Thread for Elmas

[Dava]

The exercise was about picking up a pen which is a simple and uncomplicated exercise about choosing (you didn't ask me to choose between telling a lie or not telling a lie for example) and I was wondering and felt uneasy about how this relates to personal responsibility and choice when in comes to ethics, actions that harm life and actions that support life and spiritual growth.

Since this investigation is into the illusion of the separate-self, I'm going to focus in on that.

In Direct Experience, is there an "I" that chooses to "do the right thing"?

Do wholesome actions happen on behalf of an illusory self, or is it the other way round,
that unwholesome actions arise on behalf of and strengthen the illusion of an "I" that is separate from experience?

[Elmas]

In Direct Experience, is there an "I" that chooses to "do the right thing"?

I watched myself a little more closely in this regard during the day, and was aware quite distinctly of behaving skilfully in terms of feeling love towards someone and looking at them lovingly; in terms of loving touch; and expressing appreciation and affection in speech and I don't know how this happened! I was not aware of a separate sense of self deciding or choosing to "do the right thing." It kind of just happened, like a calling of intuition. (My favourite definition of intuition is the direct apprehension of the truth without recall to reason.) I was also aware on one ocassion of doing the wrong thing, just 3-4 words of slander, that pained me almost immediately.

Do wholesome actions happen on behalf of an illusory self, or is it the other way round, that unwholesome actions arise on behalf of and strengthen the illusion of an "I" that is separate from experience?

Hmm, I like that. The latter. Wholesome actions arise with the awareness of non-separation. Unwholesome actions arise from a belief in separateness. More and more I'm sensing a non-separation in experience, especially in looking and seeing. Nothing fancy really, just enhanced fascination and lightness of being.

[Dava]

It's obvious to me that you're seeing this.

So I'm just going to "drill down" a little bit further.
I'm not picking you up on your use of personal pronouns, neither am I trying to catch you out,
I just wish to get underneath one of your terms of reference to see what is there.

When you say;

I watched myself a little more closely

What is actually happening when you watch "yourself"?

Where is the watcher and what is being watched?

Is there a "self" that can be watched in Direct Experience?

[Elmas]

So I'm just going to "drill down" a little bit further.
I'm not picking you up on your use of personal pronouns, neither am I trying to catch you out,
I just wish to get underneath one of your terms of reference to see what is there.

I'm doing it now in this sentence as I write but about 2 or 3 days ago, I decided to just relax in my language and just write (more) normally!

"I watched myself a little more closely"


What is actually happening when you watch "yourself"?

What did I actually mean when I wrote that sentence? All I really meant was that I read your post in the morning and wanted to give you a response that was fresh from that day in terms of 'doing the right thing' (or the wrong thing) and sought to bare your question in mind during the day and was able to sense quite clearly a number of times when skilfulness was expressed and also when on one distinct ocassion when I expressed unskilfulness. That's my 'normal' response. A 'non-normal' response is that there is sensitivity to life, an openness to what is, a sense of harmony and connection that feels 'right' at least with the skilful. It means experiences are taking place and awareness is also present.

Where is the watcher and what is being watched?

I'm looking into this now in Direct Experience...at the level of D.E. there is no watcher. What is being watched? I don't like that word at the moment! It seems rather crude! What does it mean? Changing experiences are being mindfully experienced, in terms of sensations of pain and pleasure in the body, a sense of aliveness and things seen.

Is there a "self" that can be watched in Direct Experience?

When Direct Experience is entered into, when theories and concepts are given little importance or even more clearly when thoughts are not present, by definition is is not possible to identify an "I" or a "separate self" in Direct Experience, the flow of perception in Direct Experience exists prior to or 'beneath' stories. What exists? A changing flow of sensations, changing energy, a distinct sense of vitality (at least some of the time) and what I would be happy to call an open ended openness to life.

[Dava]

Ok, great stuff.

Let's have a look at the questions below and see if these bring up any points that we need to investigate further. Remember to answer these from Direct Experience, not from thinking about them.
(I'm not necessarily looking for long answers here, but if you wish to expand, go for your life)

Where is "self" in the arising and passing of experience?
Can you find, a “self” that is the "experiencer"?
Or a “self” that is the "doer", or can control what happens?
Or a “self” that "makes" decisions?
Or a “self” who "does the thinking"?
Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this “self”?
Is there a “self” "in here" which is separate from the world and others "out there"?
If there is no “self” – are there “others” – what is direct experience of “others”?

[Elmas]

Let's have a look at the questions below and see if these bring up any points that we need to investigate further. Remember to answer these from Direct Experience, not from thinking about them.
(I'm not necessarily looking for long answers here, but if you wish to expand, go for your life)

Ok, let's have a go.

Where is "self" in the arising and passing of experience?

