Guide available - Breaking first fetter / Stream Entry / Emptiness of Self

[magicking27]

No the process cannot be found

[Xain]

Good.

So could you be confident about this so far (please be honest - If this doesn't hold true, please let me know)

With the proviso that there is 'What is seen' . . .
1) No separate thing can be found in 'seeing' that is doing the seeing - There is just 'What is seen'.
2) An activity of 'seeing' cannot be found either - There is just 'What is seen'.

Therefore

1) It is only an assumption (and idea, a belief, a thought) that there is something seperate (an 'I', a Jason for example) that is 'seeing'.
2) It is only an assumption that a process / activity is taking place or being done.

(I have to have the proviso of 'What is seen' - Later fetters address this too - But I have to have something solid as a ground to work with).

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

With the proviso that there is 'What is seen' . . .
1) No separate thing can be found in 'seeing' that is doing the seeing - There is just 'What is seen'.
2) An activity of 'seeing' cannot be found either - There is just 'What is seen'.

As long as we are JUST talking about seeing, yes, "What is seen" is all there is to it. No Jason is required. No process is behind it. What is seen is all there is to it.

BUT, my naughty little brain keeps reminding me that it is just one of five senses and that the "gestalt" of those five senses and the experience of consciousness is the invisible center that is the "self."

My brain keeps trying to point out that this is just a game of abstractions.

BUT, staying within the abstraction, "What is seen" is all there is to seeing. No entity or process is required.

so, yes, it is just an assumption that a "Jason" is "doing" seeing, and this assumption has no evidence to support it, (when we are talking about seeing).

[Xain]

BUT, my naughty little brain keeps reminding me that it is just one of five senses and that the "gestalt" of those five senses and the experience of consciousness is the invisible center that is the "self."

I don't understand this sentence.

I am familiar with the five senses of course.
What is 'the experience of consciousness' is the invisible centre that is the 'self'?
Is this just an idea / a belief you have, or is it something you can pinpoint and describe?

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

What is 'the experience of consciousness' is the invisible centre that is the 'self'?
Is this just an idea / a belief you have, or is it something you can pinpoint and describe?

Of course it is just an idea. I know it. I am referring back to previous parts of our conversation though.

There is a "personal" sense of having a three dimensional perspective-based perceptual reference point. "I" am here. The television is over there. To the left of the television is the drawers. The reference point of my five senses is centered over here, seven or eight feet away. This is" me"

I am sorry if this sounds even more confusing.

Perception consistently comes from this one place.

[Xain]

Are you expecting this to change (a centre to experience)?

I've noticed that you've gone directly back to mental assumptions straight away, even before we've really finished with the very first sense.

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

LOL- not trying to be difficult. I am just reporting what comes at me.

when I look. What is seen requires none of my nonsense. Let's stick to that. :-)

[Xain]

The thing is, we are here to realise that there is no separate self.
So when you say '"I" am here. The television is over there, is this an unshakeable fact?
If it is an unshakeable fact, then why are you asking for guidance?

When you say 'a personal sense', what is it's owner?

When you say the reference point is centered over here, where exactly?
What is located at the reference point for 'seeing'?
In the experience of 'seeing', what can you find at the reference point?
(If 'seeing' is being performed as an activity, then what is at the reference point for 'seeing' must be responsible).

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

The television is over there, is this an unshakeable fact?
If it is an unshakeable fact, then why are you asking for guidance?

No, of course that is not an unshakeable fact. It is just a thought that comes to my awareness when you say...

So could you be confident about this so far (please be honest - If this doesn't hold true, please let me know)

I was just trying to follow your instructions when I reported the thoughts that came up.

I see that "what is seen" is all that can be honestly said about the visual sense when considering it on its own. There is no process. There is no self in it. It is just "what is seen."

I quite clearly understand that we are not trying to change anything. Just to see clearly what is going on.

One of the things that is going on is that my brain bucks at the challenge and presents alternate perspectives. I do not request them. They simply come.

If you want me to ignore the brain chatter for now and not report it I can do that.

I understand that it is tangential.

When you say 'a personal sense', what is it's owner?

It doesn't have an owner. It is just a thought.

When you say the reference point is centered over here, where exactly?

Okay, it is a bit hazy when considered exclusively as sight. There is no reference point. It is all experience.

What is located at the reference point for 'seeing'?

There isn't a real reference point. It is just the sight, "what is seen"

In the experience of 'seeing', what can you find at the reference point?

thoughts. ;-) Really there isn't a reference point in "what is seen." Grokked.

[Xain]

Ok - Good stuff - We're getting somewhere now :-)

One of the things that is going on is that my brain bucks at the challenge and presents alternate perspectives. I do not request them. They simply come.
If you want me to ignore the brain chatter for now and not report it I can do that.

