Interested in exploring self/no-self

[OfTheField]

Hi David,

They seemed similar in truth when I was explicitly looking at the sensory reaction to the two types of statements.

So in your experience :

I am sitting on a chair.

And

Sitting on a chair,

Are the same?


Tell me more about this "I" that is sitting on the chair?

The world "I" and "self" are the same. So the question can be: What is showing you the existance of this "I" or "self" sitting on a chair?

Ah I think I didn't understand the question "Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?" properly the first time.

First I will note that the details of my understanding seem to have changed. A few messages ago I wrote:

I think the confusion is resolved. I now agree that "self" is composed of (a) certain types of thoughts and (b) certain types of tone aka bodily sensations. Both (a) and (b) co-arise and I have been habitually identifying this as "self".

When I check this understanding in myself, I notice that the (b) is different today than it was before. Before, (b) was chest pain. Now it is a kind of pressure in the head.

Repeating the "sitting on a chair" exercise, here are my two experiences:

"Sitting on a chair": once this phrase appears in my mind, I note the bodily response to the phrase (not much of one), and the awareness entirely switches to the sensation of sitting on a chair.

"I am siting on a chair": once this phrase appears in my mind, I note the bodily response to the phrase, (a kind of head tightening). Then my awareness does something odd. The awareness partially goes to the chair, but some large portion of it gets stuck to the sensory experience of "I": head tightening, now by itself without a thought that refers to "I", since this thought ended.

I hope your vacation is pleasant! I have no problem waiting for an answer.

[Windaway]

Hello Sergey,

Then my awareness does something odd. The awareness partially goes to the chair, but a large portion of it gets stuck to the sensory experience of "I": head tightening, now by itself without a thought that refers to "I", since this thought ended.

When you said: the sensory experience of "I"
Are you simply talking about sensations that thought name head, isn't?
Are you a sensation?
Are you the senation of "tight head"?
Are you the sensation of "chest pain"?


Explore your sensation.
Can you find a "I" or a "me"?
If there is "sense of me" or a "sense of I" go where is this sense and explore if you can find it.

Can you see that there is no sensory experience of "I" but simply sensation AND thought about this sensation?

[OfTheField]

Hello David,

Are you simply talking about sensations that thought name head, isn't?

No, I was talking about the direct experience of my head tightening that was earlier co-occurring with the "I" thought.

Are you a sensation? Are you the senation of "tight head"? Are you the sensation of "chest pain"?

No.

Explore your sensation.
Can you find a "I" or a "me"?
If there is "sense of me" or a "sense of I" go where is this sense and explore if you can find it.

There is a sense of "me" but I can't find it beyond the thoughts that refer to me and the various body sensations.

Can you see that there is no sensory experience of "I" but simply sensation AND thought about this sensation?

This is the part where I get stuck. Here are some facts:
(1) I start with some kind of unclear experience "self"
(2) When I go looking for components of that "self" I find: (a) thoughts that refer to "I" or "me" and (b) associated body sensations that co-arise with those thoughts. Those body sensations change day to day, but they always co-arise with the "I".

Earlier on you made the point that the only experience we have is direct experience of sight, sound, smell, touch/outer sensation and inner sensation.Then you challenged me to find something that didn't fit into one of these categories. I could not. However, I think I still have some experiences that do not fit into any of these "direct experience".

For example, there is the experience of focusing my awareness. I can focus it on sound or on sight. Where is this "focusing"? Where is this mental movement to drop sound and pick up sight?

What about the effort of "allowing" an internal experience or "resisting" an internal experience? I know when it's happening but I can't find it when I look for it.

Thanks,
Sergey

[Windaway]

Hello Sergey,

Your curiosity and question are so interesting. They point toward the greatest mystery of WHAT IS.

So let’s dive into it.

This is the part where I get stuck. Here are some facts:
(1) I start with some kind of unclear experience "self"
(2) When I go looking for components of that "self" I find (a) thoughts that refer to "I" or "me" and (b) associated body sensations that co-arise with those thoughts. Those body sensations change from day to day, but they always co-arise with the "I".
(1) You will never find a clear experience of self because there is none.
So the best you get is this: It seems to be in sensation or thoughts but is never found with precision or clarity. So it will always be an « unclear experience of self ».

Those explorations are not meant to find this self. On the contrary there I meant to make you see in your own experience that you NEVER find one.

