Looking for assistance

[Zoe Mac]

ly Post - 12th November 2013
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
10:11 AM

Hi Pete,

Worn out, but here goes..

Given that you've found no self at all doing anything, what do you mean when you say that part of the time (thoughts) correspond with actions? If there's no self evident in direct experience, what does a thought corresponding with an action actually mean? Or is it a thought?

By corresponding thought and action I mean there is a running tape of audio type transmission but not quite- Can't put into words. What I've always called thoughts, that happen to on occasion be talking of something that is happening, just happened or about to happen in the physical visual spectrum of direct experience. Ive just begun to understand that that's not me like I always thought it had been. But theres definitely an appearance of dialogue that occurs. ("Dialogues" not the correct word either but am stuck for choices)

I don't know what the two things corresponding mean. If anything. I'm not sure they are separate. I'm not sure of anything. The word thought doesn't seem to fit anymore for that thinking, as the word thought is associated with me thinking.

"I'm really really sorry, I don't think I'm getting this choosing part. Is there any way to break it down further?"
Yes, but were you aware of a self actually choosing/deciding: to go into the kitchen, to have a cup of tea, to pull out the boxes 'you' chose to, to discount chamomile, to go with the green tea, to notice that it read 'loose leaf', to think, 'Too hard I'll have chai''? If you didn't what is your doubt based on?

The doubt was because I was looking for an answer that wasn't there. It came a little clearer when I read your post in the middle of the night. I had been looking at the test thinking I knew the outcome- that like the experiment with movements of the body and thought interaction, I would discover no thought controlled the outcome. With the teas I had thought there would be no thought stream corresponding with the choosing. There was. But now I see the point was to see that there was no "I" controlling the thought, the choosing.

Expectations forming that I wasn't aware of..

Great answer. You clearly see that thoughts just pop up, pass through and disappear in a seemingly random stream. No thinker, just thinking.

That being so, how can thoughts whenever they occur in relation to choices or decisions being made have any influence on or connection with those choices? And, even if they did, where would the self, the 'I' be in all of this?

Wouldn't the thoughts be the choice? Just not from a self entity? From a source unknown? Speculation, I can't know where they come from..

Thinking.

The thought happens, the action follows, neither thought or action controlled by "Me/ I". No sign of "I/me", there is no I in all of this. Not that I can find within direct experience. Why do I still FEEL like an "I". Even with it all laid out like that.

Please tell me your response to this, Zoe, 'I' is just a thought..so it can't be a thinker, doer, witness or anything at all...

As in previous answer, I have seen in direct experience that there's no evidence to support an "I" being a thinker or doer. There is witnessing occurring. Could the "I" be responsible fort the witnessing? If not, what is thinking/ doing/ witnessing?

I IS just a thought. Thoughts can't think. Can they? Can a thought witness?

So far you've looked into sense arisings, doing, control, choosing, deciding and thinking and have not found a shred of empirical evidence for an 'i' existing, just thoughts about 'me'. Now, let's look at what's left, the body, something I know we touched on earlier:

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

I'm not sure- I'm typing write now- The fingers tapping coincide with the sensation of fingers on keyboard. The sensation FEELS like its being felt in that area. But there's that word 'Feel" again, and I'm learning to question that. I don't know- Its sure convincing that my body is the thing experiencing the tactile sensations. (I'm not sure I understand what kinaesthetic means.)

" noun
the sensation by which bodily position, weight, muscle tension, and movement are perceived
Also called: muscle sense"

OK, kinaesthetic sensations of the body, are believed to be of the body, but unlike tactile, can't be visualised and as such reinforced as the idea of occurring within the body. Right now, my thighs are tense and sore, sitting on a hard high wooden bench. That's the minds interpretation that just came up. Within direct experience. There is the sensation of dull ache and discomfort. Though again, no tangible proof of where it is, or what it is.

I can't find anywhere that shows me that the body experiences thought. Theres a kind of belief that thoughts are arising from the area where the visual realm of the body ends. Chest/ shoulders up- behind the nose. From where the witnessing is occurring. Another belief. No evidence in direct experience.

If I'm way off today, forgive me- May be more productive resuming tomorrow after a little rest?

Kind and well wishes to you.

Zoe x

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

The doubt was because I was looking for an answer that wasn't there. It came a little clearer when I read your post in the middle of the night. I had been looking at the test thinking I knew the outcome- that like the experiment with movements of the body and thought interaction, I would discover no thought controlled the outcome. With the teas I had thought there would be no thought stream corresponding with the choosing. There was. But now I see the point was to see that there was no "I" controlling the thought, the choosing.

