Mutual inquiry: separate self

[Camus]

Dear Ron,

Well said! You've been a wonderful guide.

Happy to proceed onward.

Best,
Camus

[Ronaldo]

Dear Camus,
Thank you for the kind words.
Here is a set of questions that seem repetitive, but should be taken like a beautiful meditation.

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

What do you do in order to be?

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?
What do you do for thoughts to be?

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Please investigate each questions thoroughly many times.
Please share the investigation, how you look at each item with lots of curiosity, it's nothing short of amazing so get it touch with it!
Let me know what you find and take your time to really grok it.

Then look, what is not given?
What is not happening effortlessly and needs your doing?
Is there anything that is not just spontaneously arising?

Is that me-character doing anything, or running life?

best
Ron

[Camus]

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

Let me offer this is general, before answering the questions. Yes and no. There is a real universe that we are (without objectification) participating in; experiencing it’s coming and going, forms and no forms. The self is a conceptual projection in that universe of an identity. That identity is perpetuated with identity to thoughts. That can be fed or seen though, much like a character in a movie. It’s not real. However, as the universe is unfolding, we experience senses and a mind (generating thoughts, analyzing experience and creating conceptual frameworks). Not hard to see by looking closely that these sense perceptions and thoughts are fabrications and can often be wrong in their conceptualization, yet they can serve a purpose. For instance (actually experience recently), if I am sitting outside and am directly experiencing the now, the moment, and a buzzing sensation is experienced, there’s a quick association of thoughts and gathering more sense perceptions, that can quickly identify the buzzing as a yellowjacket wasp, it might be useful to take some actions to avoid getting stung (if it starts to become aggressive) or we might decide to experience whatever is happening. One could also, take this to the next level, and become an ascetic and not respond to the senses or the mind at all. This obviously could be fatal to your body, but it wouldn’t really matter to your identity or since of self. To deny our body mindfully is just another thought conceptualization. We may also, during a moment of calm awareness, have a thought arise of an interaction with our partner. The interaction could have left an impression of anger and frustration. The thought might be worth observation. Some compassionate insight might arise, without an identity to an ego self. Then the next time we see our partner we can mead the difficulty caused by the initial anger. Of course, this is all just an intellectual narrative, and the experience unfolding we call “life” or “self” just happens within whatever complexity, or no complexity that’s there. It’s really non-objectifiable and doesn’t need to be explained.

What do you do in order to be?

Not a thing, no willful action is required. How could we possibly “know” how to “be.” Yet, there are actions in our relationship to the world that might require some willful engagement. It has nothing to do with identity, but the interaction of forms experiencing itself.  Yes, life will act and unfold as it is; each form within its own complexity. Throw away this intellectualized narrative and there is just a non-objectifiable universe unfolding.

What do you do in order to see?

Not a thing, a willful thought is not necessary. However, it might be helpful to see an optometrist or ophthalmologist if we are noticing a problem in our sight. Of course, this simply projects a self and a future and some conceptual notion of action. You could say this just happens too!

What do you do in order to hear?

Not a thing, yet again, as above

What do you do in order to feel?

Not a thing for our sense of touch, yet again, as above

What do you do in order to taste and smell?

Not a thing, yet again, as above

What do you do for thoughts to be?

Not a thing, they come,….tempting to add a conceptualization here, but I let that one go.

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Not a thing

Is there anything that is not just spontaneously arising?

No, everything is interrelated, and coming and going; form interacting with form, thoughts coming and going

Is that me-character doing anything, or running life?

No

[Ronaldo]

Hi Camus,
Yes, what you've said resonates well. The view in which I am nothing, others are not persons, and it's all illusion is nothing but more story, just another narrative; going into nihilism is an ego trip hiding as no ego. So in a way, the game of life that is imagined by that mind, has to be played by the mind. Despite having no body other than a concept, and no others other than color (sight) and sounds and sensations, if you derive a conclusion that you don't need to care for others or yourself, you will suffer the consequence in the story that is playing.
How this all comes together to make sense? It don't know the answer.
Do thoughts cause action? Doubtful, we see so much evidence to the contrary, but every now and then it really feels like a decision is causing action - "I forgot my phone!" - turn back to get it, which you'd assume would not happen without the thought. Perhaps, perhaps it's all unfolding and the thoughts are a narrative, all taking place now like the wind blowing and the leafs moving, not as cause and effect, but as co-occurring.