You have to try and try again to find it correct and you fail again and again.
So what is your conclusion?


(2) I believe that some clarification is needed here.
I like to make differences between those ideas of “separate self” and “sense of I”. For practical purposes is easier to explore each one differently. Even though they both have the same root.
(But that does not mean that it is the right way.)

The separate self is a thought. It is a purely mental construction. “Patrick” and “David” are concepts in the mind. This part is clear to you, Correct?

The sense of "I" is a little bit more subtle because it involves perception, sensation, and thought.
What happens is that there is a sensation (or a perception) that is interpreted by the brain(thought) as “I” or “me”. If there is a functional brain, there will be this “sense of I” being produced by this brain. That is why this “sense of I” is not going away.

When a sensation is interpreted as an « inside » thought will produce this, Sense of I
When a sensation is interpreted as « outside » or « other » thoughts will produce this, Sense of me. (Because it will suppose that if an object or other is out there there must be a me in here)

As I say this is a natural function of the brain, it is « mechanical ». This is not a problem in itself. What is problematic and a source of confusion and suffering is the belief that there is an actual self or me. And it gets even worse if you believe that you are that entity.

So we are not working on that sense of I at the moment. What can disappear is the belief that comes after that:
There is a sense of I, therefore, there is an actual I.
There is a sense of me, therefore something is witnessing experience, and I am that something.

This belief can be exposed and seen as false exploring sensation and perception.

Does this make sense to you?

Earlier on you made the point that the only experience we have is direct experience of sight, sound, smell, touch/outer sensation, and inner sensation. Then you challenged me to find something that didn't fit into one of these categories. I could not. However, I think I still have some experiences that do not fit into any of these "direct experiences".

You are right. It is too simplistic to say that in direct experience there is only perception, sensation, and thought.

It would be more accurate to say that there is perception, sensation, and thought from which an infinity of experience could arise. But when you look closely you find only those 3. A little bit like colors with yellow, blue, and red you can make an infinity of other colors. But if you look closely you find only those 3.

For example, there is the experience of focusing my awareness. I can focus it on sound or on sight. Where is this "focusing"? Where is this mental movement to drop sound and pick up sight?

These are very interesting questions!
Where is this I that can control the focus?
Where is this «controller» of focusing awareness? Can you find it ?

As the question of « where this or that appear» you tell me.
Seriously tell me.

Also, answer the question :
Where are sensation, perception, and sensation appearing?
Where is your actual experience appearing?

What about the effort of "allowing" an internal experience or "resisting" an internal experience? I know when it's happening but I can't find it when I look for it.

Allowing and resisting are sensations + thoughts. That’s all.

So there is no allowing or resisting. Allowing and resisting are thought about an actual sensation. But the sensation itself is fully felt.

By the way who is the one that could allow or resist? Can you find the « person » in charge of allowing or resisting?
Where is this judge that says this experience yes, this one no?

[OfTheField]

Hi David,

Sorry for the delay - somewhat hectic here for the past few days.

Those explorations are not meant to find this self. On the contrary there I meant to make you see in your own experience that you NEVER find one.

You have to try and try again to find it correct and you fail again and again.
So what is your conclusion?

I don't know. I do believe that I will likely not "find" the "self" while looking for it.

The separate self is a thought. It is a purely mental construction. “Patrick” and “David” are concepts in the mind. This part is clear to you, Correct?

Yes.

As I say this is a natural function of the brain, it is « mechanical ». This is not a problem in itself. What is problematic and a source of confusion and suffering is the belief that there is an actual self or me. And it gets even worse if you believe that you are that entity.

So we are not working on that sense of I at the moment. What can disappear is the belief that comes after that:
There is a sense of I, therefore, there is an actual I.
There is a sense of me, therefore something is witnessing experience, and I am that something.

This belief can be exposed and seen as false exploring sensation and perception.

Does this make sense to you?

I see, that is helpful to clarify. How do I find whether these beliefs are operating? What form do beliefs take in the mind?

Where is this I that can control the focus?
Where is this «controller» of focusing awareness? Can you find it ?

I can't find it. It just happens. After it happens, I review the event and it seems to follow from "volition", but I don't know what volition is except a memory of an intent that suggests there was an "I" in control. It seems like this memory is the clearest "I" to be found.

As the question of « where this or that appear» you tell me.
Seriously tell me.

As to "where". It's all happening "inside my head" somehow, but that seems to be an imposed spatial dimension and doesn't correspond to actual nerves sensing anything.