That's right, there's no 'I' anywhere to be found in direct experience when, somehow, choices happen.

Wouldn't the thoughts be the choice? Just not from a self entity? From a source unknown? Speculation, I can't know where they come from..

Have you seen a thought actually do anything? If not, then they can't be the samE thing as the choice. As the BBC clip showed, choices appear to occur in the brain, six seconds before the mind catches up and able, falsely, to claim the credit.

The thought happens, the action follows, neither thought or action controlled by "Me/ I". No sign of "I/me", there is no I in all of this. Not that I can find within direct experience. Why do I still FEEL like an "I". Even with it all laid out like that.

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

I've got a touch screen and, accidentally I touched post, so you've just got the first bit. Sorry, more to follow soon.

Px

[moondog]

Hello again Zoe,

To continue,

The thought happens, the action follows, neither thought or action controlled by "Me/ I". No sign of "I/me", there is no I in all of this. Not that I can find within direct experience. Why do I still FEEL like an "I". Even with it all laid out like that

Because thinking there's a you is a very deeply ingrained habit. It doesn't just disappear. But every time you notice it you can look and see that it's just thought content, nothing else. Also, as humans, we are living organisms, living life, and with a vivid feeling of aliveness, always present in direct experience. I-thoughts attach to this feeling and this gives them their power and seductiveness. This might also explain the power of the I-feeling.

As in previous answer, I have seen in direct experience that there's no evidence to support an "I" being a thinker or doer. There is witnessing occurring. Could the "I" be responsible fort the witnessing? If not, what is thinking/ doing/ witnessing?

Why do you ask that when you have seen no evidence of an 'I' anywhere? When you look into direct experience can you even find a witness? Or is there just witnessing? Just awareness being aware, and witnessing. Can you find anything else?

I wrote:

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

And that's just to see whether, even though you haven't been able to find any self anywhere else, you can find in direct experience such an entity either as or in your body.

In direct experience there are just raw, unfiltered sense arisings, as they actually arise. Is there such a thing as a body within that experience, or is it a concept derived from those raw perceptions to create the illusion of solidity and fixity? That being so, does the body experience sensations and thought, or is there just sensation and thought? If the latter, surely the body is just another thought label and there cannot be any self as or in the body. If not, how do you arrive at that conclusion from the evidence of direct experience?

I hope you manage to get some good, restful sleep tonight.

Pete x

[Zoe Mac]

Evening Pete,

Lots of sleep last night, thank you. :)

"As in previous answer, I have seen in direct experience that there's no evidence to support an "I" being a thinker or doer. There is witnessing occurring. Could the "I" be responsible fort the witnessing? If not, what is thinking/ doing/ witnessing?"
Why do you ask that when you have seen no evidence of an 'I' anywhere? When you look into direct experience can you even find a witness? Or is there just witnessing? Just awareness being aware, and witnessing. Can you find anything else?

I guess I asked because I didn't know/ haven't seen one way or the other how to answer your question about whether the "I" was witnessing. I'm getting pretty confused. there's no witness to be found, but witnessing yes. Along with the experiencing of other senses. I can't find anything else.

I wrote: Does the body experience sensations and thought?
or
Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?
And that's just to see whether, even though you haven't been able to find any self anywhere else, you can find in direct experience such an entity either as or in your body.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but feel I could do with more clarity. The body is always before me. Its a visual thing that I can't deny, that goes everywhere I do, like a shadow. Only when I see it touch things in direct experience, there is also the tactile sensations. I'm trying to understand how it could be a thought label for just tactile and kinaesthetic sensation, when its also a constant visual component of direct experience.
OK looking at my body, watching my body. There is nothing to indicate a self in it no.

In direct experience there are just raw, unfiltered sense arisings, as they actually arise. Is there such a thing as a body within that experience, or is it a concept derived from those raw perceptions to create the illusion of solidity and fixity?/

Oh I see what you mean. Kind of. Without assumptions of the past, looking right now out, there are arms typing, legs draped over a chair, and the reflection of a person in the glass door. Should ideas of the past be completely dissolved that's all it is. This imagery that doesn't mean anything. Yet it does seem personal because unlike anything else within the picture flow, I can feel what it touches. Would you mind letting me know what illusion of solidity / fixity is?
Are you saying that the things I believe are solid and fixed within direct experience actually aren't?
Wow.

