The Gate

Yes. Thank you for the clarifications. I am ready to proceed.

Good stuff, Alorac.
The main thing to come away with from all that is how thought and the thinking process SEEMS to generate a self.
It is inherent in the language. The experience is 'pain' but the suggestion and communication through thought is 'I am feeling this pain' . . . thought itself (the thinking process) appears to generate this duality.

The next two areas to examine are 'control' and 'choice'.
We'll do 'control' first.

Here's a very simple exercise you can do while sat down.

Choose one of the hands, it doesn't matter which. Actively make a choice of one hand or the other.
Then when you've chosen one and you feel you wish to, raise that hand into the air.

Do this as many times as you like, but each time you do it - Inquire on this:

1) Can what is making the hand / arm rise into the air (the muscles contract etc) be FOUND?
2) Can an 'I', a Person, (or the body itself??) be found making that happen?
What exactly is making that happen?
What do you FIND?

Just as a note, of course the limbs of the body are 'seen' and they are seen to be moving.
Remember we are trying to find what causes such a thing to happen. What and where is thing that's making that occur?

Xain ♥

The main thing to come away with from all that is how thought and the thinking process SEEMS to generate a self.

Yes. Yes.

1) Can what is making the hand / arm rise into the air (the muscles contract etc) be FOUND?

No.

2) Can an 'I', a Person, (or the body itself??) be found making that happen?

No.

What exactly is making that happen?

I don't know that there is anything that makes that happen. I don't even know what it means to say in general that something makes something else happen. It is tempting to say, "I make that happen," but I will not yield to temptation even though it may SEEM that I make it happen.

What do you FIND?

I find a thought that I'll raise my arm. Then I find my arm rising. Then the thought, "OK. I raised my arm. Now I'll lower it." That's all I find, but I want to make three comments. (1) It SEEMS that the thought precedes the action, but research has shown that the brain begins the process of raising the arm before there is awareness of the thought. (2) Even if the thought precedes the action, it can't be claimed that the thought caused the action because thoughts have no causative power. (3) Even if the thought caused the action, the thought itself was not caused or chosen.

--Alorac

It is tempting to say, "I make that happen," but I will not yield to temptation even though it may SEEM that I make it happen.

That made me smile - It sounds quite Biblical :-)
That word . . . SEEM . . . could that be a subtle pointer to 'beliefs and thoughts suggest it is that way' - 'that's the usual conditioned way I have taken things to be since I can remember'?

It SEEMS that the thought precedes the action, but research has shown that the brain begins the process of raising the arm before there is awareness of the thought

Well it was requested that scientific theories and ideas to be put to one side for this guidance.
(Sit in the naughty corner for 5 minutes) :-)
There is substance in what you are saying, though - Science is catching up to make some very deep realisations about what is really going on - Especially in the area of Quantum physics.

Even if the thought precedes the action, it can't be claimed that the thought caused the action because thoughts have no causative power.

Yes, exactly - Thoughts lack substance. They are not inherently real things with capabilities.

Even if the thought caused the action, the thought itself was not caused or chosen.

Indeed - We will go into thoughts more deeply next.

Just notice that you have slipped into a mental 'trying to work it out' mode in the answers to your last questions.
You will notice I asked what can you FIND.
We are subtly examining the thinking process itself to notice it's actions!

So we can agree that 'thoughts' don't make things happen (in a literal sense).
Would you agree that from the experience, all you can gauge is 'there is an arm moving'?
In the experience itself, a controlling agent cannot be found?

So if we say 'I made the arm move' or 'Brain made the arm move' or 'This body made the arm move' etc . . . are these statements from preconceived beliefs and ideas? Or can these things be FOUND actively causing the arm to move?

Try the same exercise, but this time with 'CHOICE'

1) Can what is choosing the hand (left or right) be FOUND?
2) Can an 'I', a Person, (or the body itself??) be found that is choosing?
What exactly is making the choice?
What do you FIND? Can a choosing agent be found?

What proof do you have that an actual choice is being made!?!
(Not an assumed choice, a 'real' choice).

What proof do you have that there is a self in control over the arm / over the entire body's movement?
(Not assumed control, 'real' control).

Xain ♥

Would you agree that from the experience, all you can gauge is 'there is an arm moving'?
In the experience itself, a controlling agent cannot be found?

Yes.

So if we say 'I made the arm move' or 'Brain made the arm move' or 'This body made the arm move' etc . . . are these statements from preconceived beliefs and ideas? Or can these things be FOUND actively causing the arm to move?

These statements would be from preconceived beliefs. They cannot be found.

So we can agree that 'thoughts' don't make things happen (in a literal sense).

