Am I through the gate.

[Xain]

Let's take a different tack.

Let's say there is . . . just life . . . it's happening . . . all by itself . . . no control . . . no choice . . . just all 'going on'.

And then there is a belief you have that there there is a mechanism here that is responsible for something.
That's not 'life' as I described above. Instead, this is something that has some form of control. It 'makes something occur'.
(This line does not imply that there is a separate YOU with a belief - But I have to write it like this so it is understood.)

So from this perspective - What is this mechanism? Where is it? How does it operate? What does it do?
Why is not part of 'life' as I described in above?

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,

I hope you had a good weekend. Thank you for your three posts. I have only just seen the last two as I have just got back from the cottage. I did take a print out of your post on Thursday and worked on it. The results of this thinking and looking are fragmented.

Why is not part of 'life' as I described in above?

When I was away I didn't quite consider it like that. Although I am struggling, and because I am struggling I can see that you are on to something. I can't quite see things as “just life . . . it's happening . . . all by itself . . . no control . . . no choice . . . just all 'going on”. At the moment that seems like an idea to me, perhaps because it can't be seen. What is easy at the moment is to see thoughts and actions as automatic, because I can see that there is no control, but that just means 'I' am not in control. That is why 'there is no self' could be so confidently stated.

But automatic does not mean there is not control behind it. When a machine is automatic it has been pre-programmed, in other words there is still control behind it. A rabbit may hop around without any 'self' control but is there something else controlling it? Even if it just a set of rules. This is philosophical so it not something that is being pursued to find answers; it is a concern.

At the moment what is going on, has to be a guess, has to be an idea, so in that respect it is clear that there is no actual evidence for an additional element being in control.

Part of the struggle is due to the fact that what is going on can not be seen at the moment. Can it be seen? Is that possible?

Another part of the struggle is far more simple; it's just tough to see things as not being controlled. To believe and understand that.

You did say you wanted to change tack, but my answer to this question is relevant I think.

Describe this 'mechanism'. Tell me what it is responsible for and what it does.
Where do you believe it is located - It must have a location, else you might be dealing something which is entirely made up.

I wish I had a model for this mechanism because it would be something to work with. Everything around this issue is vague and confusing at the moment. There has been a struggle to scrape together enough coherent stuff to write in this post.

I am a little tired so things may appear differently tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Mav.

[Xain]

I can't quite see things as “just life . . . it's happening . . . all by itself . . . no control . . . no choice . . . just all 'going on”. At the moment that seems like an idea to me

Well it is an idea - It is an idea in direct contrast to it's opposite that life is NOT happening all by itself - that there IS an inherent person here with choice and control.
In some way, even this is not quite true . . . but I have to words to attempt to explain things, and I can only do that by referring to it's opposite.
This entire conversation is a whole host of ideas.

At the moment that seems like an idea to me, perhaps because it can't be seen.

It can be realised by looking for what it is that is in control.

But automatic does not mean there is not control behind it.

Automatic IS controlled. What is the 'I' running on automatic?
This question is simply you 'trying to work it out'. There is nothing to work out.

Part of the struggle is due to the fact that what is going on can not be seen at the moment. Can it be seen? Is that possible?

Gravity cannot be seen. It is really operating? Or is it a theory . . . An IDEA about what is operating?

Xain ♥

[Xain]

"There is an unseen mechanism causing me to behave in this way"
What is 'me'?

You are still clinging to a belief in an inherent self.
Maybe also clinging to a belief in 'God'.

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,
Responding to your post, I feel as if I have entered an exam about a subject I know nothing about. I have had a crack at giving my best answers but, they are just born out of confusion. That is meant as a kind of apology for what you are about to read. It's a mess.

Well it is an idea - It is an idea in direct contrast to it's opposite that life is NOT happening all by itself - that there IS an inherent person here with choice and control.

There is thirst; there is making a cup of tea; there is drinking the tea. That happens without a process, without a mechanism? Is that what you are saying? If there is a belief in a mechanism, that is a belief in a person? Is that what you are saying?

It can be realised by looking for what it is that is in control.