Feel like the mind is trying to pull at the corner of something that it can't manage.

That being so, does the body experience sensations and thought, or is there just sensation and thought?

Oh man. I just can't tell. I'm looking in direct experience. Rubbing my hands together. The sensation of it feels SO heightened. Sends shivers. But the sensation occurs when the hands touch. It LOOKS like the body is experiencing it. I'm trying to locate the occupancy of sensation. It really feels as if the body is experiencing it. I get that the body doesn't experience thought but am stuck on sensation.

If the latter, surely the body is just another thought label and there cannot be any self as or in the body. If not, how do you arrive at that conclusion from the evidence of direct experience?

I see the body touch a thing and a sensation arises which feels located in the area that the body contacted a thing. But actually, touching the table just now I can see two things touching but make the assumption that its the hand, not the table feeling it. Theres no way of knowing that. They have both made contact and the contact point between the two is where the feeling has arisen from. Hands on hands though, it has to be the body experiencing?

Lots of doubt arising today and tonight. Thoughts only I realise. Also many thoughts of disappointment. The mind saying "I'm not getting this", "You're failing" etc. Harsh critic. Am trying to just ride these thoughts out. Not sure if they're worth mentioning or not. If I can't find an I, then who is failing here- Still hard not to get swept up in the onslaught.

Best wishes,

Zoe

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

I guess I asked because I didn't know/ haven't seen one way or the other how to answer your question about whether the "I" was witnessing. I'm getting pretty confused. there's no witness to be found, but witnessing yes. Along with the experiencing of other senses. I can't find anything else.

You're right, witnessing or witnessing awareness, whatever you want to call it, is the same as experiencing, but you have, so far, not been able to find any experiencer, witness(er), seer, hearer, thinker etc in direct experience, have you?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but feel I could do with more clarity. The body is always before me. Its a visual thing that I can't deny, that goes everywhere I do, like a shadow. Only when I see it touch things in direct experience, there is also the tactile sensations. I'm trying to understand how it could be a thought label for just tactile and kinaesthetic sensation, when its also a constant visual component of direct experience.
OK looking at my body, watching my body. There is nothing to indicate a self in it no.

I agree there are also seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting sensations that we label 'my body', as well as tactile and kinaesthetic sensations. Clearly, in direct experience there are just these sensations, but no 'body', no labels, no concepts. They're added afterwards.

There is nothing to indicate a self in it no

Good, you see that there is no self in or as the body, which is just various sense arisings, labelled as an afterthought.

Would you mind letting me know what illusion of solidity / fixity is?
Are you saying that the things I believe are solid and fixed within direct experience actually aren't?

I don't understand what you mean by the things I believe are solid and fixed within direct experience. Direct experience is what is here/now before any mental activity pushes in. Beliefs are thoughts about how things are or should be. How can you believe things to be solid/fixed in direct experience when all that's there is seeing, hearing etc? Like 'body', 'solid' and 'fixed' are only labels/concepts, nothing more. I'm not saying they're not useful or that we should stop using these labels, much as we still say 'I', 'me', 'mine' etc. even though there is no self, so long as we bear in mind that they are only 'convenient' labels, nothing more, not reality.

Hands on hands though, it has to be the body experiencing?

How is that fundamentally different? In direct experience isn't it just tactile sensation(s)?

Lots of doubt arising today and tonight. Thoughts only I realise. Also many thoughts of disappointment. The mind saying "I'm not getting this", "You're failing" etc. Harsh critic. Am trying to just ride these thoughts out. Not sure if they're worth mentioning or not. If I can't find an I, then who is failing here- Still hard not to get swept up in the onslaught.

As you say, only thoughts, but not always easy to see as impersonal I know. You're not failing, you're doing just fine. Doubt, confusion, irritability, exhaustion all come up when this drilling down gets deep, as it is now. And if you can't find an I, that's not failure, that's perfect.

I''d like to just home in on particular areas, if there are any, where further clarification is needed. So, please answer the following sweep-up questions:

In direct experience:

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

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

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

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

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

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

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

It's a bit if a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, of course, there's something you want to examine some more. AsI've said, basically, we just need to tidy up and identify any areas that need to be looked into a bit more deeply, or clarified.

Love, Pete

[Zoe Mac]

Hello Pete,

Seeing you highlight and throw back the things I say and questions I have really makers me realise how tightly I am holding on to ideas of things as if tangible provable truth. So tight I can't see they are not actual direct experience. Thank you ever so for these insights.

