In need of direct pointing-out instruction

[Aphorism8]

I need to describe that last piece a little more deeply. I will post again a little later today. I think I can describe something that it feels like I am stuck on.

[Canfora]

Hello, good morning. Don't worry with the small posts. It's just that the less you write, the less I can understand what is going on with you, it's like trying to guide someone while I'm also in the dark.
I don't mind if you answer sharing your thinking. My goal is to make you look but it may be useful to make you look at the thinking too.

Cool... you can see that a self as you thought it to be can't be found. And you can see what seems to create the self illusion - the feeling of ownership, for example. Yay, you're doing great!
Let's do a checkpoint.

How would you answer the below questions? Share your thoughts and experiences around these subjects and answer from looking at your experience as much as you can. Don't worry with giving the right answers just be as honest as possible, sharing your present point of view. There is no need to answer them all at once, if you need some time to ponder them.

Is the body you?
Can a you be found inside the body, pulling the body levers?

Are you the thinker of thoughts?
Can you control thoughts?

When doing things - movements, actions (cooking, driving, walking, reading, writing, etc) - can a doer be found?

When emotions and feelings are felt - are they yours, are they personal?

How about control? Is it possible to find a you controlling a slice of life?

[Aphorism8]

I am going to answer from my perspective and try not to produce the "right" answers; I think you will immediately recognize where what I say is influenced by concepts from Advaita and/or Dzogchen, so I'll try to minimize the textual overhead of explaining where I am including any of that stuff; but I may point that out in some spots to make clear where I am referring to those. I want to get that all out there thoroughly because there's a sense, as you'll see, that sometimes even though the direct answer to your questions is pretty straightforward, there is a vague feeling here that there is still something I am missing or that I haven't cleared up, and I want to convey that so it can be dealt with.

How would you answer the below questions? Share your thoughts and experiences around these subjects and answer from looking at your experience as much as you can. Don't worry with giving the right answers just be as honest as possible, sharing your present point of view. There is no need to answer them all at once, if you need some time to ponder them.

Is the body you?
Can a you be found inside the body, pulling the body levers?

There is clearly no I to be found inside the body. The body is always there when looking, but "I" am not in there. From the perspective of looking, the body (legs, arms, torso) terminates upward in nothing.

Habitually it is thought of and spoken of as "my" body, but the "I" who would "own" the the body in that way of speaking gets left undefined and is an assumption. Calling it "my body" in no way leads to the direct observation of an "I."

In addition, even though it is treated as "my" body, when looking directly, anything the body does is seen to happen on its own; there is no detectable initiation of whatever movement it makes. But the experience is interpreted as "I walk," "I am typing," etc.

Lastly on this point, when pleasant or unpleasant bodily sensations arise, the experience gets thought of or spoken of as "My hip is sore," "I am in a lot of pain today," etc., and is unpleasant.

Are you the thinker of thoughts?
Can you control thoughts?

Hell no! An obnoxious, never-ending stream of thought junk is always chattering away. Often, more than one thing is going on at once in thought - there's almost always a song playing, plus all sorts of random thoughts. It is often felt as extremely unpleasant.

In addition, there are thoughts that seem to be different - less random, more intentional, cohesive, and "directed," and these support the notion of an "I" that is thinking and willing. That I has not been found, of course, and there's a sense that this particular aspect of experience - the thoughts that seem less random - needs to be looked at carefully and cleared up.

When doing things - movements, actions (cooking, driving, walking, reading, writing, etc) - can a doer be found?

Definitely not, as I mentioned above regarding the body. If you look directly, there's only the doing; there is no awareness of a decision to move or a mover initiating the move.

When emotions and feelings are felt - are they yours, are they personal?

This is a hard one. If you carefully observe the experience of emotions arising, all that can be observed are the emotions, but no observable I. Again, it becomes “my feelings,” “I am anxious about….,” etc. But that in no way enables the direct observation of an I.

How about control? Is it possible to find a you controlling a slice of life?

