The Gate

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

There might be a distance in seeing - Yes.
What's the difference between 'there is a visual experience' and 'I am seeing'?

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

Yes - Yet another example of how an inherent self cannot be found - Just thoughts about one.

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."

Yes. Thought after thought after thought, all referencing an inherent self.
But is there one? Or just thoughts about one?

What is the 'I' here right now, that can be 'given up on'? Can you find such a thing?

I notice that I spend a significant amount of time in thought, relating and communicating with this separate self created out of thought.

Even here . . . is there an 'I' doing this?
Or just another reference in thoughts about one?

Xain ♥

What's the difference between 'there is a visual experience' and 'I am seeing'?

The only difference is that the assertion, 'I am seeing' is likely to elicit the response 'What is the I that is doing the seeing?" from Xain. :)

But is there one? Or just thoughts about one?

What is the 'I' here right now, that can be 'given up on'? Can you find such a thing?

Even here . . . is there an 'I' doing this? Or just another reference in thoughts about one?

Many people I trust, including you, assert that no separate self exists, and I believe them. On that basis alone, I would believe that no separate self exists. In addition, no separate 'I' can be found in experience. It is plausible intellectually to assert that no separate 'I' exists, except as a fictitious entity created by thought. Unfortunately, it still SEEMS that I am a self separate from the world. It SEEMS that I here am experiencing a world out there.

--Alorac

The only difference is that the assertion, 'I am seeing' is likely to elicit the response 'What is the I that is doing the seeing?" from Xain. :)

I'm not sure I quite understand you.
I am guiding you - It is for you to follow the guidance and find (or not find) what is being pointed to.

Many people I trust, including you, assert that no separate self exists, and I believe them.

Specifically, no inherent self exists because 'self' is entirely conceptual - It is a creation of thought.

On that basis alone, I would believe that no separate self exists.

What is the 'I' that is doing the believing?

Unfortunately, it still SEEMS that I am a self separate from the world. It SEEMS that I here am experiencing a world out there

What do you expect to happen?

Xain ♥

I'm not sure I quite understand you.
I am guiding you - It is for you to follow the guidance and find (or not find) what is being pointed to.

The response you refer to was my attempt at humor. Sorry if it missed the mark.

What is the 'I' that is doing the believing?

I don't know. No such 'I' can be found in experience.

What do you expect to happen?

At the very beginning, you said "The guidance is for you to realise that there is no inherent self - No 'real' I. There never was. There never will be." I expect to realize this fact, not as a belief or intellectual understanding, but as a living truth, so that it no longer seems that I am the doer, the thinker, the experiencer. I expect no longer for it to seem that I am a self separate from the world, no longer for it to seem that I am here experiencing a world out there.

It seems that progress has been made, but that the goal has not yet been achieved.


--Alorac

I expect to realize this fact, not as a belief or intellectual understanding, but as a living truth

A living truth for whom?

Who or what only has an intellectual understanding at this point?

so that it no longer seems that I am the doer, the thinker, the experiencer.

So you want something to change?
So that no-longer 'you' are the doer, but 'something else' is the doer.
So that no-longer 'you' are the experience, but 'something else' is the experiencer.

How about 'There is no separate doer or experiencer anyway' - There's never been one. Only the idea that there is.

It seems that progress has been made, but that the goal has not yet been achieved.

A goal for whom?

The only difference is that the assertion, 'I am seeing' is likely to elicit the response 'What is the I that is doing the seeing?" from Xain. :)

Sure, but these 'mirroring back' statements aren't just a joke - I want you to consider what you are saying.
You keep on referencing an inherent self - Where is it? What is it? Can it be found?

Here's a paradox for you . . .
You realise 'no self' at the moment you realise that there is 'no self' to ever realise anything.

Xain ♥

You keep on referencing an inherent self - Where is it? What is it? Can it be found?

I want you to consider what you are saying

.
You are quite correct in asserting that I keep on referencing an inherent self, although no such inherent self exists. In order to communicate, it seems that I must use the word "I" just as you did in the above quote. I tried to avoid using the word "I" by using the passive voice or some other circumlocution, but I am still implicitly referencing a separate self. The clear, undeniable truth is that I still speak and behave as if I were a separate self. I also see value in the advice you are giving in that paying attention to what I am saying increases the awareness of how I continually reference a separate self. And awareness is necessary for change.