You're right, witnessing or witnessing awareness, whatever you want to call it, is the same as experiencing, but you have, so far, not been able to find any experiencer, witness(er), seer, hearer, thinker etc in direct experience, have you?

No, not to be found anywhere. (Other than thoughts claiming to be.)

"Would you mind letting me know what illusion of solidity / fixity is?
Are you saying that the things I believe are solid and fixed within direct experience actually aren't?"

I don't understand what you mean by the things I believe are solid and fixed within direct experience. Direct experience is what is here/now before any mental activity pushes in. Beliefs are thoughts about how things are or should be. How can you believe things to be solid/fixed in direct experience when all that's there is seeing, hearing etc? Like 'body', 'solid' and 'fixed' are only labels/concepts, nothing more. I'm not saying they're not useful or that we should stop using these labels, much as we still say 'I', 'me', 'mine' etc. even though there is no self, so long as we bear in mind that they are only 'convenient' labels, nothing more, not reality.

Frustrated. Am very caught up in the illusion of self obviously. I see the logic behind what you're saying. I whole heartedly agree with it all. Everything you're showing me- The fact that in direct experience there is nothing to say that this table that "I'm seeing" is solid. Or that's its a table. Or that its going to stay there. But I fully believe it to be a solid table that is going to stay there until I move it. (short term) Gah! How can I believe something I can't prove. How can I not believe something I always have just because I can't find it? Really beating myself up. Uck Sorry. Am caught up in the thoughts it seems. Will try to stick to the direct experience.

"Hands on hands though, it has to be the body experiencing?"

How is that fundamentally different? In direct experience isn't it just tactile sensation(s)?

Yes. Tonight I can see that. There's no difference.

I'd like to just home in on particular areas, if there are any, where further clarification is needed. So, please answer the following sweep-up questions:

In direct experience:

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

In terms of direct experience, I can only speak for right now and I can't find any self or experienced. Just experience.

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

No I can't find it.

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Only thoughts that claim to. Thoughts that arise without being summoned or controlled by a 'self'. Often after the fact, and ineffectual.

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

No there is just thinking. No thing thinking.

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

Possibly. I'm stuck on this a little.

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

I can't see them being made to arise. They just happen. They are experienced, but I can't find who by.

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

None to be found.

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

Not right now. Not when pondering them within direct experience. For most parts of each day I get swept up in the drama and believe in the self identity though.

Thanks again,

Zoe

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

Seeing you highlight and throw back the things I say and questions I have really makers me realise how tightly I am holding on to ideas of things as if tangible provable truth. So tight I can't see they are not actual direct experience. Thank you ever so for these insights.

Good to observe and realise. And remember, there's really no you doing this holding on to these old ideas. It's just really firmly entrenched habits, and the more the fact of no-self is seen, the weaker these habit energies become, but it does take time.

Frustrated. Am very caught up in the illusion of self obviously. I see the logic behind what you're saying. I whole heartedly agree with it all. Everything you're showing me- The fact that in direct experience there is nothing to say that this table that "I'm seeing" is solid. Or that's its a table. Or that its going to stay there. But I fully believe it to be a solid table that is going to stay there until I move it. (short term) Gah! How can I believe something I can't prove. How can I not believe something I always have just because I can't find it? Really beating myself up. Uck Sorry. Am caught up in the thoughts it seems. Will try to stick to the direct experience.

Pretty much the same as I said above really. Beliefs are strong and don't necessarily disappear just because you've seen them to be wrong(!) The more they are seen as such in the light of awareness, i.e. direct experience, the less their influence will become, but gradually. And, don't beat yourself up about it. It's fine for these doubts, beliefs, wrong views and I-thoughts to continue, so long as they are seen for what they are, just dodgy data, not reality.

Remember, not only is there no 'you', there's also no 'you' looking in every experiential nook and cranny to see if this 'you' can be found,

Your answers to the comprehensive review questions show that you can clearly find no self anywhere and that, really only one possible area of some doubt still persists.

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

Possibly. I'm stuck on this a little.

We need to nail this. Given that you've said that you can find no body in direct experience, there simply cannot be a self as body, or contained within body. 'My body' is only a concept derived from thought, and you've clearly seen that there's no self involved in any way in thoughts or thinking. So, please explain in as much detail as you like why you're still stuck on this.

Believe me Zoe, you really are doing well. Do you feel like you're nearly there or thereabouts?