I don't know how to do that.
My problem with this is that there does seem to be a process; feel hungry-eat. That process is what I think of as the mechanism. The mechanism controls. That is what is seen in a sense.
It would seem a huge leap of faith to imagine that pulling the hand away from the iron was not because the iron was hot and there was pain. The things are clearly connected. There is control and reaction of some sort isn't there?

Automatic IS controlled. What is the 'I' running on automatic?

The body is running on automatic without a 'I' controlling it. I see running on automatic as running without a separate 'I' controlling it, but that does not mean that it is without motive. There is walking TO the shops, not just walking around bumping into things. It is not random.

This question is simply you 'trying to work it out'. There is nothing to work out.

I don't ignore it when guides say this, I find it fascinating and frustrating but I don't know what the alternative is.

Gravity cannot be seen. It is really operating? Or is it a theory . . . An IDEA about what is operating?

Sorry I can't answer that. I did think about it. It's too complex. There is an idea there, and things fall to the ground, so I don't know what to say.

"There is an unseen mechanism causing me to behave in this way"
What is 'me'

There is an unseen mechanism causing a body to behave in this way.

You are still clinging to a belief in an inherent self.

I am reassured that you can say that with such certainty. From what I gather from your post, entertaining the possibility of a mechanism is classed as believing in the self? Is that correct.

Maybe also clinging to a belief in 'God'.

I think I can see why you said that. Something to do with the mechanism, the controller? As far as I understand God is a label that meaning has been attached to in many different ways. The term God is meaningless to 'me'. Or should I say; meaningless to this part of the mechanism.

I realise that every thing written here is a result of not understanding.

Thank you Xain.

[Xain]

I have had a crack at giving my best answers but, they are just born out of confusion. That is meant as a kind of apology for what you are about to read. It's a mess.

It's no problem - You can only talk from the understanding / position which you currently have.

Let me start out straight away by bringing this whole thing down to earth.
This guidance addresses one thing - 'I' - The self.
We deconstruct the self. We see that all references to an inherent self are entirely thought based (the content of thoughts).
What we seem to be doing in THIS dialogue now is attempting to deconstruct everything else.

There is thirst; there is making a cup of tea; there is drinking the tea. That happens without a process, without a mechanism? Is that what you are saying? If there is a belief in a mechanism, that is a belief in a person? Is that what you are saying?

Thirst, tea, cup, drinking . . . all perfectly acceptable ideas of objects and functions in the world.
All these things can be deconstructed in such a way as to reveal that none of these things exist inherently.

Mechanism?
If there is a belief that 'I' is a mechanism, it can be examined (that specific belief).
THE BELIEF - 'I am thinking' . . . the 'I' is a mechanism that produces thoughts.
We examine it and we are unable to find an inherent self 'I' producing thoughts.
For this guidance, we can say that only the thought itself is found / experienced - No separate witness - No separate creator.

Or . . . in a different way of saying things.
'I am thinking a thought' is a conventional description.
It can be realised that there is no inherent 'I', no inherent process called 'thinking' and indeed, no inherent 'thought'.
Why don't we go this far? It makes it almost impossible to talk about.

My problem with this is that there does seem to be a process; feel hungry-eat.

But you are jumping the gun! You have just put in a massive assumption. You need to deconstruct it's parts.
What 'I' is experiencing hunger? What 'I' is deciding to go and get something to eat?
What 'I' can choose which food to eat? What 'I' is eating? What 'I' is controlling the movement of the body?
What 'I' feels the food, tastes the food, smells the food?

It would seem a huge leap of faith to imagine that pulling the hand away from the iron was not because the iron was hot and there was pain.

I feel we might have hit upon something important. You are suggesting here that the hand is doing the feeling, and feels the iron which is hot.
Does the body feel things external to it?

The things are clearly connected.

Sure - They are connected by thought. Your thoughts / assumptions are suggesting one thing happens because of the other.
Your thoughts also suggest that there is mechanism involved.

There is control and reaction of some sort isn't there?

As an appearance / a conventional description? Or something inherently real that has control and is reacting?

The body is running on automatic without a 'I' controlling it.

Are you a separate body running on automatic?

I don't ignore it when guides say this, I find it fascinating and frustrating but I don't know what the alternative is.