Big one! We certainly try to control things, and the fact that most of the time, we can't create the outcomes we want is a major, major source of frustration and unhappiness. There are moments when it's clear that we're not in charge, but I have to concede this is more likely to be in times of despair when larger forces (such as the way our society is becoming less, not more humane and caring) are at work, which is not the same as clearly seeing that there really isn't anyone "driving my bus."

There are times when it can sort of be seen there's no one in control. For instance, "I" would like very much not to wolf down a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, as "I" know they're nutritionally empty and are not part of my normal efforts to eat well, but "I" get overwhelmed by the cravings that assail "me," and 30 minutes later there's an empty bag and orange fingertips.

I want to describe for you the general experience of looking, which I hadn’t gotten around to doing when you asked previously. Here is where I have to include a description of the spiritual concepts that come into play.

I close my eyes and look for an I/subject clearly distinct from everything that arises – external sounds, internal sounds (a.k.a. thoughts!), sensations, feelings. I occasionally note that the various objects that appear are objects and not a subject.

The “act of looking” that I do is framed in different ways. In other words, as I set to the task of looking, I begin by choosing a “method,” such as:

1. Looking back at the space I am looking out of.
2. Trying to observe the sense of “I am.”
3. Looking for that which I am calling “I.”
4. Trying to become aware of awareness/trying to invert consciousness upon itself (I know that these are not objects and cannot be known in the ordinary subject/object way, but the intent is to somehow trigger a direct non-conceptual awareness of whatever I actually am).
5. Observing all objects as objects and trying to withdraw awareness from them.
6. I know that I am, but nothing perceivable can be what I am, so try to focus on that fundamental sense of being.

As of yet, I have not found any observable I, and I have also not directly apperceived “my nature as pure consciousness,” (there’s the part that speaks to Advaita and Dzogchen).

[Canfora]

You have the new laptop. Thank you for your answers.

even though the direct answer to your questions is pretty straightforward, there is a vague feeling here that there is still something I am missing or that I haven't cleared up, and I want to convey that so it can be dealt with.

Maybe your expectations don't match what is being experienced right now?
What feels to be missing?

There is clearly no I to be found inside the body. The body is always there when looking, but "I" am not in there. From the perspective of looking, the body (legs, arms, torso) terminates upward in nothing.

Do you experience nothing? By nothing you mean you can't find a you that matches what the thinking says should be there? Or do you experience an absence, a void, a hole, a lack of substance, a border where something ends?

Hell no! An obnoxious, never-ending stream of thought junk is always chattering away. Often, more than one thing is going on at once in thought - there's almost always a song playing, plus all sorts of random thoughts. It is often felt as extremely unpleasant.

Ah... yes. Although I would say thoughts - in "sound" format - don't happen more than one at a time.
Don't you experience moments in which you're aware that the thinking is quiet?

In addition, there are thoughts that seem to be different - less random, more intentional, cohesive, and "directed," and these support the notion of an "I" that is thinking and willing. That I has not been found, of course, and there's a sense that this particular aspect of experience - the thoughts that seem less random - needs to be looked at carefully and cleared up.

What do you mean by the thoughts need to be cleared up? What for?

There are times when it can sort of be seen there's no one in control. For instance, "I" would like very much not to wolf down a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, as "I" know they're nutritionally empty and are not part of my normal efforts to eat well, but "I" get overwhelmed by the cravings that assail "me," and 30 minutes later there's an empty bag and orange fingertips.

I sure can relate with that one! This is one of the best explanations about why sometimes some of us may lack control over food that I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQxzGR0 ... neEasYQY7l. It's not relevant to what we are doing but maybe you will enjoy it.

I want to describe for you the general experience of looking, which I hadn’t gotten around to doing when you asked previously. Here is where I have to include a description of the spiritual concepts that come into play.

Uhh.... there is nothing spiritual in seeing something.

I close my eyes and look for an I/subject clearly distinct from everything that arises – external sounds, internal sounds (a.k.a. thoughts!), sensations, feelings. I occasionally note that the various objects that appear are objects and not a subject.

