bonnie, this is your thread

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK great. So there are sense arisings -- but there is no 'thing' or 'person' to which they arise. The Buddha put it like this in his instruction to Bahiya:

"In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
'you' are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

So when we conventionally say "I think ..." "I see . . . " "I feel . . . "

What does "I" actually refer to in direct experience?

[bonnie]

What does "I" actually refer to in direct experience?

In direct experience, "I" is a wide open space in which senses, thoughts, feelings, flit about and move on. It has no substance, just moving, or rather, fleeting sensations. So really, in direct experience, the term "I" has no meaning at all, and therefore an "I" is not able to be found. It is not real and has no substance.

I am impressed by what the Buddha says to Bahiya:
you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.

I see that if there is no thing here then it's obvious that there is no thing there either. I guess I hadn't got that other side of the equation so clearly before, and that in fact there has never ever been any thing, at all on either side, anywhere.

[bonnie]

PS. I'm really sorry I didn't get back very promptly and have missed a few days. But on the other hand it's been very fruitful to have the extra time on this particular question.

Thanks
B

[Jack'n'theBox]

Ok this is sounding very good Bonnie.

So have you got that there is no 'self' -- no independently existing 'me' or 'I' anywhere to be found in experience?

How about 'other people'? Let's have a quick look here too. What is direct experience of 'others'?

[bonnie]

How about 'other people'? Let's have a quick look here too. What is direct experience of 'others'?

Moving shapes and colours and sizes. It was tempting to say "they must be just like me" but that wouldn't do would it!

They don't have a self any more than I have a self, though conventionally they think they do (some of them do anyway).

That's all

B

[Jack'n'theBox]

No 'self' -- no 'others' -- looking good Bonnie.

But without an executive self 'behind' action -- how are choices made, how do things happen, actions eventuate? Let's have a look and see.

Here's a really simple exercise to look at decision making/control -- take a black pen and a blue pen and a piece of paper. Now in the next five minutes you are going to take either the black pen or the blue pen and write your name. Observe closely -- what is it that determines which pen is chosen? What is it that determines precisely WHEN the pen is chosen. Focus not on thougths but on energy behind the movement. Is anything in control of the energy?

Once you have got the point, spend the day observing how action eventuates -- why is an apple chosen, not an orange, why is a nap taken not a walk, why is a red top worn not a blue one? On and on -- observe the energetic flow of movement as actions unfold. Can you find a 'self' choosing to act in a certain way? If not, how do actions take place.

Remember look to see this directly in experience, it isn't a philosopical question!

Good luck.

[bonnie]

Can you find a 'self' choosing to act in a certain way? If not, how do actions take place.

Choice in direct experience just seems to happen. No controller, no I or me. Just a clearly defined energy or urge that chooses when to act. Things just seem to happen.

For example, today I planned to take a step ladder down to my room, but didn't do it. Then later on I just found myself moving towards the ladder, picking it up and carrying it down. The moment of choice to actually act seemed spontaneous, just happening. The same with unplanned things, the happenings just happened. I couldn't see, in any of these choices, what was making it happen.

There are often thoughts that arise and appear to direct actions and choices, but really they don't, the thoughts just arise out of nowhere, and are sometimes acted on, sometimes not. Or actions can happen without a conscious thought, but in either case both parts of the 'choice', i.e. thought and action, are without an "I" directing.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK good. So at the start of our conversation I asked for a response to this statement:

There is no 'self' behind any thought, deed, or feeling. No past self, no present self, no future self. Life simply happens by itself.

And you said:

irritation is my gut response because I don't understand. This sense of myself is so strong. How on earth would I ever break such a strong sense of self. I'm irritated because I don't know.

So where is this ‘sense of self’ now? Is ‘sense of self’ something that can be ‘broken’? What is it that could do this?

[bonnie]

So where is this ‘sense of self’ now? Is ‘sense of self’ something that can be ‘broken’? What is it that could do this?

In direct experience the sense of self disappears, but it reasserts itself in ordinary life, though now in lesser ways.