Are you familiar with the Bahiya Sutta?
Let me be sure this is also super clear and seen. It's one of the most profound statement that no matter how many times you've seen, it's a wonderful and a heart warming experience to get in touch with, please give it the attention.

Initially you believed that you are the thinker of thoughts, and then you get used to the assumption that there is an observer, a self who knows thoughts and objects like sights, sounds, smells.... But is there one to be found?
Is there an observer be separated from what is just happening?

Here is an excerpt of the Bahiya Sutta, where the Buddha is teaching 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

Is there any separation between the seen and the knowing of it? - the experience of the seen?
Is there any separation between a sound and the experience (or the knowing) of the sound?
Is there anything to be found except for experience?
And what knows experience?
What do you find?

Regards
Ron

[Camus]

Dear Ron,

Are you familiar with the Bahiya Sutta?

Yes, I am. It’s wonderful you bring it up here.

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

Is there any separation between the seen and the knowing of it? - the experience of the seen?

No, it is pure, immediate and can’t be objectified.

Is there any separation between a sound and the experience (or the knowing) of the sound?

No, as above

Is there anything to be found except for experience?

In the search, there is much to "stir," but in the purity of the immediate now, directly experiencing “this” all traces of “self” disappear. There is nothing to find. There is no one to find with just “being.” Thinking brings “self” back.

And what knows experience?

No one. Nothing is needed, knowing or not knowing. It’s just experienced without a trace of wanting. To describe it after being experienced is just thoughts.

What do you find?

Nothing at all, just seeing, hearing, sensing, cognizing, without any doing. After the moment, there is a world of life to step back into, with things to do…and even all that, is just happening. Is there a memory of all this? Something is understood, but not describable. Still the same "a-hole."

Best,
Camus

[Ronaldo]

Dear Camus,
Yes, the "a-hole" isn't going to go away, not so fast 😉.
And why would it go way? There was never a self operating regardless of the realization, it has always been nothing but thoughts about a self.

There is no me, nothing separate from life, all I find is experience knowing experience, knowing itself.

Let's take another deep look.
Sit down for a bit and just watch the breath and let things quiet down a bit.
Identify a sound that is consistently there,
Identify a body sensation like maybe the hands, or the pressure on your butt.
open the eyes and find an object.

Now slowly start switching attention between these 3 items and notice:
- what happens to the image when you focus on the sound?
- can you focus on all of them at once?

focus on the sound
- where does the knowing of the sound (not the thought explanation) where is it taking place?
- what about thoughts? Where do they appear?
- is there a location where this knowing appears?

Let's try something even more advanced.
Look at an object, maybe a door..
First it seems like you are the subject here, and the object is at some distance away from you - out there.
What happens when you focus on the object (maybe soften your gaze)?
Do you notice what makes 'you', 'your body' the subject, and that object appearing outside of you?
It may be very subtle, so just try this a bit and let me know.

Regards
Ron

[Camus]

an object seen, breath, a sound and a body sensation

- what happens to the image when you focus on the sound?

It is gone

- can you focus on all of them at once?

No, each thought of the specific object of attention is only there with “focused” attention. The same sense of presence is there once the focus is softened and let go. Repeating the exercise several times, the distinction between the object seen and the sensations of attention diminishes when the focus is dropped and they become the same experience.

- where does the knowing of the sound (not the thought explanation) where is it taking place?

It has no location. However, if I begin thinking about the sound or analysis it then the knowing or cognition takes place in my head as thoughts.

- what about thoughts? Where do they appear?

the thoughts have a sense of presence in my head

- is there a location where this knowing appears?

if the knowing is cognition, then it’s in my head. If it’s just the sensation of the breath or sound or body, then there is no sense or knowing. It appears to be everywhere, yet unknown.

seeing a door and softening the focus

What happens when you focus on the object (maybe soften your gaze)?

