Serious Seeker Seeking Solace from Seeking

[lunarpig]

Seeing clearly that there is no I is much easier when sitting alone in direct observation of thought. When engaging with others, it's easy to get pulled back into the story of I. It seems I am at the threshold but need that final push, as I've read about. I just don't know what that push is.

[amrita]

Hi Craig,

It's easier to see this if you can relax and settle into the process of looking. If you try to hard its easy to get lost in thoughts or reactions.

Lets look at thought and the content of thought a little more,

Write the word "I" on a piece of paper. Look at the word, is that YOU?

Speak the word 'I' silently, be aware of any sensations or responses to this word. Are any of these reactions in your body or mind by themselves YOU?

Now say the word aloud. Is that sound YOU?

Is the combination of any of these, the word, the sound,the thought YOU?”

Is the thought, "I exist" you?

Amrita

[lunarpig]

Amrita,

Write the word "I" on a piece of paper. Look at the word, is that YOU?

The written word "I" is clearly not me.

Speak the word 'I' silently, be aware of any sensations or responses to this word. Are any of these reactions in your body or mind by themselves YOU?

No sensations arise as the result of silently saying "I" with the exception of sensations in the throat and back of the tongue - the sub-vocalization thing I wrote about prior - which clearly is not me.

Now say the word aloud. Is that sound YOU?

Is the combination of any of these, the word, the sound,the thought YOU?”

The sound is not me. It's just a sound. No combination of the written, thought, or spoken work I is me. "I" is just a belief - the most fundamental of beliefs - that somehow colors almost every thought. I-ness seems to be something the brain was taught to do, and it just does it automatically, all the time. But"I" is nothing, yet it feels like something. It's just a story. I realized that some time in the past, but now I can see that it truly is a story. All of these thoughts - about myself, about others - is just the neverending narrative the brain uses to make sense of the environment and, thus, create some semblance of control over it. It's like a self-preservation mechanism. It's like claiming ownership of a piece of earth - an asinine practice, yet it serves a purpose.

Best wishes,
Craig

[amrita]

Beautiful answers Craig!

Yes the I is a belief that we super impose on experience. As you say,

"I" is just a belief - the most fundamental of beliefs - that somehow colors almost every thought.

However, when we examine the field of experience (senses, thought, perception, choice, consciousness) no I can be found!

Can you say a bit about the "purpose" this sense of I serves?

Can you also say a bit about why you believe one thing to be true and another to be false? For example, why is the self perceived to be real and Santa Claus perceived to be unreal? What is the difference between the two?

KIndest regards

amrita

[lunarpig]

Can you say a bit about the "purpose" this sense of I serves?

The purpose of the sense of I seems to be communication/interactions with others. Even though the I may be a fiction in reality, it is necessary for human relationships: I talk to you. I understand it is a convention of language, but viewing one's self and the other as just part of the single process that is the universe and interact from that place, it makes communication wonky and strange. So while there may truly be no I or you in the absolute sense, there is an appearance of I and you and works well for human interactions.

Can you also say a bit about why you believe one thing to be true and another to be false? For example, why is the self perceived to be real and Santa Claus perceived to be unreal? What is the difference between the two?

Thus opens up the rabbit hole. I can see that there is a desk in front of me. I can feel it, see it, smell it, hear the sound emitted from knocking on it, and taste it (if I so chose, but I don't!). I know, of course, that desk is just a concept, because it was once a tree and metals from the earth, which in turn come from other elements and processes, ad infinitum, but I digress. For all intents and purposes, the desk is real because I can apprehend it in the mind via sensory input.

Santa is a pure fiction because everything about him is impossible per the laws of physics and biology. No one has ever seen him, heard him, smelled him, etc. He is a story perpetuated by generations of parents for some reason. I guess the self, the I, is the same really. However, it takes serious inquiry into the matter to see that firstly, the body is not I, secondly, the thoughts are not I, and thirdly, awareness is not I (although this one is the most challenging). I have spent most of my life believing my body is part of what makes up I, so even though I know that is not true, that notion still challenges the mind a bit when I look into a mirror. I have also spent most of my life believing that the incessant voice in my head - aka, the neverending (or rarely ending) stream of thoughts - is I, or me. That one is even more challenging. I will elaborate.

I have these thoughts, "This is just a thought. I am not this thought. There is no I in this thought." And I really sense that it is so. However, it seems that these are "enlightened" thoughts. They get it. They express understanding that there is really no I at all. So thought is saying that thought is automatic and comes from no one. What is it that recognizes this? When I sit and look, I can't find it. But, when life is happening and I'm interacting with people and situations, it just seems like it is there. So I think the link between awareness and thought are perpetuating the notion of I. As I said before, it sometimes falls away. It did for quite some time yesterday, and then I took a nap. When I awoke that I notion was back and has just seemed to stick around ever since.

