Tak

[Tak]

It sounds like you amassed alot beliefs and ideas over time to do with a self, and have just reinforced the idea that there is something real there that you can be true to. Its alot simpler than that, have you looked at the fact that this whole thing, including trying to see this is a process that is happening by itself, there not even a you to see this or get liberated.

whoa. I'd bumped into the 'there is no you to be liberated' idea before, but that this process is another thing just happening too.. hadnt made that jump. Been pondering about that alot..

[adriandc]

I said Id write out a few direct experiments.

1. Sound

et a spoon, get a cup, Close your eyes, and lightly tap the spoon off the cup. And ask IN THAT SOUND ALONE is there evidence of a you? only in that sound, you may be tempted to imagine a you, you may tempted to think that the intention of hitting the cup is you, you may be tempted to think "there has to be because its my ears", you may tempted to think that feeling as a result is you, but that isnt the question im asking, im asking only in that sound, is there evidence in that experience of "tapp" of a you?

2. Smell

Get a piece of fruit, like an Orange, cut in half. Close your eyes. Now smell it and ask, in that experience , and only that experience of the smell of the orange, is there a you? Again, all the tempations will rise up "But im leaning over to smell it", "But my nose is the thing that does the smelling", "But I can feel and imagine a me", "But I just cut open the orange", let all those excuses arise and fall, and truly answer the question only using the experience of the smell of the orange as evidence, and ask is there evidence of a you in that smell, and that smell alone.

3. Visual

Sit down , look in front of you, notice that in your visual field , the only evidence you have for what exists is the colours that are displayed. So all there is is colours, even small shades its just other colours, even the appearance of depth is just more colours. Now , again, in that direct visual experience is there evidence of a you?
Temptations will include stuff like "BUT IM LOOKING AT IT" - doesnt matter, thats not what im asking , im asking in the colours themselves is there evidence of a self, other temptations like "yea I can see my hands and my body", thats just more colours. So really ask , in that direct experience of the visual field is there evidence of a self?

I will continue on when you've those answered.

[Tak]

all these experiences share a similar theme. an experience of a sensory event.

its not necessary for there to be a "me" that hears the sound, smells the smell or sees the sight, or experiences any event.

lets take sound -- the sound bounces off the windowpane in the room too. and induces the same style of vibration as the sound bouncing off an eardrum. everything within the experience of the tap experiences that sound. The experience of the tap sound for the window stops when the sound waves reflect off the surface. for the human body,the experience of tap extends a bit longer than first impact (vibration of eardrum, transfered into the body, into the nerves and assigned a label by the brain), but there's no 'me' in that experience.

i suppose that after the "signal" is experienced, its tempting to believe that there's an experiencer that's privileged to have been witness to that experience, but i believe you've placed that outside the scope of the question. ("in just that experience of the tap").

So, W/o expanding the sensory experience to include "my causing" or "my interpretation" of that experience, it's just the physics of the sensory experience happening (sound waves traveling, molecules moving thru the air, light and color being sensed by the eyes).

[adriandc]

So hows the looking going Tak?

How about the questions themselves? As oppose to what you think or assume is happening.

[Tak]

So hows the looking going Tak?

How about the questions themselves? As oppose to what you think or assume is happening.

Oop, sorry, i wasnt very clear. i tried to answer like this:

all these experiences share a similar theme. an experience of a sensory event. its not necessary for there to be a "me" that hears the sound, smells the smell or sees the sight, or experiences any event.

I should have been more clear. i was trying to answer all three of your questions at once, since after doing them all, they all turned out to be the same question from 3 different senses.

answer -- I can't find any a "me" in any of those immediate sensory experiences. The "tap", the "smell", or the collection of "colors" from looking at something.

I started to quibble with you about where you drew the line in the experiment "just in the sound, nothing else", etc, but I figured you had a good reason for drawing the line where you did, so I'll answer the question as posed.

During the last few days, after I got bored listening to mug tapping sound, I did explore outside the bounds of the question a bit and see if I could find something further along the chain of the experience, but it seems you can always push the "me" a bit further outside the line you're drawing. perpetually kicking the can down the road, so to speak.

I didnt want to go too far down that road tho, in case i was missing your point back at the original exercise :)

-mark

[adriandc]

Cool, although I didnt mean for you to keep doing the tapping thing :), it was more to show you something.
That in your direct experience of smell , sound and visual, you simply cant find a self, no matter how much you are told.

So now,
4/ Taste, get an orange (or whatever) peel it, break off a segment, put it in your mouth and eat it. In your direct experience of taste and taste alone, nothing else, not the feeling of eating it, not the smell, not sound, not the idea of whats happening, is there a you in that direct experience of taste?

5/ Physical sensastion.

As you are sitting down now, watch any physical sensations that arise, the feeling around your legs on the seat, maybe a feeling around your arm resting somewhere, or your feeling of the back , anywhere,

close your eyes and do this, and for every single feeling that arises, in that feeling, and ONLY that feeling is there a self to be found?

Remember, when we do this, we are only interested in direct experience , not knowledge of whats happening.

[Tak]

Remember, when we do this, we are only interested in direct experience ,
not knowledge of whats happening.

odd that you should mention this and then focus on taste / touch. I wanted to ask you for some advice on the looking / exercises. I realized that my sensory experiences of looking and listening are highly "mind/thought" instead of sensory. When Im going to "look into something" or "listen up", that seems to immediately place me in an analytical mindframe. And I'm back to the very first post where I'm learning about water rather than experiencing it.

