't get your response, i said i don't understand how thought is layered over experiences.
I see no explanation about the covering affect of thoughts.

Thought comes after experience. Attention is paid to the thought about the experience rather than the actual experience before thought comes in with labels, judgements, etc. We mistake the thought for the actual.

I don't understand why you say "we", as i don't suffer from that problem. I know the difference between my experience and my thoughts of the experience.
And still you have not explained how a thought covers over an experience.
Here you have shown that a person can have thoughts about their experiences, not that it covers over them.
A person is aware they have had an experience, then they think about it.
If they were not aware of the experience, they would not have thoughts about it.

Please define thought.

Mind activity. Labeling, judging, analyzing, narrating, commenting, etc. Usually ”heard” as your voice in your native language. I’d even include the “pictures” envisioned in the mind. That’s the best I can come up with right now. I am hoping our definitions are similar.

Yes, i see it the same way.
Who had these thoughts about the definition of thought Chris?
And what do you call this being?
I see the answer is "I". That looks like a self to me.

I define self as the controller and owner of an individual life. Not as the body/brain. Self is a concept. Body/brain is there whether you think about it or not.

And part of that individual life is their brain\body.
Without a brain\body, would you be able to share with me the theory that there is no self?

You are convinced that there is a controller and owner of an individual life. I am saying that owner/controller is just a concept. Body/brain = there whether you think about it or not ie. real. Self (controller/owner of life) = only exists in thought. Can’t touch it, can’t see it, etc.

Who is saying that owner/controller is just a concept?
You are, an individual self.
I don't see how you, an "i", a self, can say that there is no self when it requires a self to do so.
This is the bit that i still don't see.
If there is no self saying these things, who or what is speaking?

When I watch my thoughts, I see that they are triggered by either some sort of external stimulus or other internal thoughts and not by a self, a thinker who creates and controls them.

This looks to me that you simply lack self awareness.
A trigger is an event that affects something other than itself.
In the context of this discussion, this something is commonly referred to as the self.
ie "that event triggered a feeling or thought in me"
You say "when i watch my thoughts"...whose thoughts? who is watching?...you said "I"...and that looks like a self to me.

Until you see this for yourself, the things I say about it will be paradoxical. I can’t explain this to you. What I can do is point you where to look. It is up to you to look.

This does not compute. You point by explaining.
I am looking, though of course you believe i am not, but that's your interpretation only.
I know I am looking. I am the one experiencing looking. All you can do is interpret my words and assume i am not looking.
And you assume i am not looking because i see something differently to you.
My interpretation is different to yours, but you believe your interpretation is correct and mine not.

Can you honestly say that if you take the time to sit quietly and observe your thoughts that they do not appear in the way that I described?

I have been Still Mind\Clear Mind observing myself for quite a few years now, and my thoughts i create are due to stimulation from this interactive environment called life.
And in doing so i have become more aware of my self.
I do not see how others have come up with the theory that a self does not exist.

It will remain a theory for you until you test it. Please test it using the pointers we have provided.

I am testing it, I am observing. I look and i currently see a self, you do not.

I have seen that thoughts are mental noise full of unfounded beliefs and what if’s and if only’s and why’s. I have seen them for what they are and they have absolutely no power. They all refer to a fictional character that exists only in the mind. ME

Who's mind?

Think about this for a moment.
You guys claim there is no self.
Then who is being liberated, who is awakening, who is achieving freedom?

My logical answer is, a self. But you guys claim there is no self, so I am very interested in understanding what you guys mean by this.

There is no one to be liberated. There is no one to be freed. There is an assumption, a belief that there is a you who controls your life. Once it is seen that control is an illusion, that the chooser is a concept, the belief in a controller drops.that owner/controller is just a concept.

Who drops the belief\concept?

It was never there in the first place. It was only ever a concept, not an actuality.

Who observes it was never there in the first place?

Is it possible that all those thoughts and decisions and discoveries you mention above are just life happening? Just how things are playing out without some controller steering the course?

Who is observing that things are just playing out without some controler?

The bad things just happened and then the search of a solution to the problems they caused created a desire for relief. Solutions were sought and found and applied. But not by some controller, they just occurred. One occurance leading to another leading to another.

Who is concluding these things?

All of this was experienced. Can there be experience without an experiencer? Is there really an experiencer experiencing experiences? Is there truly any division like that in life. Is anything separate somehow standing outside of life “running the show” except in concept?

Who is concluding all these things?
You enquire about can there be experience without an experiencer, is there really an experiencer experiencing experiences...yet you claim the key to seeing there is no self is to have direct experience.
You are claiming there is no experience because there is no self to do any experiencing, yet to encourage me to have direct experience.
What's up with that?

Here's the thing i saved till last...