Also, answer the question :
Where are sensation, perception, and sensation appearing?
Where is your actual experience appearing?

I don't know.

By the way who is the one that could allow or resist? Can you find the « person » in charge of allowing or resisting?
Where is this judge that says this experience yes, this one no?

I can't find this judge. But he keeps churning away even though I can't find him!

[Windaway]

I don't know. I do believe that I will likely not "find" the "self" while looking for it.

Let’s be very clear, I am not asking you to believe me. Never believe anything I say.
I am asking you to look by yourself in your experience.

Since this process began (and probably before also) you searched for this self.
Could you find a separate entity in your experience?

How do I find whether these beliefs are operating?

If you don’t see this process of ownership you’re most likely looking FROM it.

What form do beliefs take in the mind?

There are too many unchecked assumptions in your question.

Every belief is thought-based. So they have no shape or form. You are mixing two completely different dimensions of experience. Shape and form belong to sensing and/or seeing.

Thought doesn’t appear IN the mind. The idea of “a mind” is a thought appearing in your experience now. Thoughts don’t have a container, the belief in a container of thought (aka mind) is itself a thought.

I can't find it. It just happens. After it happens, I review the event and it seems to follow from "volition", but I don't know what volition is except a memory of an intent that suggests there was an "I" in control. It seems like this memory is the clearest "I" to be found.

This is exactly what I am trying to point out to you. You explain it beautifully.

As to "where". It's all happening "inside my head" somehow, but that seems to be an imposed spatial dimension and doesn't correspond to actual nerves sensing anything.

Like I told you before: Thoughts are not in a mind.
Likewise, thoughts do not appear inside a head, a body, or a brain.
Because the only experience you have of a head, a body, or a brain is sensation.
Thought impose a spatial dimension, to sensation making a head, body, and brain. But you never find those in your direct experience. Check it now: Try to find your head, Do you find a head or sensations+thoughts?
Are thoughts appearing inside a sensation?

When you said: doesn't correspond to actual nerves sensing anything.
That is right on target. There is no sensation OF a head, arm, hands, etc….
There is ONLY sensing, there is only sensation appearing but you never find a solid object.
There is sensing, then a thought add the “OF something …..”

Also, answer the question :
Where are sensation, perception, and sensation appearing?
Where is your actual experience appearing?

I don't know.

Great.

I can't find this judge. But he keeps churning away even though I can't find him!

I am not sure to understand the expression: churning away.
Yes, that’s fine don’t worry. Every time, look here and now to see if you find this judge. Over time it will fall away naturally.

[OfTheField]

Let’s be very clear, I am not asking you to believe me. Never believe anything I say.

Thank you, that is clear. I have some ideas/guesses that sometimes float up. These are, of course, just thoughts.

Could you find a separate entity in your experience?

No. The search had the feeling of being unable to see one's own eyeballs or bite one's own teeth.

Thought impose a spatial dimension, to sensation making a head, body, and brain. But you never find those in your direct experience. Check it now: Try to find your head, Do you find a head or sensations+thoughts?
Are thoughts appearing inside a sensation?

It seems like the categories we have agreed to mean that my feeling of a "head" being "here" can be reduced to direct sensations and thoughts that stitch together a coherent conclusion about the "head" and its location.

I am not sure to understand the expression: churning away.
Yes, that’s fine don’t worry. Every time, look here and now to see if you find this judge. Over time it will fall away naturally.

Churning away means "keeps going without stopping".

The idea of this entire process that I have undertaken with you is to repeatedly look at the building blocks of consciousness. And then these collections of looks will weaken some conclusions that are not supported by the actual experience? So what constructed these conclusions back when they were constructed if the "data" doesn't support them?

[Windaway]

The idea of this entire process that I have undertaken with you is to repeatedly look at the building blocks of consciousness. And then these collections of looks will weaken some conclusions that are not supported by the actual experience?

I wouldn't use the words the building blocks of consciousness.
But yes.

So what constructed these conclusions back when they were constructed if the "data" doesn't support them?

This question implies the existence of linear time.
Try this:
Time Exercise

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

[OfTheField]

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

I have no direct experience of "now". It's always "now", as the famous expression goes. The idea of a "duration" of now is meaningless from the perspective of direct experience. Time passing is inferred from memory-thoughts being "correct" for the purpose of making prediction-thoughts. For example, if I have a memory of leaving my keys in the other room, then I can go there and the keys will be where I remembered them. A million of these experiences strongly imply some kind of continuous structure that we "pass" through linearly, but I don't experience this directly. It's a very convincing inference!

