The Gate

Xain

Certainly, on some level I am seeing what is being pointed to and seeing there is no inherently existent self.

I feel that the realisation needs some time to really sink in - it is currently like slightly hazy seeing.

Andy

Often it can be useful to 'ruthlessly' point and interrogate each 'I' that is mentioned, but it can become counter-productive to the conversation here after a while. Feel free to use normal language.

Most of the time there are expectations which are unfulfilled. Like 'Something was meant to change' or 'It can't be as simple as this' etc

I'm here if you want to chat through things, although I feel you are equipped with the tools for your own looking and examination see if there is an inherently existing self lurking anywhere. I'll be here until you are confident that the illusion has been 'seen through' and we can then go through the six further questions.

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

Thanks - that is helpful.

I'll keep you posted. And thanks for your all help of course.

Andy

Feel free to chat - As I say, I'll back off from the 'I' interrogation and we can talk normally.
What was expected? Did you expect thoughts or experience to change in some way?
Did you expect the 'I' thought to stop, or perhaps that every 'I' thought appearing would be automatically seen to be illusory? Did you expect to experientially realise there is no separation or something?
Where is the sticking point for 'you'? ;-)

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

What was expected? Did you expect thoughts or experience to change in some way?
Did you expect the 'I' thought to stop, or perhaps that every 'I' thought appearing would be automatically seen to be illusory? Did you expect to experientially realise there is no separation or something?
Where is the sticking point for 'you'? ;-)

I thought there would be a vivid seeing. During this process, when seeing has been clear the subject disappeared leaving only raw experience. I thought vivid seeing would therefore reveal the I to non existent in all experience. However, I keep returning to that subject object way of relating. Once I take a good look, the subject is revealed to be imaginary.

I also had the experience where there was this sudden dawning that there really was no I. That felt like a real revelation, but it soon faded again.

Clear seeing seems to happen when I am relaxed. As soon as a little stress comes back in, it is difficult to see clearly.

During my Buddhist training, whilst meditating on the "emptiness of the I" , the I would just suddenly be gone (because it was never there). So it seems it is possible to have this knowing without an I doing the knowing.

Andy

I thought there would be a vivid seeing. During this process, when seeing has been clear the subject disappeared leaving only raw experience. I thought vivid seeing would therefore reveal the I to non existent in all experience.

So you were expecting a new permanent experience?
This expectation is built on the assumption that there is a separate self that has different experiences. So the experience 'I' am having now will be different from the experience 'I' will have, in the future when I get it.

Is any experience permanent?

However, I keep returning to that subject object way of relating. Once I take a good look, the subject is revealed to be imaginary.

Is there even one looking? Is there one relating in a specific way?

So it seems it is possible to have this knowing without an I doing the knowing.

Perhaps we could say 'without something separate doing the knowing' - I would concur with that.

But it seems to me from your description that there is a definite belief that there is a separate self having 'this' experience now (and it's duality) which will be different from the experience in the future (when 'I' get it, without duality).

What do you think?
What is the future anyway?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

So you were expecting a new permanent experience?
This expectation is built on the assumption that there is a separate self that has different experiences. So the experience 'I' am having now will be different from the experience 'I' will have, in the future when I get it.

Is any experience permanent?

I see what you are saying. I guess the expectation is that once it is seen that the I has no real existence, the experience of suffering (in its widest sense: Dukka) comes to an end. I can see this expectation but I am not sure how to drop it. Of course no experience is permanent. I have never seen liberation as an experience. But I can see that subtly i have been believing in an I that gets liberated. So I can kind of see what you are pointing to.

However, I keep returning to that subject object way of relating. Once I take a good look, the subject is revealed to be imaginary.

Is there even one looking? Is there one relating in a specific way?

I guess with this I have to come back to the so called illusory I. Whilst I can not find a truly existing I, there would seem to be an illusory I. Actually I don't even concur with that term. Instead, I would say a virtual I. The virtual I would seem to be the realm of thought (which of course lacks substantiality) and creates the impression of an I having experiences. So, all that seems to be going on is Thought looking at Thought. So no one is really looking, but thought appears to be looking. Yet beyond thought there seems to be seeing. Seeing without a Self.