I hope I'm not driving you crazy. I feel the I has been chipped away at by these exercises, but it seems to have such a vested interest in my mind that it isn't going to be thwarted so easily.

[amrita]

Hi Craig,

LOL. You are not driving me crazy. I'm happy to explore this inquiry with you.

I hope I'm not driving you crazy. I feel the I has been chipped away at by these exercises, but it seems to have such a vested interest in my mind that it isn't going to be thwarted so easily.

Where exactly is the I that has such a vested interest?

Is it in thoughts? Is it in the awareness of thoughts?

What else is going on apart from your experience of the here and now? In your experience right now is there any sign of a self present as you read these words on a screen or these words just appearing? Is there any sense of an I "in" there looking out at a screen "out" there? Isn't it the case that there is just experience of what is happening ie colours, sensations, thoughts?

Amrita

[lunarpig]

Where exactly is the I that has such a vested interest?

Is it in thoughts? Is it in the awareness of thoughts?

I think it is just an idea, but I cannot find where the idea "lives" when I look.

What else is going on apart from your experience of the here and now? In your experience right now is there any sign of a self present as you read these words on a screen or these words just appearing? Is there any sense of an I "in" there looking out at a screen "out" there? Isn't it the case that there is just experience of what is happening ie colours, sensations, thoughts?

There is only the experience itself occurring. It's only when the thought or knowledge of watching the experience occur that the I-concept seems present. This is especially true of watching TV. The I is not in the picture until thoughts about "self" watching the TV or about "self" in relation to something in the story arise.Then "I" seems to be there too. But it's only an idea, yet a strong and persuasive one.

[amrita]

Hi Craig,

It appears from what you are saying you can find no Self within experience yet there persists a belief that the I exists? Have I understood this correctly?

There is only the experience itself occurring. It's only when the thought or knowledge of watching the experience occur that the I-concept seems present. This is especially true of watching TV. The I is not in the picture until thoughts about "self" watching the TV or about "self" in relation to something in the story arise.Then "I" seems to be there too. But it's only an idea, yet a strong and persuasive one.

Who or what is being persuaded by the story the I exists?

Do thoughts have any real substance or reality to them?

Is one thought any more real than another?

amrita

[lunarpig]

It appears from what you are saying you can find no Self within experience yet there persists a belief that the I exists? Have I understood this correctly?

Yes, you understand correctly. Nail on the head.

Who or what is being persuaded by the story the I exists?

I'm at a loss. I have no idea. At this point, I'm not even sure who or what has no idea and who or what is possibly being persuaded by the story. The narrative keeps going because obviously that is what the mind does. The brain seems to have all of this information in it that it spits out all of the time, arranging and rearranging concepts and words and throwing them onto the screen of awareness. It seems there are other parts of the that brain "see" the thoughts that are displayed on the screen and then add their two cents to the story. But then when attention focuses on the thoughts on the screen of awareness, it tends to inform the brain that all of this is just a story, and it can either stop the thought or alter it, and usually incites laughter or a smile or just a general knowing of how silly this whole process is.

Do thoughts have any real substance or reality to them?

I realize, or something realizes, or there is just this understanding that exists in awareness as it relates to this body that this organism has called I and me and mine for over 40 years, that thought has no real substance. I see that thought is always trailing direct experience, which is always happening now, and thought comments on what has just happened and not only creates a story about "me," the protagonist in its story, but it also creates stories about the other characters in the story. The whole thing is just crazy, a big comedic drama that unfolds every day without fail.

So I get it, but I think what's happening is that awareness keeps drifting in and out of the story. It gets caught up in the thoughts that perpetuate the story, then it sees the thoughts for what they are, thus separating from them and doing its thing as awareness for awhile until it gets pulled into the story again. Then the cycle continues.

I understand why the teachers and sages said there is no one to be enlightened and that nothing changes when one sees reality because what is has always been and always is. The thing is that thought really gets in the way. I think about thoughts, which are not reality and which are always in the past, and which perpetuate the story of I. They somehow turn everything into I. They are laced with I-ness so that awareness becomes stained with I-ness, such that even when no thoughts appear on the screen of awareness, awareness still has this I-image burned into it.