How about 'There is no separate doer or experiencer anyway' - There's never been one. Only the idea that there is

.
Yes. Exactly.

A goal for whom?

A goal for the non-existent separate self, of course. :) I am obviously joking, but I really see the point as expressed in the below paradox.

You realise 'no self' at the moment you realise that there is 'no self' to ever realise anything.

--Alorac

No change of language is needed.
In terms of 'distance in the senses', there may be a distance appearing between the objects in experience, and a subtle location where the experiencing appears to be performed from, especially in seeing and hearing. This is to be addressed later - It's not something we deal with here. The only thing to concentrate on in this guidance is 'what is doing the seeing' and 'what is doing the hearing' etc? An inherent self?

The clear, undeniable truth is that I still speak and behave as if I were a separate self.

WHAT DOES?
What is the 'I' you just referred to?
Stop playing games! - The answer is right in front of you!

Xain ♥

WHAT DOES? What is the 'I' you just referred to? Stop playing games! - The answer is right in front of you.

I believe I have isolated a source of confusion. Perhaps you can help me clarify things. Suppose a thought arises. I know that I didn’t choose that thought or cause that thought, but it seems clear that the thought arises in my consciousness, not in yours, and not in Teresa May’s. I am aware of that thought, while you and the PM aren’t. In that sense, I refer to it as “my thought,” or I can say, “I had the thought.”

Stated another way, I know that I exist. I know it more intimately than I can know anything. Even if I am dreaming and everything I experience is an illusion, there is an “I” who dreams. Let’s refer to this basic underlying subjectivity as “awareness.” This awareness cannot be found in experience because experience is found in awareness.

what is doing the seeing' and 'what is doing the hearing' etc? An inherent self?

My answer is that the seeing and hearing arise in awareness, which I express by the sentences “I see” and “I hear.”

Please let me know, Xain, whether I am on track here. If I am, then how do I distinguish this awareness from an inherent self?

--Alorac

but it seems clear that the thought arises in my consciousness, not in yours, and not in Teresa May’s. I am aware of that thought

What is the 'I' that is aware of the thought?

Stated another way, I know that I exist.

Two 'I's, one that exists and one that knows about it.
What are these 'I's?

All the rest of what you wrote sounded like something from a Rupert Spira book, rather than from you trying to find the truth out for yourself, which is the basis of this guidance.
No amount of spiritual ideas will get you one single step closer to realising this.

Put it away and LOOK - LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

Xain ♥

What is the 'I' that is aware of the thought?

There is no "I" that is aware of the thought. There is only the thought.

Two 'I's, one that exists and one that knows about it. What are these 'I's?

There aren't two 'I's. It is convenient to use the word 'I' in order to communicate. The sentence could be restated as "there is a sense of existence."

LOOK - LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

I have looked and looked and seem stuck. Can you try something else to get me unstuck? Asking me "who has done the looking?" or "who is stuck?" won't help. We've tried that many times.

Here's what happens: Thoughts arise, visions arise, sounds arise, etc. A conclusion is reached that there is an experiencer of those thoughts, visions, sounds, etc. That experiencer is labeled 'I'.

--Alorac

It is far past my bedtime, so I must keep this short, but I just had a realization which may release my stuckness. Page 241 of "Liberation Unleashed" contains the question, "Is it [the sense of self] constantly here or does it come and go?" When involved in my normal daily activities, I don't feel any sense of self, nor do I feel an absence of sense of self. I only have this sense of self when I think about it. And when I am composing a posting about the sense of self, I'm obviously thinking about it. So I argue for its existence.

It is now clear to me that any inherent self only exists in thought. It has no real existence. There is no inherent self - No 'real' I. There never was. There never will be.

--Alorac

I only have this sense of self when I think about it.

Yes!

It is now clear to me that any inherent self only exists in thought. It has no real existence. There is no inherent self - No 'real' I. There never was. There never will be.

Was there an 'I' (an inherent self) that was ever guided?
Was there an 'I' that chose to come here for a dialogue?
Is there an 'I' that realised any of this?

How do you feel? How are things?

Xain ♥

Was there an 'I' (an inherent self) that was ever guided?

No.

Was there an 'I' that chose to come here for a dialogue?