In Direct Experience the question is non-sensical! Without the imposition of thoughts and beliefs, by definition only openness is present. If you forced me to say there was a "self" I would say that the "self" is no other than constant change, but that's a bit silly!

Can you find, a “self” that is the "experiencer"?

Pretty much what I said above applies. Direct Experience says 'no'. For a "self" or at least a "fixed self" to exist some kind of unchanging centre would need to exist. I haven't found one, except in limiting views and beliefs.

Or a “self” that is the "doer", or can control what happens?

Automatically I do have some problems with this philosophically, I mentioned them is a post 3-4 days ago. It is likely that there is intellectual confusion in me. But when I 'drop down' in Direct Experience the concept of a "doer" doesn't arise. I don't like the word "control", can we not influence what happens but not control it completely? Ok let me try to speak from DE: it is cold where I am, even very cold. I can not control the weather but I put on more clothes and a wooly hat, I'm much warmer now, especially my armpits and head. Please challenge me.

Or a “self” that "makes" decisions?
In Direct Experience I don't know how decisions are made!! They somehow seem to be made!!

Or a “self” who "does the thinking"?

Sometimes I seem to go back on 'myself'! "...you say not from thinking about them", if I let go of my desire to understand the difference between 'associative thinking' and 'directed thinking', I'd have to say 'no.'

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this “self”?
No. Phew, that was easy!! :)

Is there a “self” "in here" which is separate from the world and others "out there"?

In Direct Experience I'd have to say no, 'things' are much more fluid and open than that.

If there is no “self” – are there “others” – what is direct experience of “others”?

Same question really but a good one! It is not different really from what is experienced 'within': eye-impressons; touch impressions/sensations; ear impressions/sensations etc. etc. Fascinating fascinating, I haven't really focused clearly & directly on this question before. I sense the whole dualistic apparatus can/will collapse here!

[Dava]

Automatically I do have some problems with this philosophically, I mentioned them is a post 3-4 days ago. It is likely that there is intellectual confusion in me. But when I 'drop down' in Direct Experience the concept of a "doer" doesn't arise. I don't like the word "control", can we not influence what happens but not control it completely? Ok let me try to speak from DE: it is cold where I am, even very cold. I can not control the weather but I put on more clothes and a wooly hat, I'm much warmer now, especially my armpits and head. Please challenge me.

Before, during and after putting on the clothes and a wooly hat, did a self arise that was separate from the action that could be said to be in control of the process of responding to the cold?

or was there just acting, responding, with no "controller" behind the process?

[Elmas]

"Automatically I do have some problems with this philosophically, I mentioned them is a post 3-4 days ago. It is likely that there is intellectual confusion in me. But when I 'drop down' in Direct Experience the concept of a "doer" doesn't arise. I don't like the word "control", can we not influence what happens but not control it completely? Ok let me try to speak from DE: it is cold where I am, even very cold. I can not control the weather but I put on more clothes and a wooly hat, I'm much warmer now, especially my armpits and head. Please challenge me."


Before, during and after putting on the clothes and a wooly hat, did a self arise that was separate from the action that could be said to be in control of the process of responding to the cold?

or was there just acting, responding, with no "controller" behind the process?

It's now actually 5-6 days after you wrote the above. Despite 3 or 4 shifts in experiencing during this week (notably periods of deep peace/centredness and very little interest indeed in what others think about me), I'm a rather out of touch with this questioning process. It'll probably take me a day or two to get back into it but one never knows!! I'm out of touch with the cold example above. It's not so cold now! I've decided to stroke my face. If I pay no attention to thoughts there is just "stroking" and pleasant, warm sensations arising and passing in my right cheek. It at least seems like there is some kind of chooser.

[Dava]

If I pay no attention to thoughts there is just "stroking" and pleasant, warm sensations arising and passing in my right cheek. It at least seems like there is some kind of chooser.

You say it seems like there is a chooser.
Where does this "seeming" appear?
Take a look.
Is it just another thought, or did you actually find a chooser in Direct Experience?

[Elmas]

"If I pay no attention to thoughts there is just "stroking" and pleasant, warm sensations arising and passing in my right cheek. It at least seems like there is some kind of chooser."


You say it seems like there is a chooser.
Where does this "seeming" appear?
Take a look.
Is it just another thought, or did you actually find a chooser in Direct Experience?

I listened to part of recording of an LU meeting in Worthing that Illona organised 2 or 3 months ago from her website, I know a few people who were at that meeting and quite a few things said made quite an impression on me, especially something that Illona said about not having thoughts. And true to form this went straight into my sleep life! And influenced the class I taught on Saturday and somehow I experienced nearly the whole day with no thoughts, I mean very, very few thoughts. It was more direct, more 'animal' and of course peaceful. Why am I telling you this? Partly for my benefit and the wish that it'll interest you but also to lead up to responding to your question. In Direct Experience with no thoughts, no interpretations being made, nothing pertaining to concepts, theories, ideas have any substance. Today with the possible exception of being on LSD many years ago was perhaps the day in my life I was most without thoughts, the mind was very quiet, even silent much of the time. From this perspective, this experience, I can not find a separate chooser.