By gently softening my gaze, the door loses its label as an object and then any sense of being apart from my gaze or even recognition

Do you notice what makes 'you', 'your body' the subject, and that object appearing outside of you?

Only thoughts of those labels. Without the thoughts, just a relax awareness, there is no separate or identity of any objects….i.e. no me or a door or the space between. There is just a sensation of sight or seeing. If I begin to focus on anything as an object, then it becomes that object in thought. I repeated this exercise several times.

[Ronaldo]

Hi Camus,

R: - what happens to the image when you focus on the sound?

C: It is gone

Are you sure? It's actually gone? Perhaps it's more correct to say that it's not interpreted, not tagged, not classified, explained?

R: - where does the knowing of the sound (not the thought explanation) where is it taking place?

C: It has no location. However, if I begin thinking about the sound or analysis it then the knowing or cognition takes place in my head as thoughts.

Interesting. So all sense perceptions are occurring nowhere, yet thoughts are a special case and they occur in your head, or more precisely, inside your brain.


Remember the Buddha: "in the cognized, there is only the cognized.", but here you are saying in the cognized is interpreted in the brain, right?

I'm going to give you a few arguments, some are logical and some are things to look at.

1. If the brain generates thoughts out of nothing, or observes thoughts (like a radio transistor receiving a signal), there also needs to be mechanism for the thought to hook up to all sensory input, since you can view an imaginary sight, can hear an imaginary song and sense an imaginary cat.

2. treating thought as a singularity is not appealing, not simple, not parsimonious.

3. isn't everything experienced in the same no-place? In the same way? Yes, including the imagined experience of a thought.

4. You previously looked at the body and concluded it was a concept, there is no body in actual experience, yet now you talk of thoughts appearing in a head, in a brain - can you find a head or let alone a brain? Aren't you going to have to refer to information which is all a thought story?

5. If a thought does appear in a brain, you still need to explain how it is observed, by whom or what? Just like the idea of an image on the retina moving up the optical nerve and somehow that electric signal becomes this vivid colorful image shining in... where? the brain? No no.. that brings more questions than answers.

6. Just for fun, if you find the idea of the brain difficult to ignore, consider this - when you see a flame, isn't it your second hand experience of a combustion process? The actual experience of the burning fuel is very different from what you see as flame. What if the so called brain is also a second person experience of thought or perception? (we're not going to get into this debate though, just wanted to throw it in).


The identification with the body is perhaps the most sticky of them all. Can you see that word body is a concept for all the sensations and thoughts that are happening? So I'm giving you another exercise to look at the body, please really spend time looking and revealing the illusion. You don't need to answer all the questions, they are here for you to ponder on.

Please raise more questions or what your conclusion is?


Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.

Stand in front of a big mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labeled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colors and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labeled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?


Do you see that the body is a pure thought concept?
Can you see that a thought is now explaining where it exists in another thought concept? (that the brain perceives/generates thoughts)
There is no way of thinking that can take you beyond thinking.

Regards
Ron

[Camus]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your keen observations and delving deeper. Much appreciated.

Let me offer more insight into my responses…perhaps a perspective that could be examined or challenged further.

Beware, a lot of BS, but it was good for me to express it…. then see and feel it! Sort of like taking a good crap! Feel free to ignore it.

First, I find it difficult to be too descriptive in my responses to discriminating between direct experiences and thinking about directing awareness. It’s really something that I can’t explain. However, I agree it’s worth examining closely to see any clinging to conceptual identities. Let me offer several more perspectives that inform my responses. Yes, they’re conceptual constructs too!

Sensory deprivation room:

I have found the experience of direct awareness to be like stepping into a sensory deprivation room. A place where all the senses (at least the five senses) have no external sources to stimulate, with no feedback for cognition. There is an awareness of presence, but “it” has nowhere to gather information. There are no walls to see, or sound to hear, or external sources of taste, smell, and with some buoyancy, no external sense of orientation (proprioception) or touch. Any thoughts that would normally come from the senses would be experienced as “gone,” completely empty. However, awareness, a presence would remain. Coming out of that sensory deprivation room, one would have no direct sensing to describe the experience. There were no walls to see or sounds or anything else to give words meaning. Only a vague conceptualization of an awareness of presence could be put to words and nothing about the words would feel adequate to describe the experience.