Okay. I did the same when I was looking for an I.
At the same time I'm here thinking that with eyes closed you aren't seeing what is here as it is. You can't see with eyes closed! And it's very likely that the thinking comes to first stage and distracts you.
Try seeing if an I is real with eyes open when you are doing stuff - walking in the street, taking a bath, cooking, talking with someone, etc (these are just suggestions, you can adapt them to your immediate experience) and let me know how that goes.

The “act of looking” that I do is framed in different ways. In other words, as I set to the task of looking, I begin by choosing a “method,” such as:

1. Looking back at the space I am looking out of.
2. Trying to observe the sense of “I am.”
3. Looking for that which I am calling “I.”
4. Trying to become aware of awareness/trying to invert consciousness upon itself (I know that these are not objects and cannot be known in the ordinary subject/object way, but the intent is to somehow trigger a direct non-conceptual awareness of whatever I actually am).
5. Observing all objects as objects and trying to withdraw awareness from them.
6. I know that I am, but nothing perceivable can be what I am, so try to focus on that fundamental sense of being.

As of yet, I have not found any observable I, and I have also not directly apperceived “my nature as pure consciousness,” (there’s the part that speaks to Advaita and Dzogchen).

You seem to be focusing mainly "inside". You wrote that there isn't a little self inside the body. And you wrote that "As of yet, I have not found any observable I". So, why do you keep looking "inside"? Do you expect that eventually you will find a real I where you can see there is none?

Regarding 4. do you think that "a direct non-conceptual awareness of whatever I actually am" needs to be triggered? If what you are isn't a thing, do you expect to be aware of it? Aware of what? Do you need to find what you are to be what you are? Or are you already what you are, without the need to lift a little finger to be what you are?

As of yet, I have not found any observable I, and I have also not directly apperceived “my nature as pure consciousness,” (there’s the part that speaks to Advaita and Dzogchen).

You can only know what you are not. If it is true that your nature is pure consciousness, aren't you already that? Doesn't that mean that you already are whatever you are, even when you think you need to do something to perceive your own nature?

It seems to me that you are trying to find the manifestation of a concept: consciousness. Isn't what is here now as it the pure consciousness you've been looking for? Consciousness is "on", yes? You are aware of being conscious, of perceiving what is here. There is the seeing, the touching, the smelling, the hearing, the tasting,... isn't that "pure consciousness" and "nature"?

[Aphorism8]

Replies in BOLD.

You have the new laptop. Thank you for your answers.

even though the direct answer to your questions is pretty straightforward, there is a vague feeling here that there is still something I am missing or that I haven't cleared up, and I want to convey that so it can be dealt with.
Maybe your expectations don't match what is being experienced right now?
What feels to be missing? Maybe it’s just a matter of incorrect expectations, but I have to admit I have expected that the direct seeing that there is no “I” would be clear, obvious, and beyond doubt, and I all have at the moment is doubt and uncertainty.

There is clearly no I to be found inside the body. The body is always there when looking, but "I" am not in there. From the perspective of looking, the body (legs, arms, torso) terminates upward in nothing.
Do you experience nothing? By nothing you mean you can't find a you that matches what the thinking says should be there? Or do you experience an absence, a void, a hole, a lack of substance, a border where something ends? No border. Simply that, in looking at the body, all that is seen is that it is always there, even though there is no I to be found there, and it appears visually to fade into empty space.

Hell no! An obnoxious, never-ending stream of thought junk is always chattering away. Often, more than one thing is going on at once in thought - there's almost always a song playing, plus all sorts of random thoughts. It is often felt as extremely unpleasant.
Ah... yes. Although I would say thoughts - in "sound" format - don't happen more than one at a time.
Don't you experience moments in which you're aware that the thinking is quiet? (Very rarely and briefly)

In addition, there are thoughts that seem to be different - less random, more intentional, cohesive, and "directed," and these support the notion of an "I" that is thinking and willing. That I has not been found, of course, and there's a sense that this particular aspect of experience - the thoughts that seem less random - needs to be looked at carefully and cleared up.
What do you mean by the thoughts need to be cleared up? What for? (With the thoughts that seem less random, it still sometimes feels like I’m intentionally thinking them. I know that’s not the case, and need to look at that until it’s clear.)