[Windaway]

Hello Sergey,

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
I have no direct experience of "now". It's always "now", as the famous expression goes. The idea of a "duration" of now is meaningless from the perspective of direct experience. Time passing is inferred from memory-thoughts being "correct" for the purpose of making prediction-thoughts. For example, if I have a memory of leaving my keys in the other room, then I can go there and the keys will be where I remembered them. A million of these experiences strongly imply some kind of continuous structure that we "pass" through linearly, but I don't experience this directly. It's a very convincing inference!

To be sure that it is not only a theory. Let's explore.
Look in your experience:
What is the past made of?
Where is the past happening?

So what constructed these conclusions back when they were constructed if the "data" doesn't support them?

Do you see now how this question is more a affirmation that time existe than a question?

[OfTheField]

What is the past made of?
Where is the past happening?

These are all just thoughts. I have no idea what it's really made of or if it exists or not.

So what constructed these conclusions back when they were constructed if the "data" doesn't support them?

Do you see now how this question is more a affirmation that time existe than a question?

I think the question is both an affirmation that time exists, and a legitimate question. Although the moment-to-moment experience of time is a series of types of thoughts, that does not mean that the past did not (or does not) exist (in some sense). I am not proposing some specific structure of its existence, but if my keys are in the other room as I expect them to be, that thought only exists because of a "past", whatever that is beyond my thoughts of it. So my question is 2 things: (a) an affirmation of thoughts of time as reflecting existence of a thing called past and (b) a genuine question about the construction of my consciousness. I want to have some sense of how we ended up dominated by delusion.

[Windaway]

Hello Sergey,

I wrote a text to clarify the difference between the world's real and existence.
At the origin it was about the reality of the self but it is the same for the existence of time.

Exist vs Reality
You can read a lot in LU and other places that:” There is no self”. It is true but at the same time is a little simplistic and can be confusing when stated like that.
If we clarify the word “exist” it can dispel a lot of confusion. Nowadays the world exists and real are used interchangeably. Which is in everyday language is not a big deal but about what we are talking here is a very BIG deal.
Check the etymology of the word exist:
The word "exist" has its roots in Latin. It comes from the Latin word "existere," which is a combination of "ex," meaning "out," and "sistere," meaning "to stand." Thus, "existere" originally meant "to come forth," "to appear," or "to emerge."
So, of course things exist but that means they “appear out there” to you. Like an illusion exists BUT is not real. Or a mirage.
The separate self come forth in your experience BUT cannot be found in reality because it IS not real.
The separate self exists (in the sense that it emerges in your experience) BUT is not real.

Time is the same. It exists, (as you said: in some sense) but it is not real. In the sense that you have no experience of linear time in your direct experience apart from thinking.

The mirage does not have to disappear for you to KNOW that it is not real.
Just as if you see a dragon in a movie you don’t have to make the dragon disappear to KNOW it is not real. And that also doesn’t prevent you from enjoying the movie.
If someone comes to you and starts talking about dragons, you don’t have to argue with them about the reality of dragons. You simply know that dragons are not real. You can even enjoy having a conversation about dragons. It becomes a problem when you start to believe that dragons are real.
So, Color, Tree, Politics, Santa Claus all exist in different dimensions of conceptualization (thoughts) but none of them are Real.

I hope that helps.

Please be sure to answer all questions separately using the "quote".
It is important to keep a clear dialogue and that allows me to not leave any blind spots behind us.

With that in mind:

What is the past made of?
Where is the past happening?

These are all just thoughts. I have no idea what it's really made of or if it exists or not.

I do not know which sentence is for which question. Please respond individually to each question.

Although the moment-to-moment experience of time is a series of types of thoughts, that does not mean that the past did not (or does not) exist (in some sense).

The belief of moment to moment IS linear time. There is no moment-to-moment experience of time in your direct experience.

Where do you find a series of thoughts?
I only find the current thought.
The thought:"There is many thoughts before this one." is 1 thought only.
The thought:"I was thinking a lot today" is 1 thought only.
The thought:"I am having many thoughts." is 1 thought only.

that does not mean that the past did not (or does not) exist (in some sense)

Yes the past exists in thought. Just like the future exists in thought.
But can you find the past in your direct experience?
Can you find the future in your direct experience?
(answer separatly to each question)

I am not proposing some specific structure of its existence, but if my keys are in the other room as I expect them to be, that thought only exists because of a "past", whatever that is beyond my thoughts of it.