Sorry, clicked the submit button before I was done.

So it seems it is possible to have this knowing without an I doing the knowing.

That seems to make sense in my experience

But it seems to me from your description that there is a definite belief that there is a separate self having 'this' experience now (and it's duality) which will be different from the experience in the future (when 'I' get it, without duality).

Yes, that would seem to be what I still believe deep down, though as soon as I look at it I see it is not the case.

I will keep on examining it.

Andy

I guess the expectation is that once it is seen that the I has no real existence, the experience of suffering (in its widest sense: Dukka) comes to an end. I can see this expectation but I am not sure how to drop it.

You don't drop it - You realise it is an illusion by looking for the one that Dukka refers to.
In buddhist terms, the realisation breaks the first two fetters but there are still other things to look at . . desire, craving, aversion, conceit, restlessness, ignorance . . .

I guess with this I have to come back to the so called illusory I. Whilst I can not find a truly existing I, there would seem to be an illusory I.

In Buddhist terms, we can say that 'I' is empty. You have realised that it has a dependency on thought, does it not?

The virtual I would seem to be the realm of thought (which of course lacks substantiality) and creates the impression of an I having experiences.

Yes. Exactly.

So, all that seems to be going on is Thought looking at Thought. So no one is really looking, but thought appears to be looking.

You believe thoughts can actually do things in literal terms?
Have you ever witnessed a thought doing something?
Have you ever witnessed a thought as some inherently existing 'thing' that performs functions?

Yet beyond thought there seems to be seeing. Seeing without a Self.

Perhaps you could consider the Bahiya sutta?
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen
In 'seeing' is there anything other than 'what is seen'?
Why assume a function of 'seeing' is occurring? Could this also be empty? Dependant on thought?
If 'seeing' is said to be occurring, clearly that is a duality requiring two separate items - A seer, and that which is seen.

Xain ♥

. . . but I am not sure how to drop it.

What 'I' could drop it?
What 'I' has a choice to do so?

Xain ♥

Xain

I can see everything you are pointing to. Today I am seeing more clearly. I will post in more detail tomorrow when I have more time.

Thanks Andy

Hi Xain

Firstly let me respond to some of your points:

You don't drop it - You realise it is an illusion by looking for the one that Dukka refers to.
In buddhist terms, the realisation breaks the first two fetters but there are still other things to look at . . desire, craving, aversion, conceit, restlessness, ignorance . . .

I understand what you are saying: this seems clear today

In Buddhist terms, we can say that 'I' is empty. You have realised that it has a dependency on thought, does it not?

In my meditation this morning, I sat and watched thought to see if this is true. I arrived at a 95% certainty. I experimented with blocking thought which I can do for a while, just to see if there was still a sense of I. I will say there was a reduced sense of I, which perhaps was dependent upon a subtle level of thinking. In the main, it would seem to be the case that the I is dependent upon thought and is therefore empty (of existing from it's own side)

So, all that seems to be going on is Thought looking at Thought. So no one is really looking, but thought appears to be looking.

You believe thoughts can actually do things in literal terms?
Have you ever witnessed a thought doing something?
Have you ever witnessed a thought as some inherently existing 'thing' that performs functions?

I actually intended to write: "all that seems to be going on is Thought Thinking About Thought" No one is really looking but thought appears to be looking"

I will add now that of course thoughts can not do anything in literal terms. They are a virtual reality and create effects within a virtual reality

Perhaps you could consider the Bahiya sutta?
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen
In 'seeing' is there anything other than 'what is seen'?
Why assume a function of 'seeing' is occurring? Could this also be empty? Dependant on thought?
If 'seeing' is said to be occurring, clearly that is a duality requiring two separate items - A seer, and that which is seen.

I like this and concur with it. I keep coming back to this as actual experience. This gives me great clarity


What was really hitting me this morning was the absolute shock and incredulity of the possibility that the I is fabricated by thought. If I had of arrived at 100% clarity I think I would have been blown away. Where I am now is this massive doubt is present about whether the I really exists. It is as if every investigation until now was done in some different context; almost like playing around with an idea. Now suddenly the inquiry has taken on a very different level. I wonder if that makes sense at all and whether you or others would have gone through that?

