What criteria are you looking for that will tell you that you have?
One of the main criteria Ive heard is, that "out there" and "in here" basically merge, or to put it better, there is no longer that duality- it is just sensations.
In my direct experience, that hasn't happened yet. Of course, this could be false like anything else you can hear, but if it is true, I haven't seen this occur in my direct experience.
how do you know, that you haven't if you haven't?
I cannot know through direct experience that I haven't if I haven't. This is like the tree falling in the woods example, there is no way for me to know that a tree has or hasn't fallen (experientially), if I wasn't there.
Me: It still just seems like I'm a decision maker though, at least partially for thoughts
You: If you examine it, does what it seems hold up?
I think this may be what is partially holding me up. I don't think we've done an exercise that gets me looking into my direct experience to realize that there is no chooser. The only thing I can remember we did was, basically look at conditions, and how they lay the foundation for what happens in direct experience. But for me, that exercise seems like it uses thought/logic/reasoning vs just direct experience itself.
I dont know if it is possible to come up with a direct experience exercise to see there is no chooser, but I think if we could, it would help me greatly lol
Now to the question, all I know to examine regarding this, is conditions, which, to me seems to use more logic/reasoning than complete, raw direct experience. When I examine it this way, what
seems doesn't hold up, but it seems as though it doesn't stick because it is more based on reasoning. Like, I cannot directly experience prior conditions (in the moment). Obviously, I did directly experience some of them in the past, which is memory of de, but, it still just doesn't hit, probably because it is more putting the puzzle together based off memory, and not what is happening now.
Me: I now see through the knot better, but nowhere near completely.
You: By "completely", do you mean constantly? ..or does examination only reveal a partial clarity?
Do you mean constantly: This is true, I dont see through it constantly, but even more true, I probably only see partially through the knot for maybe a couple percent of my day.
Or does examination only reveal a partial clarity: Yes, I think the chooser part needs more examination, and anything to do with still perceiving things as "out there" vs "in here"
"conditions" are a useful story. They no more exist from the perspective of the organism (with the label Ashton) than do the future or the past. It is as simplistic as cause and effect.
Good for description and explanation, but not actual.
Exactly!! Conditions are all a part of the past, and so, when I examine whether or not there is a chooser, the only exercise I use is to look at conditions (basically, the past). It would be similar if I tried to use the future as part of my examination... there is no direct experience. I think it is exactly this holding me back, me investigating conditions is like investigating the future, even if I tried to incorporate de. It just doesn't stick. I think I need an exercise to demonstrate there is no chooser, that calls on a higher percentage of looking at the present, vs the past (conditions).
Me: I just really dont think Ive recognized no self,
You: How do you recognise what is not there?
Experientially, I cannot recognize something that isn't there. Its like the tree falling in the woods example again, I cannot say experientially that a tree fell, if it wasn't there in my experience.
I 100% get that, but when I apply it to no-self, its just so hard, like, I can see the whole tree example clearly, but I just cant see no-self clearly. I really dont know why
But what of the story of self? The characteristics that you identify with?
I get what you are pointing to. All there is, is identifying with the stories of a self, which is all just thoughts.
Basically it occurs like this: Something happens like physical sensations of touching this keyboard. This IS direct experience. All that is happening 24/7 is direct experience. But it is impossible to identify with a direct experience (5 sense doors). What happens is, a sense door gets triggered, and then it gets stored in memory, and at "a later date", a thought memory comes up remembering the direct experience, and, this thought is what is being identified with. I am identifying with a memory (thought sensation), not identifying with the actual direct experience.
The mind is so clever though, bringing up visual and auditory thought sensations, and then, when these occur, so do physical sensations that may resemble what happened in the ACTUAL direct experience that generated the memory in the first place.
All of these combined, the auditory/visual thought sensations, and the physical response, NOT TO MENTION, all of this was probably triggered by being in a situation that vaguely resembles the DE that generated the memory happening in the first place.
It just happens so quickly, fluidly, and in such a whole mind/body experience manner, that, it is so hard NOT to identify with this whole story. The physical sensations and the environment you are in, that triggers this whole memory process, although not a part of the thought story, just sort of adds to it, gives it context, and, makes the thought story make enough sense to identify with.
And it is precisely these 2 things happening in conjunction, you now have a thought story that makes sense, and physical sensations to go with it, it just makes you really believe in a self.
Ash