You need to look at and explore carefully your experience.
Thought IS time.
The thought:"my keys are in the other room, they will be there if I go into the room and check" is 1 thought.
This single thought is appearing NOW.
The past is appearing now.
Can you step into yesterday?
You can only think about yesterday correct?
(answer separatly to each question)


The single thought that appears now may have a cause. I simply don't find this cause in my direct experience. In my direct exprience, I only find thinking.

But I am sure that past thought cannot be the cause of the current thought because the current thought IS the past.

Stating differently there is only the current thought. The thought ABOUT a past, is still a thought.

(a) an affirmation of thoughts of time as reflecting existence of a thing called past

The past exists in thought and thought only. It is a usefull concept for functioning as a personne.
But it is a concept an idea it is not really there.
I hope you can see this now?

(b) a genuine question about the construction of my consciousness.

There is no answer to this question. WHAT IS HERE is a mystery never to be grasped or understood.
The part of you that wants to know will never know.
BUT you don't need to know to be.

I want to have some sense of how we ended up dominated by delusion.

I wouldn't say that we are dominated by delusion.
In a way we want to be diluted because it allows us to avoid our repressed emotions and trauma.
Delusion is a defense mechanism.

[OfTheField]

Thanks for engaging deeply with me on this, I really appreciate it.

Please be sure to answer all questions separately using the "quote".
It is important to keep a clear dialogue and that allows me to not leave any blind spots behind us.

Will do.

What is the past made of?

The past appears always in any moment as a thought memory, so I only experience it as such. Apart from my experience of the past, I don't know if it is real, or was only real but is longer. This "don't know" refers to an abstract theory of time and reality, but these are also just thoughts.

Where is the past happening?

My own direct experience of it happening is a thought.

Where do you find a series of thoughts?

Not directly. The mind infers the thought "there is a series" after sequential thoughts of past-memories.

But can you find the past in your direct experience?

No.

Can you find the future in your direct experience?

No.

Can you step into yesterday?

No.

You can only think about yesterday correct?

Yes.

There is no answer to this question. WHAT IS HERE is a mystery never to be grasped or understood.
The part of you that wants to know will never know.
BUT you don't need to know to be.

I suppose I will have to take this on faith for now!

[Windaway]

Thanks for engaging deeply with me on this, I really appreciate it.

I hope you get value out of this discussion.
It is a pleasure for me.

I suppose I will have to take this on faith for now!

No, you don't have to.

Let's explore together:
How many thoughts can arise in the now?

Can you see that thought arises in two main ways: Concept (word) and mental image?

Is that clear to you that the thought projects on sensing and perceiving, labels and images?

To be sure, look at your hand and take a mental picture of this hand. Close your eyes.
Is that mental images a true representation of the experience: sensing the hand ?

Can you see that what imposes a conclusion AND seeks a conclusion is a thought?

Can you find a thought?

When you search for a thought can you find a mental "thing" waiting for you?

Can you find a static and unchanging kind of "mental object" we call thought in your experience?
Can you find a noun call: thought?

[OfTheField]

A pleasure for me as well.

How many thoughts can arise in the now?

One.

Can you see that thought arises in two main ways: Concept (word) and mental image?

There are also all those internal sensations. Are these excluded from "thought"? I also have thought memories of sounds, smells, tastes, etc. There is a "thought" type corresponding to most of my senses.

Is that clear to you that the thought projects on sensing and perceiving, labels and images?

Thought responds to sensations, perceptions, and other thoughts. There are also thoughts that seem spontaneous like sudden awareness during meditation. I am not sure what it is a "response" to.

To be sure, look at your hand and take a mental picture of this hand. Close your eyes.
Is that mental images a true representation of the experience: sensing the hand ?

No.

Can you see that what imposes a conclusion AND seeks a conclusion is a thought?

Yes.

Can you find a thought?

The finding replaces thoughts, so no.

When you search for a thought can you find a mental "thing" waiting for you?

No, just broader awareness of internal experience.

Can you find a static and unchanging kind of "mental object" we call thought in your experience?

No. Always moving around.

Can you find a noun call: thought?

No.