There are times when it can sort of be seen there's no one in control. For instance, "I" would like very much not to wolf down a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, as "I" know they're nutritionally empty and are not part of my normal efforts to eat well, but "I" get overwhelmed by the cravings that assail "me," and 30 minutes later there's an empty bag and orange fingertips.

I sure can relate with that one! This is one of the best explanations about why sometimes some of us may lack control over food that I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQxzGR0 ... neEasYQY7l. It's not relevant to what we are doing but maybe you will enjoy it.

I want to describe for you the general experience of looking, which I hadn’t gotten around to doing when you asked previously. Here is where I have to include a description of the spiritual concepts that come into play.
Uhh.... there is nothing spiritual in seeing something. (Fair enough. I just wanted to put all the cards on the table.)

I close my eyes and look for an I/subject clearly distinct from everything that arises – external sounds, internal sounds (a.k.a. thoughts!), sensations, feelings. I occasionally note that the various objects that appear are objects and not a subject.
Okay. I did the same when I was looking for an I.
At the same time I'm here thinking that with eyes closed you aren't seeing what is here as it is. You can't see with eyes closed! And it's very likely that the thinking comes to first stage and distracts you.
Try seeing if an I is real with eyes open when you are doing stuff - walking in the street, taking a bath, cooking, talking with someone, etc (these are just suggestions, you can adapt them to your immediate experience) and let me know how that goes. (Will do)

The “act of looking” that I do is framed in different ways. In other words, as I set to the task of looking, I begin by choosing a “method,” such as:

1. Looking back at the space I am looking out of.
2. Trying to observe the sense of “I am.”
3. Looking for that which I am calling “I.”
4. Trying to become aware of awareness/trying to invert consciousness upon itself (I know that these are not objects and cannot be known in the ordinary subject/object way, but the intent is to somehow trigger a direct non-conceptual awareness of whatever I actually am).
5. Observing all objects as objects and trying to withdraw awareness from them.
6. I know that I am, but nothing perceivable can be what I am, so try to focus on that fundamental sense of being.

As of yet, I have not found any observable I, and I have also not directly apperceived “my nature as pure consciousness,” (there’s the part that speaks to Advaita and Dzogchen).
You seem to be focusing mainly "inside". You wrote that there isn't a little self inside the body. And you wrote that "As ofyet, I have not found any observable I". So, why do you keep looking "inside"? Do you expect that eventually you will find a real I where you can see there is none? (No, but in line with my admission above, I’m saddled by an expectation of something very clear and obvious.)

Regarding 4. do you think that "a direct non-conceptual awareness of whatever I actually am" needs to be triggered? If what you are isn't a thing, do you expect to be aware of it? Aware of what? Do you need to find what you are to be what you are? Or are you already what you are, without the need to lift a little finger to be what you are? (All of this is second-hand stuff from too much Advaita Vedanta. Feel free to tell me to flush it.)

As of yet, I have not found any observable I, and I have also not directly apperceived “my nature as pure consciousness,” (there’s the part that speaks to Advaita and Dzogchen).
You can only know what you are not. If it is true that your nature is pure consciousness, aren't you already that? Doesn't that mean that you already are whatever you are, even when you think you need to do something to perceive your own nature? (Yes, whatever I am, I already am. I think the notion of knowing what I am is baggage; as you say, you can only know what you are not.)

It seems to me that you are trying to find the manifestation of a concept: consciousness. Isn't what is here now as it the pure consciousness you've been looking for? Consciousness is "on", yes? You are aware of being conscious, of perceiving what is here. There is the seeing, the touching, the smelling, the hearing, the tasting,... isn't that "pure consciousness" and "nature"? (It has to be. I must resume looking, eyes open.)

[Canfora]

Hello and good morning,

You can learn how to use the quote function here - although using bold is fine also: https://www.liberationunleashed.com/nat ... ?f=4&t=660

Maybe it’s just a matter of incorrect expectations, but I have to admit I have expected that the direct seeing that there is no “I” would be clear, obvious, and beyond doubt, and I all have at the moment is doubt and uncertainty.