On the way to work, i was thinking that my sensations of taste, touch and, to some extent smell, are much less tied to my analytical habits. I can have an amazing experience of taste , touch or smell much more easily than with sight or sound. I was beginning to wonder if I could construct an exercise to have an visual experience that matches the lush sensory experience of, say, eating. Or maybe i shouldnt try and migrate experiences yet, but sorta go where the current strengths are -- touch, taste, smell.

I'm glad to see some exercises in those realms. Just wanted to share

-mark

[adriandc]

Personally Im pretty convinced that its the visual field that aids this seeing the most alright, and am thinking that that is the reason we all seem to start shouting "LOOK" lol.

Well there was the visual experiment above, what about that one no?

Also, remember, all of these experiences arent about analysing the sense or trying to break it down or anything, im simply attempted to show you that pretty much in every single aspect of your experience you have no evidence of a You.
But I said Id try all 5 senses slowly one at a time to make it a little easier.

[Tak]

That in your direct experience of smell , sound and visual, you simply cant find a self, no matter how much you are told.
...
Remember, when we do this, we are only interested in direct experience , not knowledge of whats happening.

Man, observing the experience is such a mindy task for me. Im sitting there experiencing stuff that happens (breeze, itches, fidgety, etc), and that direct experience is simply an experience. If I go looking for a self (or looking to not find a self) I immediately seem to fall out of the direct experience and start thinking about the experience rather than having it.

Any tips for remaining in the experience while trying to still answer the question?

[adriandc]

That in your direct experience of smell , sound and visual, you simply cant find a self, no matter how much you are told.
...
Remember, when we do this, we are only interested in direct experience , not knowledge of whats happening.

Man, observing the experience is such a mindy task for me. Im sitting there experiencing stuff that happens (breeze, itches, fidgety, etc), and that direct experience is simply an experience. If I go looking for a self (or looking to not find a self) I immediately seem to fall out of the direct experience and start thinking about the experience rather than having it.

Any tips for remaining in the experience while trying to still answer the question?

Well firstly, those experiments were just to demonstrate that every aspect of experience has no self within the experience. And when you go looking for a self you end up back in analysis and thoughts etc , so maybe continue the investigation, what happens exactly when you start thinking about experience? where does a self come into it then?

I know im sort of veering off the experiments now, but they were only a demonstration and reminder that no experience contains a self, its only an experience.
But ultimately this is about trying to see is there a you in ANYTHING that happens,be it thought , analysis, sense experience, emotions etc.

[Tak]

Well firstly, those experiments were just to demonstrate that every aspect of experience has no self within the experience.

Im pretty convinced my illusion of self isnt seated in any of my sensory experiences. If I had any lingering doubts, these experiments extinguished them.

And when you go looking for a self you end up back in analysis and thoughts etc , so maybe continue the investigation, what happens exactly when you start thinking about experience? where does a self come into it then?

this is where i usually end if i let myself "look further". all this sensory input gets processed by a mind and stored as memories. Memories are replayed and recalled by the mind. Before these exercises, i would have said that the aim of all this storage and recall of memories was to try and make better decisions to survive into the next moment (was warned about going into dark alleys, that alley is dark, dont go in there) or try and set up a favorable chain of events to craft a better experience in some future now. (stay late at work to finish and get a bonus)

The problem you've pointed out is that thats just the mind doing it's thing and there doesnt seem to be an real evidence of something "in charge" or deciding. It sure feels like i'm deciding to not walk into that alley or deciding to stay late. So we're back to the "common" understanding that the "me" is the decider .. for which i can find no real evidence of other than after-the-fact actions..

no experience contains a self, its only an experience. But ultimately this is about trying to see is there a you in ANYTHING that happens,be it thought , analysis, sense experience, emotions etc.

ya, i dont want to go too far if you've got me on an series of exercises to be completed one after the other tho. :)

especially since my experience tends to quickly go off track apparently..

-mark

[Tak]

opps, i had some issues with my quoting.. i wrote a reply that looks like your words... oops

[adriandc]

Well firstly, those experiments were just to demonstrate that every aspect of experience has no self within the experience.

Im pretty convinced my illusion of self isnt seated in any of my sensory experiences. If I had any lingering doubts, these experiments extinguished them.

So what else is there other than sensory experiences?

[Tak]

So what else is there other than sensory experiences?

there's all the processing and reaction to those experiences. my experience of self feels rooted in my current response to stimuli.

eg: There's the sensory experience of chocolate (all the senses) and my current processing and reaction to that chocolate is part of my conception of self. I can see that the processing itself is a sensory experience, and my reaction generates more sensory events. But today I feel like 'self' is defined by responses to sensory experiences.

[adriandc]

there's all the processing and reaction to those experiences. my experience of self feels rooted in my current response to stimuli.

eg: There's the sensory experience of chocolate (all the senses) and my current processing and reaction to that chocolate is part of my conception of self. I can see that the processing itself is a sensory experience, and my reaction generates more sensory events. But today I feel like 'self' is defined by responses to sensory experiences.

Ok cool , so lets try to look even deeper, we've established that senses alone arent a "you". So now lets look at processing and reaction, what is it exactly? When you say those words what exactly do you mean? And most importantly, after looking real real real real closely, where is the feeling of self in this phenomenon?