Looking at what we point to using the filter of “there is no me doing this”, looking at what we are pointing to and testing if what we state is an accurate description of what you observe is a useful way to approach this. Check what we say in your own experience. Is it possible that our description of what you are observing is accurate?

You say that i should look and observe, have direct experience, no thinking, no pondering..just LOOK.
But here you are saying that I should look through a filter.
And this filter, "“there is no me doing this” to me, looks like a belief, an idea, a concept.

Your whole claim there is no self is founded on having the very thing you claim needs to be removed.
A filter changes that which passes throug`h it.
You want me to LOOK through a filter of believing self does not exist.

You could have saved a lot of time and effort on both our parts by simply stating, "believe that self does not exist", and then you will see that self does not exist.

I am asking you to look at direct experience. I define direct experience as the information registered by the brain through the 5 senses and bodily sensations without any labeling or judgement thoughts about it. Are you able to look without labeling or judging what was seen? Listen without labeling or judging what was heard? Can you feel a bodily sensation like pain without labeling it or judging it? Is there any effort required to see if the eyes are open? Is there any effort required to hear if there is a sound? Any effort required to feel a bodily sensation like pain? The body just registers these things naturally with no effort required. I am asking you to pay attention to what is experienced outside of thought. Most people spend so much time thinking about the labels and judgements about direct experience that they don’t notice the difference between the direct experience and their thoughts about it.

I look with my eyes. You want me to look with my eyes at something that cannot be detected with eyes?

Well, if you can't see it, would that perhaps get you to question whether or not it's there?

A self may have the physical ability to detect something with thier eyes, but a self needs a mind to comprehend what they are viewing, to make sense of what they are looking at.

I am saying that a body with a brain is capable of direct experience without any thought about the experience. The brain registers the input from the sense organs prior to any attempt of the brain to comprehend what is sensed. Is this an accurate statement?

Soo, if i understand there is no self, that won't help me to accept there is no self?
Seriously, this theory you guys attach to is just getting weirder, 'cus in my mind, when i can understand something intellectually, and the math adds up, that's when i accept the premise as being true.

Yes, if you understand there is no self and the math adds up, you may very well accept the premise as being true. That is not the goal here though, the goal is to get you to see for yourself that this is true. Not through reasoning and accepting this as a belief, but seeing that it is true in your experience beyond any shadow of a doubt. The belief in a self is basically a pattern in the brain that is learned from infancy on. Pretty much everyone you encounter believes in self as a real thing and the assumption of a self as an actual thing is built into language.

I'm gunna need some clarifiction here Chris. With what sensor do i look with and why can't i think about the information i will recieve? What am i to do with this information coming in from said sensor?

I was trying to get you to focus on direct experience. To stop thinking about direct experience and experience direct experience. Observe how thought follows direct experience. See how direct experience and thought are not the same thing. Until you do that we can’t proceed with this. It’s necessary for even an intellectual understanding of this.

I am not the hundreds of other people. I, like them, am a separate individual self.
If you're going to use comparitive thinking to conclude i am not looking, think about this...
Here at LU the majority see there is no self, they believe this is truth.
Along comes one person, me, and does not currently see there is no self.
Your conclusion, you being a member of the majority...I am wrong, i am not looking.
But if you and all the others here who believe there is no self, compared your group against another forum with 10, 000 members all seeing there is a self, then they become the majority and they will say your belief there is no self is wrong and they will accuse you and your kind of not looking. To me, comparing me to others has no merit.

My point was, I have worked with many people and have read the threads of many other people looking at this and can usually spot the difference between people who are doing the exercises and those who are just thinking about them. People who are trying to see this and testing this for themselves and people who are trying to think their way through this or just finding flaw with the process instead of actually trying it. You fall in the latter category. It’s not that you are wrong because you don’t see it or don’t agree with me, it’s that you don’t seem to be trying to understand or test it, just pointing out the flaws you perceive in the information.

It’s not an opinion. We have seen something that you have not. That is the only difference. You are here to see that same thing and we are here to help.

Opinion:
- A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
- A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people.
- A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

The words that you and i express in this discussion sure look like opinions to me.

This is not an opinion. I am telling you there is proof and certainty that the self does not exist. And I am trying to help you to see this for yourself.

The cat species mark their territory.
Cats, dogs and birds know who their offspring are and will defend and protect them.
Birds go back to the same place every year to breed.
Penguins each year can recognise their mate after not seeing them for 12 months.
Animals have self knowledge to know to avoid predators.
Even plants react when there is a threat to their existence.

Instinct.

Some researchers conducted experiments with trees in a forest.
They hooked up measuring instruments to these trees.
Then a person with an axe walked in their vicinity, with the intent to cut one down.
The instruments detected a change in the bioelectric field of these trees.
Then the same person with the axe walked among the trees, but this time, with no intent to cut one down.
The instruments detected no change in the tree's bioelectric fields.
Conclusion: The trees were aware of themselves and of the person and if that person was a threat or not.