I suppose that the doubt and uncertainty are caused by thinking.
How do you know if something is real (actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed) or not?
If I tell you you have socks of different colors on your feet, what do you do to know if I'm telling the truth?
You can think about the moment when you put your socks on your feet and try to remember the colors they have.
Or you can look at your feet and check the colors.
Which method would be more effective if you want to be sure? Thinking or seeing what is there?

No border. Simply that, in looking at the body, all that is seen is that it is always there, even though there is no I to be found there, and it appears visually to fade into empty space.

Okay.

Very rarely and briefly

Thoughts appear to be real. Are you aware that most of the time they are about something that isn't even happening?

Fair enough. I just wanted to put all the cards on the table.

Sure, no problem. Maybe I'm being picky.

No, but in line with my admission above, I’m saddled by an expectation of something very clear and obvious.

And it is! Do you see a you? If you don't, isn't that not(seeing) very clear and obvious?

All of this is second-hand stuff from too much Advaita Vedanta. Feel free to tell me to flush it.

You'll flush it or not. It's okay to have a Advaita Vedanta approach. But it limits your point of view. You expect to see things not as they are but how you have learn they are.

Yes, whatever I am, I already am. I think the notion of knowing what I am is baggage; as you say, you can only know what you are not.

Yes. What you are can't be grasped by thinking about it. We "miss" it because we are so used to being it (it is not the "right" word to talk about what we are but there aren't labels that match it - it isn't like labeling an object, for example: "this is a cup").

It has to be. I must resume looking, eyes open.

Ahah! Don't trust me. I may be deluded! Have a look. What do you see when you focus "outside" the thinking realm? Have a go at it. Do you see what surrounds you? Of course you do. Do you see a self in there? What do you see? The thinking focus in "me", "I"... Can this entity, this I, be found? Have a look. Spend some time seeing what is there.

[Aphorism8]

Still plugging away here.

[Canfora]

What's going on?

[Aphorism8]

I don’t know if this is anything or not, but I was on a plane the other day, and I was listening to some music on my headphones and just close my eyes to relax for a while. For a very brief moment there seem to be nothing there but the music.

[Canfora]

I don’t know if this is anything or not, but I was on a plane the other day, and I was listening to some music on my headphones and just close my eyes to relax for a while. For a very brief moment there seem to be nothing there but the music.

Sounds like a nice experience. And now? It is very likely that it seems there is something here. Is it a separate self? Can you find something here that is a self?

[Aphorism8]

Things seem/feel different than they did during that very brief experience. I don't know if I was seeing the absence of self or if it was just absorption in the object (the music, in that case). But that's probably not terribly important.

Right now there remains the usual vague feeling of being a self or that there must be one, but as always, there isn't anything that can actually be found; the term "I" cannot be pinned down to anything that can be observed.

[Canfora]

Things seem/feel different than they did during that very brief experience.

Yes, impermanence rules.

Right now there remains the usual vague feeling of being a self or that there must be one, but as always, there isn't anything that can actually be found; the term "I" cannot be pinned down to anything that can be observed.

From 0 to 10, being 0 believing 100% in a separate self and 10 seeing through the illusion, where would you say you are at?

If the answer is inferior to 10, what seems to be causing the illusion at the time being? Do you expect something to change? Do you fear something that may happen? What seems to be missing?

Hug,
C

[Aphorism8]

Definitely not 10. Maybe 5. Further looking required to respond to the second part.

[Aphorism8]

I think part of the lack of certainty may be, in part, lingering expectations that there will be something very obvious when the illusion is seen through.

Some of the baggage is still at work too. There's still no observable self. But here's how the thinking sometimes goes: OK, there is no object that can be observed that is myself. But I knew that. "I" am not an object, but am the subject, and if the correct looking/inversion can be accomplished, the nature of myself as subject can be apperceived directly in a non-subject/object manner. That hasn't occurred yet, so I must not be doing it right........etc., etc.