Yes

Would you agree that from the experience, all you can gauge is 'there is an arm moving'?
In the experience itself, a controlling agent cannot be found?

Yes. Yes.

1) Can what is choosing the hand (left or right) be FOUND?
2) Can an 'I', a Person, (or the body itself??) be found that is choosing?
What exactly is making the choice?
What do you FIND? Can a choosing agent be found?

(1) What is choosing the hand cannot be found. (2) No.
I do not know what exactly is making the choice. I don't know that there is anything that makes that choice.
All I can find is thoughts (which cannot make choices). A choosing agent cannot be found.

What proof do you have that an actual choice is being made!?!
(Not an assumed choice, a 'real' choice).

No proof whatever.

What proof do you have that there is a self in control over the arm / over the entire body's movement?
(Not assumed control, 'real' control).

None.

--Alorac

Great work!

I don't know that there is anything that makes that happen.
I don't know that there is anything that makes that choice.
All I can find is thoughts (which cannot make choices). A choosing agent cannot be found.

Yes. Perhaps you might say, 'Anything that I could suggest that is making it happen is from memory / from beliefs about what is assumed to be involved / from THINKING.'

So just like 'I am seeing', 'I am hearing' e.t.c . . . 'I am choosing' and 'I am controlling this body' are only from thinking what is responsible - They are ideas / beliefs.

Once again, can you see how the thinking process seems to generate a self.
Something happens, and thoughts occur with the suggestion of 'I' . . . 'I made the arm move', 'I chose that arm in the exercise'.
But in the experience itself, no chooser or controller is found.
No inherent self is found. No inherent self found experiencing. No inherent self found choosing or controlling things.
The only thing we find (we could suggest perhaps) are thoughts, beliefs and ideas ABOUT one.

In fact, let's look at thoughts right now.
Both thought and imagination can be examined in the same way.

Think a thought, or imagine an object. Anything will do.
Now inquire:

1) Can what created or 'made' that thought or imagined object be found?
2) Can what is witnessing the thought or imagined object be found?
3) What control is there to create thoughts, or to stop thoughts from appearing.
There may APPEAR to be control (through thinking about what is happening, but what do you FIND in control?)
Can thoughts be completely stopped for one day? Can negative thoughts be completely stopped for one day?

Can an 'I', a self, a body, a person be found experiencing the thoughts, or making the thoughts, or controlling the thoughts?

Xain ♥

P.S. Once you have done this exercise, can you tell me what choice you had in doing it (or not doing it)?

1) Can what created or 'made' that thought or imagined object be found?

No.

2) Can what is witnessing the thought or imagined object be found?

No.

3) What control is there to create thoughts, or to stop thoughts from appearing.
There may APPEAR to be control (through thinking about what is happening, but what do you FIND in control?)
I cannot find any control to create thoughts. I have no control to stop thoughts from appearing.

Can thoughts be completely stopped for one day?

No. They can't be completely stopped for 10 seconds.

Can negative thoughts be completely stopped for one day?

No.

Can an 'I', a self, a body, a person be found experiencing the thoughts, or making the thoughts, or controlling the thoughts?

No.

Once you have done this exercise, can you tell me what choice you had in doing it (or not doing it)?

No. I cannot tell you. It SEEMS that I had a choice, but the only way I could verify that I had a choice to do it is to ask whether I could have not done it. And there is no way to answer that question about a hypothetical past.

--Alorac

I cannot find any control to create thoughts. I have no control to stop thoughts from appearing.

So even here . . . could 'I am thinking thoughts' be an assumption from thought itself - that there was an inherent self, an 'I' witnessing thoughts? Just like the assumption of an 'I' witnessing the current experience?

I cannot find any control to create thoughts. I have no control to stop thoughts from appearing. No. They can't be completely stopped for 10 seconds.

Indeed, so again here . . . could 'I am controlling my thoughts' be another assumption from thought itself - that there was an inherent self 'doing' the thinking or that had control over that process in any way?

About choice . . .

And there is no way to answer that question about a hypothetical past.

True, but you CAN answer about an inherent self.
In order for a REAL choice to have been made, there would need to be REAL chooser.
Can you find a real chooser here right now? Or just thoughts about one?
Has there EVER been an inherent self that was choosing? Or only ever thoughts about one?
What are the implications of that?

Xain ♥

Could 'I am thinking thoughts' be an assumption from thought itself - that there was an inherent self, an 'I' witnessing thoughts? Just like the assumption of an 'I' witnessing the current experience?

Yes. All these could be assumptions from thought itself.