Well I wouldn't say 'ignore it'. Simply recognise it - Notice what it says (assumes).
Brain chatter will automatically assume the 'I' is real and here right now.
One of the goals of the guidance is to examine our experience, and compare that to 'brain chatter' - The ideas we have of what is going on.
I want you to ensure that you can see the difference.

Okay, it is a bit hazy when considered exclusively as sight. There is no reference point. It is all experience.

Ok, good. I understand what you mean by saying that it has no reference point.

thoughts. ;-) Really there isn't a reference point in "what is seen." Grokked.

LOL - I love that word.

So can you see that thoughts / ideas / beliefs assume that there is an 'I' at the reference point, and that 'I' is performing a function of seeing.
Yet, you say (quite rightly) that there is no reference point to be found in the experience.
There is only 'what is seen'.

So in 'seeing' there is no real 'I' . . . only thoughts suggesting that there is.

Makes sense?

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

One of the goals of the guidance is to examine our experience, and compare that to 'brain chatter' - The ideas we have of what is going on.
I want you to ensure that you can see the difference.

Yes, they are very different! It is clear that "seeing" is just "what is seen" without any thoughts about it.

So in 'seeing' there is no real 'I' . . . only thoughts suggesting that there is.

Makes sense?

Makes sense! Very clear now!

[Xain]

Cool.
There are further levels of deconstruction but if we deconstruct too much I can't guide you :-)

Hopefully you have realised that there is no inherent 'self' ('I') in 'seeing' - To suggest there is an 'I' performing the activity is dependent on 'brain chatter'.
(Hence the 'I' in seeing is empty).

Ok, let's move to 'hearing' in the same way.

Just rest for a moment and listen to the sounds outside or in your room / house.
Whatever sound there is, I'm just going to call that 'What can be heard'.

Ok, Inquire.
1) In 'hearing', can anything else be found other than 'What can be heard'?
2) Can an activity being performed by something be found, or is there simply 'What can be heard'?
3) Is there an 'I', a body, a pair of ears, a Jason . . ANYTHING at all be found 'hearing' . . . or is there just 'What can be heard'?

If you want to (since you mentioned it), you could tell me what the 'brain chatter' is suggesting. As a comparison perhaps.

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

Ok, Inquire.
1) In 'hearing', can anything else be found other than 'What can be heard'?
2) Can an activity being performed by something be found, or is there simply 'What can be heard'?
3) Is there an 'I', a body, a pair of ears, a Jason . . ANYTHING at all be found 'hearing' . . . or is there just 'What can be heard'?

1. No, just "what can be heard." Nothing else.

2. No, no activity by anything or anyone is a component of hearing. Just "what can be heard."

3. No, there is no I or anything else.

The chattering monkey mind is not as responsive today.

[Xain]

The chattering monkey mind is not as responsive today.

Throw him a banana ;-)

Next one 'feeling'.

Place your hand on a flat surface, like a desk or table.
Close your eyes (if helps to focus; The seeing sense is the strongest and can divert attention away).

Now 'go to' the sensation that we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what can be found.

1) How many things are there in the experience itself? Two things (one and hand and another a desk) or just one 'sensation'?
2) Can anything be found in the experience that is performing an activity called 'feeling'?
3) Is there an 'I', a Jason, a body, anything to be found 'feeling'? Or is there just 'one sensation'?

Let me feed the monkey - Suppose an idea springs up and monkey says 'I am feeling' or 'My hand is feeling'.
What do you make of the monkey's statements in light of the last exercise?

Xain ♥

[magicking27]

1) How many things are there in the experience itself? Two things (one and hand and another a desk) or just one 'sensation'?

If I am just focusing on "feeling," there is just one thing- "the feeling," anything else is just words describing the feeling or attempting to possess it. The "feeling" itself is one thing.

2) Can anything be found in the experience that is performing an activity called 'feeling'?

No, nothing.

3) Is there an 'I', a Jason, a body, anything to be found 'feeling'? Or is there just 'one sensation'?

Not without my monkey. There is just one sensation.

Let me feed the monkey - Suppose an idea springs up and monkey says 'I am feeling' or 'My hand is feeling'.
What do you make of the monkey's statements in light of the last exercise?

Okay, so what the mind likes to do here is to create a sensation of a whole-o-graph of an entire physical body shape- from head to toe. So that while there is awareness of touch at the "hand" there is also a whole body awareness.

However, just considered as "feeling" this too is just one experience and does not have a process, a self or even a body. It is just "feeling."

The sense of shape or size requires a sort of visual sense, albeit an imaginary one. Just considered as feeling it is "one thing."