No, but see my response below about a chooser and doer.

Is there an 'I' that realised any of this?

No.

How do you feel? How are things?

First, I feel sleepy. Even after I posted last night, I couldn’t fall asleep, so I got less than 5 hours’ sleep. But it is not a problem. This is Saturday morning, and I can nap this afternoon.

Second, I feel great. Yesterday, I felt hopeless, frustrated, and disappointed because our dialogue seemed to be going nowhere. So, I don’t know whether the happy feeling I now experience is a temporary result of having solved a vexatious problem, or whether it will persist as a result of knowing that there is no separate self. Time will tell. (Note: I have no expectation of always being happy; I expect to experience the full range of emotions, but perhaps I will feel less attached to them. We shall see.)

Third, knowing that there is no inherent separate self leaves many questions unresolved, such as a doer and a chooser. For example, I gave myself credit yesterday for having successfully completed several challenging tasks. Now, I question whether I caused or did anything: the world presented the challenge, thoughts arose about how to respond, and the body/mind used its conditioned intelligence and skill to respond appropriately. It seems difficult to give up the notion of being the chooser. Am I a mere automaton? Can I retain the illusion of having choice, even though I know it’s an illusion?

--Alorac

Third, knowing that there is no inherent separate self leaves many questions unresolved, such as a doer and a chooser.

Let's look at them and see if we can make anything clearer.

Now, I question whether I caused or did anything.

Is 'I did something in the past' anything other than a thought appearing?
Is 'I did not do something in the past' anything other than a thought appearing?

and the body/mind used its conditioned intelligence and skill to respond appropriately

I trust you don't mean this in a literal sense - That there is an inherent body/mind with intelligence that responded.

Can I retain the illusion of having choice, even though I know it’s an illusion?

What 'I' is under an illusion?

Am I a mere automaton?

What I?

I only have this sense of self when I think about it.

Indeed so. Is there only an 'I' when you think about it?
Furthermore, is there an 'I' thinking?

Xain ♥

Is 'I did something in the past' anything other than a thought appearing?

No. It is just a thought appearing.

Is 'I did not do something in the past' anything other than a thought appearing

?
No. It is just a thought appearing.

It seems that thoughts give rise to emotions, feelings. Thus, yesterday’s thought “I did a good job” gave rise to a feeling of pride and satisfaction. Several days ago, I wrote that thoughts have no causative power, but now I am claiming the opposite. Please help me sort this out.

I trust you don't mean this in a literal sense - That there is an inherent body/mind with intelligence that responded.

No. What actually happened is that (1) perceptions arose, including visual (email) and auditory (phone calls), (2) thoughts arose about what must be done, (3) feelings and visions arose of a body acting, (4) more perceptions, (5) more feelings and visions of a body acting, etc. Finally, (6) the thought that I did a good job, and (7) a sense of pride and satisfaction. Also, the thought that (1) caused (2), which caused (3), …which caused (7). (I am dubious that causation really exists.)

What 'I' is under an illusion?

The non-existent illusory ‘I’ which is created by thought.

What I?

The non-existent ‘I’ which is created by thought.

Is there only an 'I' when you think about it?

When I think about it, there may be a SENSE of an ‘I.’ When I don’t think about it, there isn’t.’ In either case, there is no real ‘I.’

Furthermore, is there an 'I' thinking?

No. Saying “I think that…” is a convenient way of saying “The thought arises that…” Saying “I believe that” is a convenient way of saying “The thought arises that” and there is no subsequent thought saying that the preceding thought is erroneous.

Here’s what’s happening now.

(1) The euphoria experienced Friday night is gone. No problem.

(2) When we started this dialogue, I wanted to believe that there was no inherent self—no real “I.’ I wanted to believe it because all the nonduality books stated it, but I had this strong sense of a real “I,” which conflicted with this so-called belief. After the insight gained Friday night, I no longer believe in a real “I,” seeing it as a false concept created from a conglomeration of thoughts. I see this insight as only the first step in what may be a long process.

(3) I expect that I will continue for some time to habitually speak, act, and behave as if there were a real inherent “I.” That is, it will take some time for this insight to manifest. (Xain: I would appreciate your comment here.)

I have not taken the time to thank you in each of my postings, Xain, but I want you to know how deeply I appreciate our continued dialogue.

--Alorac