The alternative is to examine the assumptions you are making in the questions you are asking.

There is an unseen mechanism causing a body to behave in this way.

Aha! It seems we are getting down to it.
So you believe that you are a body?

Maybe also clinging to a belief in 'God'.
I think I can see why you said that.

It wasn't a flippant comment - You have addressed several times 'an unseen mechanism'.
What else to suggest?

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,
I really appreciate all of the work you put into that post. I feel awful though because I realise this has become way too complex for me.

What we seem to be doing in THIS dialogue now is attempting to deconstruct everything else.

I did not intend to go off piste.

It seemed as if there was no belief in the 'I'.
You are sure that there is still some, and so I was looking at where this belief may be hiding as it not a concious belief.
You have said that 'I' can't figure it out and that is true, but I don't know where or how to look.

I think what I have written here is reasonably safe.

I feel bad that you went to the trouble of writing that post because I can't keep up. I am not just giving you a short responses because I can't be bothered. It is genuinely incomprehensible at this point.
I will answer the little bits that I can.

For this guidance, we can say that only the thought itself is found / experienced - No separate witness - No separate creator.

You may think this unlikely but what you have said here is understood. I may have understood incorrectly of course but actually what you have written here is easy to understand. However, I keep going back to the creator of things because I am exploring it to see if there is a belief in a self there. The creator of reaction for example feels real. It is not seen as you say but it exists in thought. It is relied upon as a working assumption throughout the day. It is relied upon because I can't see an alternative.

What 'I' feels the food, tastes the food, smells the food?

There is no 'I'. Care was taken not to mention one in my comment. (That is not meant to sound angry)

Does the body feel things external to it?

There are sensations. It is not possible to feel the body or things external to it. A paradox because sensations trigger a reaction. This seems messed up and it is. It is a paradox at the moment.

There is control and reaction of some sort isn't there?

As an appearance / a conventional description? Or something inherently real that has control and is reacting?

I don't know, but there is a strong feeling that it is something real, but I know it is not me, the self. I don't know how to look at that, how to explore that. That feeling of control might in your eyes be a self? I have tried to ask this, but I can't work out your responses. Or, more confusingly the self might somehow be hidden in the reliance of the working assumption of a mechanism.

Are you a separate body running on automatic?

The 'I' is an assumption. It does not exist.

There is an unseen mechanism causing a body to behave in this way.

Aha! It seems we are getting down to it.
So you believe that you are a body?

No. I thought that there was a body being controlled by a mechanism. There is no 'self' involved in that. I know that the body is not 'I'. The self is an assumption.

Maybe also clinging to a belief in 'God'.,,,
It wasn't a flippant comment - You have addressed several times 'an unseen mechanism'.
What else to suggest?

I didn't think it was flippant. I could see how an unseen mechanism relates to God. I understood why you 'went there', I just did not explain that clearly. Sorry.
Best wishes,
Mav.

[Xain]

You are sure that there is still some, and so I was looking at where this belief may be hiding as it not a concious belief.

The word 'mechanism' is troubling. A mechanism is a thing which makes something happen.
If you have a belief that there is a mechanism 'here' which makes something happen, then that is as much or a problem as saying 'I am here and I make things happen'.

In the usual way, we would look for the 'I' that makes things happen and fail to find it . . . other than in the content of thoughts.

What you appear to be saying is that there is definitely a 'mechanism' . . . but looking for the mechanism . . . you fail to find it. However, rather than conceding that the 'mechanism' is just a belief you have . . . you are saying 'There MUST be an inherent mechanism' . . . but it's 'unseen'.

You are sure that there is still some, and so I was looking at where this belief may be hiding as it not a concious belief.

Are you specifically referring to 'suffering' in some way?
You believe that realising 'no self' will cause suffering to stop? That thoughts will not somehow convert themselves to unpleasant sensations?

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,
I wrote out a long answer to your post but in doing so I think I have come to the crux of the problem. I have just answered one of your questions here. I will post the long version if you wish; I have saved it, but I think it is a lot of waffle.