Could 'I am controlling my thoughts' be another assumption from thought itself - that there was an inherent self 'doing' the thinking or that had control over that process in any way

?
Yes. It could be another assumption from thought itself.

Can you find a real chooser here right now? Or just thoughts about one?

No real chooser can be found, only thoughts about one.

Has there EVER been an inherent self that was choosing? Or only ever thoughts about one?

I don't know whether there has ever been an inherent self that was choosing. No inherent chooser can be found in direct experience, but I cannot truthfully assert that none exists. There still SEEMS to be an inherent self that is choosing.

What are the implications of that?

By direct experience alone, no chooser, thinker, experiencer, witnesser, 'I,' or separate self can be found, but these all still SEEM to exist. I wish I could realize their non-existence; that's why I'm here.

In order to live my life, it seems that I need to make many assumptions based on thought alone. For example, I plan to go to the grocery store to buy some bananas, my favorite fruit. Although the grocery store existed yesterday, I have no direct evidence from experience that it still exists today. Yet, I make the journey based on thought and belief alone.

You have said many times that there is no separate self. All the nonduality books I have read say that there is no separate self. If I look into my direct experience, no separate self can be found. Yet, it still SEEMS that I am a separate self.

HELP!

I wish I could realize their non-existence; that's why I'm here.

What 'I' wants to realise something's non-existence?
Who or what is here doing that?

HELP!

What is this 'I' that requires help?

An inherent self? Or more thoughts about one?

Xain ♥

What 'I' wants to realise something's non-existence?
Who or what is here doing that?

Don't know. There SEEMS to be an 'I' here looking at a computer screen trying to answer your questions.

What is this 'I' that requires help?

Don't know.

An inherent self? Or more thoughts about one?

Certainly there are more thoughts about one. Don't know whether an inherent self exists.

--Alorac

There SEEMS to be an 'I' here looking at a computer screen

So there are two clear things in your experience.
A computer screen, and a separate 'I' that is doing the witnessing. Yes?
Describe them both as they appear.

Don't know whether an inherent self exists.

Keep looking for one.
Assuming there is a 'you' looking of course.

Xain ♥

So there are two clear things in your experience.
A computer screen, and a separate 'I' that is doing the witnessing. Yes?
Describe them both as they appear.

No. The computer screen is a visual experience. Of course, I don't really know from direct experience that what I'm seeing is a computer screen. All I directly experience is an array of colors. The assertion that this is a computer screen comes from thoughts.

I don't directly experience a separate 'I' doing the witnessing, but it SEEMS to be there. There SEEMS to be about 3 feet of separation between the screen and the viewer.


Whatever this I is, it is experiencing frustration and disappointment. It wants very much to realize that there is no separate I. Is this procedure hopeless? Have we failed? I'm willing to continue if you are.

--Alorac

I don't directly experience a separate 'I' doing the witnessing, but it SEEMS to be there. There SEEMS to be about 3 feet of separation between the screen and the viewer.

Ok.
Distance in the senses isn't something we address.
There is distance between the objects in experience and a point when 'experiencing' appears to be being done.
This won't change (although it can be examined later on).

What we focus on here is an 'I', a seperate self that is doing the seeing i.e. located at the point where 'seeing' appears to be being done. What's there at that point? Is it findable? Is there an 'I', a seperate self at that point? Can you even go there with the senses?

Is this procedure hopeless? Have we failed? I'm willing to continue if you are.

Of course - There is still lots more to examine - Have faith!

In that statement 'I want to realise something', is the 'I' something that can be found?
Or is it only a belief / thought about an 'I'?

When you mention the word 'disappointment', can you tell me how this manifests itself to you in a general way?

Xain ♥

What's there at that point? Is it findable? Is there an 'I', a seperate self at that point? Can you even go there with the senses?

There SEEMS to be a separate 'I' at that point, but it is not findable. Cannot go there with the senses.

In that statement 'I want to realise something', is the 'I' something that can be found?
Or is it only a belief / thought about an 'I'?

The 'I' cannot be found. It is only a belief or thought.

When you mention the word 'disappointment', can you tell me how this manifests itself to you in a general way?

This question generated a fascinating discovery! The experience of disappointment was preceded by a slew of linked thoughts, such as "I don't get it," "I'll never get it," "Why can other people get this, but not me," "What's wrong with me?", "Maybe I should quit," "Maybe Xain will give up on me."

A digression: I've been thinking about what holds the belief in a separate self in place. In addition to our society's orientation as reflected in language, I notice that I spend a significant amount of time in thought, relating and communicating with this separate self created out of thought. It seems that this fictitious separate self is a valued friend, whom I fear might die. Does this make sense, Xain? Is this a fruitful line of inquiry?