Love, Pete

[Zoe Mac]

Thanks Pete,

'Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?
Possibly. I'm stuck on this a little.'

We need to nail this. Given that you've said that you can find no body in direct experience, there simply cannot be a self as body, or contained within body. 'My body' is only a concept derived from thought, and you've clearly seen that there's no self involved in any way in thoughts or thinking. So, please explain in as much detail as you like why you're still stuck on this.

I can find a body always in direct experience. At least some part of it. I see that the name "body" doesn't belong and can't be found in direct experience. But it's always there. It's just really difficult to dismiss that I am the body, if it's always there and sensations are felt when it touches things etc. But I guess the similar comparison can be drawn of thought, and I see I'm not that.

Wait, if I dismiss 'ideas' formed of the past, how can I claim the body is always here. I just don't know. What question am I meant to be asking?

Do you feel like you're nearly there or thereabouts?

I don't know where 'there' is, but I don't feel there. While we're talking feelings, I actually have the feeling I'm far from there.

Honestly, I feel like I've learned theory about the illusion of self, but can't hold onto it, can't make the mind believe it, or figure out how to apply it. Though I really want to.

Am I developing false expectations?

I appreciate all of your help with this Pete, to no end.

Respectfully, Zoe x

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

I can find a body always in direct experience. At least some part of it. I see that the name "body" doesn't belong and can't be found in direct experience. But it's always there. It's just really difficult to dismiss that I am the body, if it's always there and sensations are felt when it touches things etc. But I guess the similar comparison can be drawn of thought, and I see I'm not that.

We know that there are sense arisings, which we habitually label 'my body', but that's not direct experience, that's just a label, in exactly the same way that we attach a label to the ever-changing kaleidoscope of sensations and thoughts that we label 'me', only to find that when we look, there's nothing there at all.

So, that being the case, please describe to me what your direct experience of body is.

But it's always there.

What exactly is the 'it' that's always there?

From your previous post -

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

I can't see them being made to arise. They just happen. They are experienced, but I can't find who by.

sensations are there when it touches things

You have seen that in direct experience there is no thinker, only thinking; no seer, only seeing; no hearer, only hearing; no taster, only tasting; no smeller, only smelling and no feeler/toucher, only feeling/touching. How then can there be an 'it' i.e. toucher/feeler, this time labelled 'body' and therefore capable of being thought of as a self, feeling through 'my body'?

Honestly, I feel like I've learned theory about the illusion of self, but can't hold onto it, can't make the mind believe it, or figure out how to apply it. Though I really want to.

Two things. First there's no 'you' so, although there's learning, there's no one that learns, holds on, makes up their mind, believes or figures things out. This isn't just semantics, it's true and it's why 'you' haven't been able to find a separate self anywhere. Second, it's the mind that does all the theoretical, conceptual stuff. But this isn't about getting the mind to believe anything (in addition to the fact that, as I've just said, there's no one there to make anything happen anyway). It just doesn't work that way. Much as, once we see that there's just simply no Santa, that's it and we always know that, once we see that there's no self, it's always known to be true. However, unlike with Santa, I-thoughts can often continue to intrude, as you well know.

Seeing clearly that there is no self and accepting that, in the same way that you accept that Santa doesn't exist, is completely independent of, and unconnected to, whether or not you still experience anxiety, anger, doubt or any other 'negative' thoughts or feelings. Such feelings and thoughts are only relevant in this context if you give them credence as real and true, believing that they are created by/part of 'you', and so allowing them to function as a distraction from actually seeing.

Lots of love, Pete

[Zoe Mac]

We know that there are sense arisings, which we habitually label 'my body', but that's not direct experience, that's just a label, in exactly the same way that we attach a label to the ever-changing kaleidoscope of sensations and thoughts that we label 'me', only to find that when we look, there's nothing there at all.

So, that being the case, please describe to me what your direct experience of body is.

Most of the time its arms, legs, hands a nose etc that extends out into the visual aspect of direct experience.

"But it's always there."
What exactly is the 'it' that's always there?

The same tummy, arms, legs, hands a nose etc with the same freckles and scars.

From your previous post - Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?I can't see them being made to arise. They just happen. They are experienced, but I can't find who by.
sensations are there when it touches things
You have seen that in direct experience there is no thinker, only thinking; no seer, only seeing; no hearer, only hearing; no taster, only tasting; no smeller, only smelling and no feeler/toucher, only feeling/touching. How then can there be an 'it' i.e. toucher/feeler, this time labelled 'body' and therefore capable of being thought of as a self, feeling through 'my body'?