I don't know if a person who sees that there is no I sees it 24/7, or if it is always an intermittent phenomenon, or what the case is, but I am at the point of seeing it intermittently. Maybe that means I don't fully see it. I don't know. I don't even know who doesn't know this. It's baffling and comical at the same time. I would ask you if you see it and walk in it all the time, but to whom would I be asking the question? It's the wrong question, but I'm not sure what the right one is.

[amrita]

Hi Craig,

In answer to your question whether my experience of non-duality non-selfhood is consistent 24/7 I would say yes it is. Occasionally old habits surface and I catch myself “selfing” but as soon as I become aware the tendency to grasp onto an aspect of my experience vanishes and I can relax into spacious presence. However, this inquiry is about you and where you are at it with it so lets carry on exploring.

Let’s look more at thought and thought content.

Can you see that thoughts about something are not the actual thing they are describing? For example, thoughts about an apple are not the actual apple itself? I know this sounds very obvious but bear with me.

When we talk about actual experience we are talking about our actual direct sense experience of life and not becoming caught up in thoughts about experience because thought can only refer to other thoughts. Actual experience is made up from sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and lots of thoughts such as labelling thoughts, analysing thoughts, imaginative thoughts etc.

Try this exercise. Put an apple (or any other piece of fruit) in front of you and pay attention to what is going in your actual experience.

What do you see? Can you describe what is happening in your actual experience?

Can you notice colour and shape and the labelling thought “apple”? Maybe there are lots of other thoughts about apples.

However, in your direct experience is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour, shape and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

For example,

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

If you pick the apple up and close your eyes can you feel the sensations in your hand separately from the apple itself? Are there not just sensations? Is it possible to really experience the apple outside of thoughts about the apple?

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What else do we have but the actual experience of the here and now? And in our actual experience of the here and now can anything resembling a self be found?

Warmly,

Amrita

[lunarpig]

I did the fruit exercise using a banana. You are right. There is nothing other than the sensations of color, shape, texture, etc. Although the mind did not explicitly say banana or yellow or elongated, those concepts were known in the mind during the exercise. Clearly, those concepts are not real. Only the sensations elicited from seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting the banana are real. But they are only sensations. The brain places the labels of yellow and sweet and elongated onto the sensations. It was taught those labels.

When awareness and attention are on the here and now, and the sensations elicited from the here and now, there is no self. It truly is just a figment of thought. So it really all boils down to thought. The self, or I, is only found in thought.

[amrita]

HI,

I'm glad we are homing in on the source of the illusion that there is a seperate, independent self that lives within us...

When awareness and attention are on the here and now, and the sensations elicited from the here and now, there is no self. It truly is just a figment of thought. So it really all boils down to thought. The self, or I, is only found in thought.

Is the thought of a self any more real than the thought of an apple?

If we see thoughts as signifiers what exactly does the thought of a self point to or signify?

What evidence is there for the belief that the self exists? Can you find any in direct experience?

warmly

amrita

[lunarpig]

Is the thought of a self any more real than the thought of an apple?

The thought of the self is no more real than the thought of the apple and maybe even less so because the thought of an apple at least points to something more tangible than thought, which is really all the self is.

If we see thoughts as signifiers what exactly does the thought of a self point to or signify?

The thought of a self signifies thoughts -- beliefs, ideologies, opinions, preferences, and the like. Each of these are just recurring thoughts, or thought patterns. Memories also fall into this lot, as the thought of self also points to memories, which, of course, are just thoughts. The thought of self also points to the body, however, it’s the same as the apple exercise. The body is just an aggregate of sensations to which the concept/label “body” is applied as well as the concepts/labels of “I”, self, me, etc. The thought of self truly just points to thoughts and sensations.

What evidence is there for the belief that the self exists? Can you find any in direct experience?

In direct experience, there is no self nor evidence of it. It really just comes down to sensations. Thoughts follow and chatter away, telling the story of I in terms of I don’t like this, I like that, she’s nice, he’s an idiot, I’m hungry, etc. but those might as well come from an automaton. It’s also like a sports commentator who during a sports game tells us what we are already seeing occur on the field.

[amrita]

It seems from your clear answers you can no longer find any self within direct experience. However, is there any sense of a lingering belief that a seperate "self" exists?

Let me ask you first of the confirmation questions...

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

Amrita x

[lunarpig]

I can no longer find a self anywhere in direct experience. The notion of self is something learned, that is fueled and fostered by thought. It seems to be nothing but a label affixed to the process of life as experienced in awareness.

There never truly was a self, only the notion of self as perpetuated by thought. There are memories of experience that seem to be memories of a self, but when carefully observed, they are only experience. No self exists in them, just experience.