All that being said, I want to try to find words to describe the last handful of days. For the last four days, it has felt like I have experienced everything with "less self-reference." Maybe that's because I've spent time every day for a while now investigating all this.

Even though these particular days have been rather ordinary, and in fact rather shitty in the case of Thursday and Friday (workdays that were so full of meetings that I got very little actual work done), they've seemed possibly more tolerable than usual, and I've been wondering if that's been because everything hasn't referred back to a self. As you know, I've been struggling to understand how the self illusion contributes to suffering, and although I can't say I'm any closer to understanding, it has seemed as though I may have experienced it.

[Canfora]

Hello,

I think part of the lack of certainty may be, in part, lingering expectations that there will be something very obvious when the illusion is seen through.

What do you mean by "there will be something very obvious"?
Let's say you believe the sneaky cat of your next door neighbor is inside your kitchen, looking for a snack.
How will you know the cat is there or not?
You may think and think and think about the possibilities of the cat being in the kitchen or you can go to the kitchen and look inside every place a cat could hide until you are sure if there is a cat in the kitchen or not.

In which case would it be obvious the existence or lack of existence of a cat in your kitchen?

If you are not sure about the illusion there are places you haven't looked at. Because it is only when you see what is here as it is that it becomes obvious what is an illusion or not.

All that being said, I want to try to find words to describe the last handful of days. For the last four days, it has felt like I have experienced everything with "less self-reference." Maybe that's because I've spent time every day for a while now investigating all this.

What do you mean by investigating all this? Can you please describe what you do when you investigate something? Just to check if you are looking or thinking about these stuff.

Even though these particular days have been rather ordinary, and in fact rather shitty in the case of Thursday and Friday (workdays that were so full of meetings that I got very little actual work done), they've seemed possibly more tolerable than usual, and I've been wondering if that's been because everything hasn't referred back to a self. As you know, I've been struggling to understand how the self illusion contributes to suffering, and although I can't say I'm any closer to understanding, it has seemed as though I may have experienced it.

Maybe things seem to be more tolerable because you weren't resisting as much to unpleasant experiences. I don't think less suffering is a way to be sure the illusion is being realized. The belief that you are a self separate from life can be a strong shield that keeps suffering at bay. When the illusion starts to crack, the apparent shield can be less efficient in keeping a distance between "me" and "what is happening outside me" which can cause a increase in suffering. The contrary may also happen, a higher acceptance, less resistance, less suffering. We are all different. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that seeing the illusion isn't followed by a specific list of consequences. Sometimes people expect this and that to happen after they see the illusion which may cause confusion, doubts and more seeking. It's okay and normal to try to understand how something works but - if we are trying to make sense of the landscape by following a map in a rigorous way, it can lead to a biased view of the landscape.

Some of the baggage is still at work too. There's still no observable self. But here's how the thinking sometimes goes: OK, there is no object that can be observed that is myself. But I knew that. "I" am not an object, but am the subject, and if the correct looking/inversion can be accomplished, the nature of myself as subject can be apperceived directly in a non-subject/object manner. That hasn't occurred yet, so I must not be doing it right........etc., etc.

Having baggage its normal. That's called being a human :)
You have noticed how it seems there is a subject, well done!
When you have some free time you can read these articles from Ilona:

The Trick of Language - http://markedeternal.blogspot.pt/2012/0 ... guage.html
Labels - http://markedeternal.blogspot.pt/2012/05/labels.html

After reading both articles and pondering the implications of what they say for a while, I would suggest you do the exercise that is in the labels article. Have a go at it and let me know how it goes for you:

• "do this little experiment that won't even take much of your time. All you need is 20 minutes, a pen & paper.
  
  First write what you are experiencing right now using words I and me. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of here now.
  
  Like this-
  I am laying in bed. I am hearing the rain, I am typing these words..
  
  Do it for 10 minutes. Watch the body, are there any sensations of tightening or relaxing?
  
  Then for next 10 minutes write without words I and me. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs:
  Waiting for next thought, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the rain.
  
  Again watch what is happening in the body.
  
  Now compare the two ways to label experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?"

Looking forward to your reply,
C