Best Wishes

Andy

I will add now that of course thoughts can not do anything in literal terms. They are a virtual reality and create effects within a virtual reality

Good. Just needed to make sure.

I will say there was a reduced sense of I, which perhaps was dependent upon a subtle level of thinking.

This is excellent. Yes, the subtleties of thought and conceptualisation go very deep. Notice the labelling / conceptualising mechanism at work.

If 'seeing' is said to be occurring, clearly that is a duality requiring two separate items - A seer, and that which is seen.
I like this and concur with it. I keep coming back to this as actual experience. This gives me great clarity

Experientially, there may still be an apparent distance in the senses - hence there may still appear to be a distance between the sounds being heard and the apparent hearer of the sounds or a distance between what is seen and an apparent seer of the that sight. This may be seen-through in this guidance, or is something that can be examined later on. Nothing changes, but there can be a gestalt shift.
It is enough here just to realise that 'I' has no inherent existence.

Where I am now is this massive doubt is present about whether the I really exists.

Just be careful with 'exists' - This can mean different things.

Let us instead try to instead take a difference between a conventional / conceptual view, and an absolutist view.
Clearly there is a conventional / conceptual 'I' that is based in thought. It allows communication to occur, hence I can say that 'I' am conversing with 'you'.
But is this 'I' anything more than that? Does it have absolute inherent existence.
If 'I' were not empty, it would have no dependencies. Yet we see that 'I' is dependant on thought.
Without a thought 'I' occurring, what is it? Where is it?

What 'I' is there with doubts anyway? Can that one be found? Or is that also another conventional designation?
An assumption for the purposes of communication?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

Hi Xain

Just be careful with 'exists' - This can mean different things.

Let us instead try to instead take a difference between a conventional / conceptual view, and an absolutist view.
Clearly there is a conventional / conceptual 'I' that is based in thought. It allows communication to occur, hence I can say that 'I' am conversing with 'you'.
But is this 'I' anything more than that? Does it have absolute inherent existence.
If 'I' were not empty, it would have no dependencies. Yet we see that 'I' is dependant on thought.
Without a thought 'I' occurring, what is it? Where is it?

What 'I' is there with doubts anyway? Can that one be found? Or is that also another conventional designation?
An assumption for the purposes of communication?

Yes, I understand this. It is of course the way the way things are explained in Buddhism.

This is where I am up to now:

- in sensory experience I can find no inherently existent self. In every day life there is still a distance as you described, though as soon as I look at the experience, there is no distance. There is just what is there which includes my body and thoughts.

- as I sit and watch thoughts, it is more and more clear that the I is just this appearance made of thought. The thoughts are insubstantial and transient and therefore the I must be too. So I can see its ultimate and conventional nature. The more I look at thought the more strange it seems that this has not really being examined like this before. Our lives are based on thought which we strongly associate to "who we are" yet there is nothing there of substance when we look.

I can still see though that there is I trying to get all of this. I am just noticing the I trying to "get it" and seeing its emptiness, yet I find another concept of I doing that too. It could be infinite. Do I just carry on looking?

Best Wishes

Andy

as I sit and watch thoughts, it is more and more clear that the I is just this appearance made of thought. The thoughts are insubstantial and transient and therefore the I must be too. So I can see its ultimate and conventional nature. The more I look at thought the more strange it seems that this has not really being examined like this before. Our lives are based on thought which we strongly associate to "who we are" yet there is nothing there of substance when we look.

Yes. Excellent.
"With our thoughts, we make the world"

I can still see though that there is I trying to get all of this. I am just noticing the I trying to "get it" and seeing its emptiness, yet I find another concept of I doing that too. It could be infinite. Do I just carry on looking?

Is there an 'I' trying to get this?
Has there ever been an 'I' trying to get anything?
What 'I' is looking?
What 'I' has ever looked?

Xain ♥