I kind of feel like that despite the fact that there is no entity to be found that is controlling the body, that it just does things that just come up, just happen, it is still a body interacting with the world. Touching and feeling things and experiencing sensation. Am starting to think perhaps not my body, but still a body?

Seeing clearly that there is no self and accepting that, in the same way that you accept that Santa doesn't exist, is completely independent of, and unconnected to, whether or not you still experience anxiety, anger, doubt or any other 'negative' thoughts or feelings. Such feelings and thoughts are only relevant in this context if you give them credence as real and true, believing that they are created by/part of 'you', and so allowing them to function as a distraction from actually seeing.

Great insight thankyou. I see no evidence for a self beyond the claim of thought, but cant accept its non existence like I do with santa. I really wish I could. am hoping with time...

Love Zo

[Zoe Mac]

Hi Pete,

Just a quick one. What's the best way to deal with grief and resentment and relationship problems that come up during this process? It's weird am a little conflicted. I keep saying there's no-one here to feel it and trying to squash the emotions, and then trying to say let them wash through and out and try not to form Any sense of attachment, and then the mind will eventually some time later regain control and push the full force of them on me.

Is that stuff completely separate from this investigation? Best to just go through the motions with it like I always have?

Zo x

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

We know that there are sense arisings, which we habitually label 'my body', but that's not direct experience, that's just a label, in exactly the same way that we attach a label to the ever-changing kaleidoscope of sensations and thoughts that we label 'me', only to find that when we look, there's nothing there at all.
So, that being the case, please describe to me what your direct experience of body is.

Most of the time its arms, legs, hands a nose etc that extends out into the visual aspect of direct experience.

What exactly is the 'it' that's always there?

The same tummy, arms, legs, hands a nose etc with the same freckles and scars.

In my first question I start by saying - We know that there are sense arisings, which we habitually label 'my body', but that's not direct experience, that's just a label.

Why then do you refer to parts of the body, i.e. tummy,arms, legs, hands a nose as extending into the visual aspect of direct experience. All there is in direct experience is sense arisings. Can you actually directly experience concepts like body, arm, leg etc? If you really can, please describe what you see.

I kind of feel like that despite the fact that there is no entity to be found that is controlling the body, that it just does things that just come up, just happen, it is still a body interacting with the world. Touching and feeling things and experiencing sensation. Am starting to think perhaps not my body, but still a body?

Again, that's what you think and feel, not direct experience. You may well think there's a 'you' as a separate self, and then maybe other times you think there isn't, but thoughts cannot be relied on, they are not reality. Direct experience is.

Can you find a body in direct experience?

Can you find a self in direct experience?

Great insight thankyou. I see no evidence for a self beyond the claim of thought, but cant accept its non existence like I do with santa. I really wish I could. am hoping with time...

Please explain what you mean when you say that, even though you can see no evidence for there being a separate self, you still can't accept that the self doesn't exist. Surely, it can only be the claim of thought that is causing you to believe that you don't accept this. What else could it be?

Is it that you were expecting that once it was seen that the self was non-existent, there would be some remarkable feeling or event or state? For some that may be the casework a while, but for many others it's much quieter and well, almost ordinary. It's not about states or fireworks but just simply the knowing that there's no self and never has been. Over time this leads to a much more open and free perspective on life, knowing that one is simply life, living itself.

Are you sure that there is no separate self and never has been one?

Pete x

[moondog]

Hi Zoe,

What's the best way to deal with grief and resentment and relationship problems that come up during this process? It's weird am a little conflicted.

As I said in my post to you on 7 November in terms of fear and other 'negative' emotions more generally, the best way of 'dealing with grief, resentment etc. is not to try to resist any of these feelings; resistance only fuels them. Just recognise them for what they are. You didn't make them happen, they are just arisings in awareness that will soon subside. Easier said than done, I know, but try to relax and just watch them come and go.

I keep saying there's no-one here to feel it and trying to squash the emotions

Trying to squash or resist these I-thoughts/feelings just gives them energy, feeds them and makes them worse, because you're trying to impose 'your' will, when there's no 'you' to do that, which is, of course, why these feelings are so potent for you in the first place.

I hope this helps.

P x

[Zoe Mac]

Thanks Pete, sincerely for your patience and generosity and everything else. It's been a big day, so must apologise for not posting today. Need to get some rest but will give my full attention to answers in the morning

Best wishes,

Zo x