What you appear to be saying is that there is definitely a 'mechanism' . . . but looking for the mechanism . . . you fail to find it. However, rather than conceding that the 'mechanism' is just a belief you have . . . you are saying 'There MUST be an inherent mechanism' . . . but it's 'unseen'.

On the one hand I can see that the mechanism is an idea because things like that are, like you said,

For this guidance, we can say that only the thought itself is found / experienced - No separate witness - No separate creator.

but I can't find a way of looking at the mechanism that blows it apart.

Thoughts were assumed to be thought up by me. When looking we can see that thoughts just arise and that there is no control over them. I can't formulate a way of doing this for the mechanism, I don't know what to look at or how to look when it comes to the mechanism.

Many thanks,
Mav.

[Xain]

but I can't find a way of looking at the mechanism that blows it apart.

If there IS no mechanism, you'll never be able to see it to blow it apart.

Simply look for what you believe is causing such a thing to happen.

Example:
Can the mechanism be found that is causing the hands to move?
If not, is the suggestion of a mechanism ('I') a real thing? Or just an idea / content of a thought / belief that there is such a thing?

Apply the same consideration to whatever the mechanism is that you are referring to / having trouble with.

Xain ♥

[Xain]

but I can't find a way of looking at the mechanism that blows it apart.

What exactly do the words 'blow it apart' mean or refer to?

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,
Sorry If this is not a great reply. I don't feel very well today. Ideally I would have liked to have studied what we have written in the last two or three pages as I am getting really confused. I will do that properly tomorrow.

but I can't find a way of looking at the mechanism that blows it apart.

What exactly do the words 'blow it apart' mean or refer to?

When looking at thoughts it is possible to see two things. There is no visible control of them. There is no 'I' controlling them. So the assumption of 'I' controlling thoughts is 'blown apart'.
There was another of your questions that has been thought about a lot.

Can the mechanism be found that is causing the hands to move?

The mechanism may not be a part of the body or thoughts. It could be just cause and effect. You were talking about gravity, and I said things fall to the ground. So isn't this seeing?
Movement like thoughts can be blown apart. No visible control, no 'I' controlling.
Sorry that was so brief. I have not been able to give this much time today.
Best wishes,
Mav.

[Xain]

When looking at thoughts it is possible to see two things. There is no visible control of them. There is no 'I' controlling them. So the assumption of 'I' controlling thoughts is 'blown apart'.
There was another of your questions that has been thought about a lot.

Sure - That would make sense.
But you tell me that there IS a mechanism and it's 'unseen' and you continue to assume a mechanism (essentially 'I') making something happen / in control over something.

Nothing changes - You just realise that it's been a belief all along. If you are expecting something to change, then that is a problem - It assumes there is an 'I' that life will change for.

It could be just cause and effect.

This might imply a lot of things beyond the scope of the guidance here.
Where is the 'I'? Is it the cause? Is it what is being effected?

From tomorrow (Friday) I will not be able to reply for ten days as I am going on a retreat.
I am happy to continue with you after that time.

Xain ♥

[Mav]

Hello Xain,

Where is the 'I'? Is it the cause? Is it what is being effected?

I don't consciously see an 'I' in cause or effect. I was exploring that, and will continue to while you are away. Many of your comments have not been given the time that they deserve. I am often struck by something that you have said, but the conversation rolls on and I don't get the time to look at it from as many angles as I would like.
I am glad that you are getting some time on a retreat (I may go on one soon but my place has not been confirmed). I hope it goes well and is a positive experience.
Thank you for saying you will guide me when you return. I will look over what we have done so far and get my bearings. I think that is really needed. I think a lot could be achieved by just looking over what we have done so far.
Thank you for your guidance so far Xain. You have been extremely generous.
I look forward to 'speaking' to you again on your return.
Mav.

[Xain]

I actually wonder if you are 'through the gate' but are mistaking later realisations for 'seeing no self'.
For example in the Buddhist path, Desire and Aversion (mental suffering due to a general dissatisfaction with life) is something to address later; As in the 'distance' which is still apparent in the senses (a distance from the objects in experience to a location where 'experiencing' is assumed to be being performed from).
Anyway - Keep looking at stuff - We can continue from Weds 5th April.

Best wishes
Xain ♥