Going back to thoughts or concepts:

My experience of awareness has been honed over the years through mediation. Was it always there, yes, but thoughts were dominate and strongly believed. During mediation the sensory noise or conceptualization of the noise is substantially reduced and often gone. The mind’s chasing after thoughts slows and eventually stops. Even sensory perception can be completely gone. A sound may arise, but it’s not engaged, and everything is completely quiet and empty. An indescribable presence is felt. Coming out of mediation there is no experience that’s remembered or describable. So, what happens when I’m not mediating? It’s subtle but feels the same as mediation. The only difference is my senses are engaged and my thoughts are offering some cognition of the world and my movement and engagement in it. Life has structure/form and I enter back into a conceptual world of this structure (not really knowing if its real or not, and not really thinking about it), like going back into a character in an ongoing movie (not the best analogy). The movie and character are not real. I can clearly see “that” when I stop engaging. To live (bad word) I go back into it, but not consciously. It just is. THIS IS NO DOUBT IS WHERE I HAVEN’T CLEARLY SEVERED A DUALITY OF “BEING” AND THOUGHTS. And no doubt, the very thought of wanting to see through this is still a self and, in my experience, will never end. When, during mediation the “me” has disappeared and there is just a presence and awareness, it is VERY clear. When I am back into the world (forms/concepts), I can’t explain the living of life through a body. Form and no form, thought and no though, seem to have meaning and no meaning, identity and no identity. I can clearly see that those thoughts can be useful and create a complex world to engage in.

Science and logic: it’s benefit and problems:

So, is there a body, a mind, a brain or external world? Yes and no…or perhaps maybe the question makes no sense. Yes, because there is something localized and engaged. No, because any examination of its actual existence is through the mind and thoughts. Any description of the mind requires some examination of something, and perceptions can appear to be correct, but close examination always shows inconsistencies. I’m an electro-optical physicist, and I build sensors to examine the phenomenology of an external world in novel ways. It’s always interesting to see where the limits of human perception start to become fuzzy and confused and eventually completely unable to examine something external. I often develop optical illusions to inform these thresholds of perception of a spatial, spectral and temporal sampled world (particularly to show the benefits of new technology and methods). Drop the lighting in a room and our ability to resolve spatial detail (or resolution) diminishes, our ability to see or recognize color diminishes and if some activity in not temporally sampled sufficiently though its motion we lose defining information. Essentially, below certain psycho-physical thresholds we under-sample the world as it unfolds, or the details are aliased and create perception artifacts. Over-sample and we are overwhelmed with information and unable to use it…. highlighting the limits of our brain, body and technology. We have wonderful theories and models that are helpful to build sensing solutions to probe the external world of the many forms of nature. But they are ultimately just theories and models and quickly become useless beyond the states or conditions that define them. We can create sensors that examine a world that we are unable to perceive, but the information from the sensors still must be presented back into our world of human senses to be perceived/cognized. For example, we can build sensors that are sensitive to light or energy outside of the visible spectrum. An IR, UV or x-ray or microwave sensor can “see” or gather information and presented it back to our senses and inform our experiences of the phenomena, allowing us to examine it as if we had extended our own senses. Beyond the yes and no answers, there is an awareness of a dynamic world, interconnected, changing, coming and going. Form appearing and disappearing in relation to each other. All as it is, unknowable, undefinable and one, yet not one.

A lot of BS here, but it might help in our dialogue and exercises.

Now, let’s go on to the exercises you offered…..

I will respond in a separate reply.

Best regards,
Camus

[Camus]

Stand in front of a big mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labeled ‘body’.

Sensations in feet, breath, heart beating, thoughts of my partner wanting something from me

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Sensation of seeing, image of a body, still the sensations in the feet, breath and heart beat. Sight sensation is the strongest

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

There is no sensations from the image other than seeing it

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

The sensation of moving my hand is felt, but there is no sensation from the image other than seeing an image of my hand

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

No, no connection. Only thoughts

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

No, just thoughts

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colors and shapes?