[Dava]

That sounds really interesting, a day with very few thoughts.

Obviously the flow of thinking itself arises as part of Direct Experience, just like the 5 senses.
The trouble starts when a part of the flow is apparently isolated and the apparent contents of thoughts are taken as a reality (a "secondary" non-direct experience).

From this perspective, this experience, I can not find a separate chooser.

Is there any other credible perspective one can refer to than the Direct Experience of what is actually happening?

[Elmas]

Obviously the flow of thinking itself arises as part of Direct Experience, just like the 5 senses.

Somehow I haven't taken that on board very deeply, seen that to the same degree as the other senses.

The trouble starts when a part of the flow is apparently isolated and the apparent contents of thoughts are taken as a reality (a "secondary" non-direct experience).

Which means taking thoughts over-seriously and believing them when they are harmful or don't pertain to reality, right?

Is there any other credible perspective one can refer to than the Direct Experience of what is actually happening?

In terms of what is happening, right here, right now, without getting caught up in stories, without overlaying sensory experience with interpretatations and thoughts about experience, Direct Experience is the only valid perspective I can see. It's the bare bones of experiencing.

[Dava]

Which means taking thoughts over-seriously and believing them when they are harmful or don't pertain to reality, right?

To paraphrase The Buddha's pointing out to Bahiya;

In seeing, just seeing
In hearing, just hearing
...
In thinking, just thinking

There's a difference between the observing of the flow of thinking and buying into the contents of thinking.
It's the difference between observing Direct Experience and going down a rabbit hole.

Which you sum up nicely here;

In terms of what is happening, right here, right now, without getting caught up in stories, without overlaying sensory experience with interpretatations and thoughts about experience, Direct Experience is the only valid perspective I can see. It's the bare bones of experiencing.

Okay then, at this point I'm going to give you 6 summary questions to answer.
Take your time, and keep to the "bare bones" of Direct Experience.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you seeit now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How
does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from everyday experience.

6) Anything to add?

[Elmas]

Hi Dava,

I feel rather daunted by all these questions, resistance is present and I'm rather pressed for time. Tomorrow evening I have spare time, I will answer at least the first 3 questions then.

Kind wishes

[Elmas]

Okay then, at this point I'm going to give you 6 summary questions to answer.
Take your time, and keep to the "bare bones" of Direct Experience.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

Okeydokes, here goes. Unpleasant sensations in the chest area and legs have arisen that I call anxiety. But that's fine. In Direct Experience there is no separate entity called "self" or "I" at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form. Oh dear, tears, then laughter have arisen, how funny! In Direct Experience, without the intervening divisiveness of thoughts and interpretations, there is just experiencing, a kind of open-ended experience of life, an ever changing flow of thoughts, memories, sensations, energy and emotions. In Direct Experience there could never be a separate self in the past.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The illusion of a separate self is based in an assumption, an unchecked assumption, a belief that a body must in some way mean there is some kind of separation from other manifestations of life, human and non-human. I can not tell you when it starts, that is not something I can know in Direct Experience and I'll avoid just repeating what some others from LU say, except perhaps to say that a sense of separation or an assumption that separation exists arises when attention is not focused right here, right now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

This is so far the easiest question to respond to and now I'm crying a lot...I don't know what's happened. It's a relief to see this. In a major way, interconnectedness has been a 'refuge' for me for many years, in terms of karma, action, in terms of the world and future generations of living beings. But I haven't before gone through a process of looking, investigation and questioning that directly relates to the 6 sense organs. As you know I do a lot of meditation and Dharma teaching and over recent times - and with increasing frequency - when I communicate and teach not only is doubt in the teachings not present but maybe more importantly no doubt in relation to "myself" is present - there is a clear and confident knowing. As part of this, more and more, a deep, almost physical, peace is present. Paradoxically, this peace can hold emotions like irritation and anxiety, it's quite odd! In the best possible sense I don't really care what others think about me (hopefully I can write 'anymore' but time will tell), or at the very least I care very little, so I don't feel I need their approval or affirmation. A fantastic freedom for someone who fundamentally felt scared or threathened by 'other'. Another aspect of this change is that I'm able to be more honest and I hope (mostly) appropriately challenging towards others. It is so much easier to see when others are entangled in thoughts. I also feel freer to love. Negative mental states not only arise much less often but they hang around for less time, it's easier to see that they are fuelled by beliefs and stories that are either unhelpful or just plain wrong! There is more I could say but that's enough.