That’s awesome. I love trees. And science. http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/br ... you-decide

That is the purpose of self discovery, self exploration, to see who is this thing that feels and thinks.

I can save you some time and effort, that self that you are looking for that feels and thinks, it’s not there.

Do you feel pain when you injure your body Chris?

Of course, silly question.

If yes, then there is a self involved in that experience.

Where, can you point to it?

Just like when a Zen student proclaims there is no self and the Master hits them on the head and the student says "ouch" and the Master then asks, 'Who said that, who felt the pain?"

Wow, you are really not very well versed in this whole self-inquiry thing. The point of that question is for the student to look and see that there is no self there. Wow, just wow. Perhaps you should read up on a little zen. The whole point of enlightenment is the realization of no self.

"My observation is this: I do not exist. The me that I think I am, that has experiences and does things is a complete fiction. It is a fictional character in a fictional story."

How did you come to this conclusion from your observations?
This is what I am wanting to understand.

I observed that there is no self outside of thought. Self is a fiction. A story in a brain. I saw this when I looked. You could too if you’d stop arguing and start looking.

Thought comes after experience. Attention is paid to the thought about the experience rather than the actual experience before thought comes in with labels, judgements, etc. We mistake the thought for the actual.

I don't understand why you say "we", as i don't suffer from that problem. I know the difference between my experience and my thoughts of the experience.
And still you have not explained how a thought covers over an experience.
Here you have shown that a person can have thoughts about their experiences, not that it covers over them.
A person is aware they have had an experience, then they think about it.
If they were not aware of the experience, they would not have thoughts about it.

The thoughts about it are stories. They are not the actual. All thought is mind stuff and mind stuff only, it is never the actual. Nothing has any inherent meaning. Thought and belief create meaning. You are living a total lie and you are too entrenched in that lie to even see that you are stuck in it. I am offering you a way out and you are fighting tooth and nail to stay mired in your crappy stories.

Who had these thoughts about the definition of thought Chris?

A brain. No who needed.

Without a brain\body, would you be able to share with me the theory that there is no self?

No, but it was done without a self.

Who is saying that owner/controller is just a concept?
You are, an individual self.
I don't see how you, an "i", a self, can say that there is no self when it requires a self to do so.
This is the bit that i still don't see.
If there is no self saying these things, who or what is speaking?

Excellent question. THAT is real self inquiry. Now you’re getting the hang of it.

I have seen that thoughts are mental noise full of unfounded beliefs and what if’s and if only’s and why’s. I have seen them for what they are and they have absolutely no power. They all refer to a fictional character that exists only in the mind. ME

Who's mind?

A mind. The one in this body here typing these words. No one owns this mind or body, ownership is just a concept.

Who drops the belief\concept?

No one drops it. It’s just dropped. The brain sees the pattern as just a pattern and not an actual thing and no longer believes in it anymore. It’s an automatic process that occurs when certain observations are made by that brain.

Who is concluding all these things?
You enquire about can there be experience without an experiencer, is there really an experiencer experiencing experiences...yet you claim the key to seeing there is no self is to have direct experience.
You are claiming there is no experience because there is no self to do any experiencing, yet to encourage me to have direct experience.
What's up with that?

No I am stating that there is no division in reality. The concept of an experiencer experiencing experience is mind stuff. In actuality, there is just experience, no division. Thoughts come after experience and divide things out, it’s the way the brain processes information, but it’s not an accurate description of the actuality of experience.

Looking at what we point to using the filter of “there is no me doing this”, looking at what we are pointing to and testing if what we state is an accurate description of what you observe is a useful way to approach this. Check what we say in your own experience. Is it possible that our description of what you are observing is accurate?

You say that i should look and observe, have direct experience, no thinking, no pondering..just LOOK.
But here you are saying that I should look through a filter.
And this filter, "“there is no me doing this” to me, looks like a belief, an idea, a concept.

Your whole claim there is no self is founded on having the very thing you claim needs to be removed.
A filter changes that which passes throug`h it.
You want me to LOOK through a filter of believing self does not exist.

You could have saved a lot of time and effort on both our parts by simply stating, "believe that self does not exist", and then you will see that self does not exist.

The point is to look. Look around the room do you see a self? There is a body, but is there a self? A controller. Is there a controller that you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell? If you can’t then it exists only as a thought in the brain. If there is no thought, if you just sit quietly and don’t think, if there is a moment, even just a fraction of a second where there is no thought, is there a self that can be found? There is still a whole lot of sensation and experience if there is no thought about any of it but there is no self, self is just a concept! There are things that are still there whether or not you think about them and there are things that exist only in thought.