No, just seeing perceptions

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Only thoughts suggest parts of a body

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

No, just seeing and feeling sensations

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

No, just sensations

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

No, just sensations or thoughts about walking

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Just thoughts

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, just sensations

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labeled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

There is no location of the sensations, just thoughts that suggest a room

Do you see that the body is a pure thought concept?

Yes, with awareness, without identifying with thoughts

Can you see that a thought is now explaining where it exists in another thought concept?

yes, however I still feel I somehow need the thoughts, or they are useful for some reason. Strange.

[Ronaldo]

Hi Camus,
This is my reply to post I. Thanks for the warnings :)

First, I find it difficult to be too descriptive in my responses to discriminating between direct experiences and thinking about directing awareness. It’s really something that I can’t explain

Yes, many years of "conditioning" result in thoughts seeming to be truths because it's not even realized they are thoughts appearing. An unseen, unquestioned thought is a belief.

Any thoughts that would normally come from the senses would be experienced as “gone,” completely empty. However, awareness, a presence would remain.

I think what you're describing is the experience of sensations without tags, without though interpretation. There is nothing to say about that for the same reason it's impossible to describe the color red to a born-blind person. It has no quality other than what it actually is. Even without interpretation and cognition, something is experienced, you can say "an awareness of", or you can say something IS and that ISness is all there is.

Regarding meditation, you are far more advanced in this than I, inducing a special state can have many benefits, and can produce deep insights, but so can entheogens, perhaps the only difference is the source. The point is that awakening is not a special state, it's more akin to a shift in perception. "When you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope; he goes away and works on what he has seen.”. Alan Watts didn't refer to meditation as the culprit here, but I question it too. Short meditation, which are bits of looking inside your everyday, as often as you can muster are far better than sitting for an hour or more to reach a state that isn't even close to your normal state of existence, so maybe hang up. I have a few such meditations, brushing my teeth, taking a shower, drinking from my cup - just watch it like a hawk, watch the mind creating a story out of raw experience, or totally misses the whole activity when it's another story about the future or past that shows up because brushing is really mundane.

during mediation the “me” has disappeared and there is just a presence and awareness, it is VERY clear. When I am back into the world (forms/concepts), I can’t explain the living of life through a body.

Who/what is looking for an explanation?
Who/what needs to find reasons and figure it out?
You need to see this clearly.

I've reached so far, and I want you to really look at my last question, so more later.
Regards
Ron

[Camus]

Who/what is looking for an explanation?
Who/what needs to find reasons and figure it out?
You need to see this clearly.

Yes, pointing back to the source. I can no longer find a source. There is just the one asking. Sensations and thoughts come and go. Seeing the floor. Hearing rain. Feeling breathing. Watching thoughts. Any attempt to find anything else feeds thoughts of “being” or “experiencing” a concept other than what is being experienced directly. There is nothing else. Sitting in mediation or getting up, it is the same. Chasing a thought is moving away from “it.” Allowing the burning up all desire for insight, being or becoming seems to be my path. I could never know when that is done. “Clarity” is just another thought to chase. So, “I’ll” chase it until it has completely burned out…perhaps years, a lifetime or never.

I would continue to welcome your guidance, Ron.

Much appreciated,
Camus

[Ronaldo]

Your'e most welcome 😊

Aren't you over complicating or dramatizing it?
The story is that Camus is seeking an answer who he is, seeking for meaning and how the magic takes place.
But is there a Camus seeking? Is there seeking other than in thought story?

It's as if in the story of Harry Potter, the character in the story realizes he may not be real and goes on to search for his real identity.
Does it matter where the story goes? Will Harry realize he's not real? Would that change things? How could it?
There was never a Harry, it appears in thoughts only.

Don't be Harry 😉

[Ronaldo]

Does this statement, that you're a fictional character cause frustration and resistance?
If it does, please let me know exactly why and what, so that I can try to point you further.

Regards
Ron

[Camus]

Does this statement, that you're a fictional character cause frustration and resistance?

Neither. Happy to probe deeper. Any fictional character has been seen.

Much appreciate your efforts and guidance, dear friend,
Camus