The word 'broken' I see now as an aspect of the irritation I had back then. Self can't be broken because it doesn't exist, it's and illusion. And in direct experience the sense that there is a self disappears.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK great Bonnie. So can you say that you have SEEN that 'self' is an illusion?

Is 'sense of self' a problem? Is there anything behind it? Anything sensing it? Anything you need to do about it?

[bonnie]

So can you say that you have SEEN that 'self' is an illusion? Is 'sense of self' a problem?

Yes, when I sit and connect with the open space of awareness, of direct experience, it's clear that self is an illusion. But in everyday life it comes like a mirage - it's not really there but looks exactly like it is, and it still gives trouble.

Anything you need to do about it?

Relaxation needs to happen around some emotional states and for them to be see them as energies rather than aspects of the mirage of self.

[Jack'n'theBox]

So can you say that you have SEEN that 'self' is an illusion? Is 'sense of self' a problem?

Yes, when I sit and connect with the open space of awareness, of direct experience, it's clear that self is an illusion.

OK this is great Bonnie.

But in everyday life it comes like a mirage - it's not really there but looks exactly like it is, and it still gives trouble.

OK I think this comes back to ‘expectations’. What we call 'selfing' thoughts can continue to arise -- there is a lot of habit behind them -- decades of habits -- so we can't expect them to disappear over night. Perhaps this analogy might help:

When someone first sees a rainbow, they would naturally assume that it really exists at some location in space, so they'll assume, for example, that it must be possible to travel to its base. You could say that they suffer from the 'illusion of rainbow'. Once they understand that it is a trick of light, they'll realise that it is impossible to get to 'the end of the rainbow' ... you could say that they have 'seen through the illusion of rainbow'. The thing is, they can still see the rainbow.

When it comes to the illusion of self, people often assume that, having seen through the illusion, all the 'sense of self' will vanish, perhaps one will be permanently in the kind of 'self forgetting' state that characterises artistic creation, or meditation.... However, in practice, all the experiences that made up one's "sense of self" can still come and go as they did before, it is just that now, there is the knowledge that there is no entity 'behind' the experience. Before, the 'sense of self' was believed to be a real self; after, the 'sense of self' is known to be just part of the flux of experience.

So when I asked:
“Anything you need to do about it?”

And you replied

Relaxation needs to happen around some emotional states and for them to be see them as energies rather than aspects of the mirage of self.

What is it that needs to relax, exactly? What is it that needs to “see” emotion as energy? Look closely – is this not just a thought story about “what needs to happen in the future”? Can you drop expectations and just let go into whatever presents itself in the moment?

[bonnie]

What is it that needs to relax, exactly? What is it that needs to “see” emotion as energy? Look closely – is this not just a thought story about “what needs to happen in the future”? Can you drop expectations and just let go into whatever presents itself in the moment?

Ok, the bit about expectations, selfing thoughts and decades of habit is really helpful. Something shifted with that (and irritation disappeared!!). I did need to hear that the self habit doesn't just go in a puff of smoke, that it still hangs around from habit.

So now I see that nothing needs to relax. In direct experience doubts and thought stories, all disappear. As there is no past or future or present in awareness, expectations also disappear. In direct experience I have seen that the self is an illusion, the selfing thoughts arise but are no longer a problem. The rainbow analogy was really helpful here.

Right back at the beginning you said

Life simply happens by itself

and that is what cause my irritation - around ethics seeming to not matter. Now I can see that life really does happen by itself, and that ethics get carried along with it.

I've got medical appointments tomorrow and will be away overnight, so can post again on Saturday arvo or evening.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK then, great.

Let me ask you some summing-up questions and we'll see if any further issues arise we need to inquire into. As always -- be sure to answer from direct experience.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for?

Please give examples from recent experience.

6) Anything to add?

[bonnie]

Hiya

I'm looking at the questions you sent earlier. Need some time to answer fully, so will ponder and get back when ready. Thanks
B