Support in self inquiry to see through the illusion of self

[graceabounds]

:)

Go through a regular ordinary day, and observe:
Can you find anywhere where this sense of a doer autonomously intervenes into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

Can anything be found for which a you is responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

[Tessmus]

When going about my day, often I am not really that conscious, and then actions and decisions definitely just appear without a controller or doer. When focusing on the decisions in the present moment, some decisions seems more "consciously" made than others. So there seem to be different levels of how "conscious" or "unconscious" decisions are, and its easy to think that in the conscious decisions there is a "me" "deciding", but inspection even in these cases, I can not find any separate entity deciding other than thoughts influencing actions or other thoughts etc. But something is anyway different between unconscious decisions and conscious decisions, even if no doer can be found in either case.

I am not sure that everything feels as the same flow, sometimes yes, sometimes not, resistances to certain situations arise every now and agan, and they feel like they go against the flow, but upon closer inspection I guess even these resistances that comes and goes, are part of the same flow.

However, behind actions and decisions, there seems to be an underlying "drive" or "desire", something wanting to take actions that will lead to a situation where there is a more pleasant experience than the current, for "the same unit of experiencer" or something like this. If "I" walk to the restaurant "I" get a pleasant meal, not someone else. And so there seem to be a timeline here connecting action and experience and I think this is a place where the label "me" often gets attached. I mean, yes its a story, in the experiencing of the decision of walking to the restaurant it's story about the future and where to go, in the experience of eating, its a story of the past and how I got here, and these stories seems to be connected in the point of "me", and it seems to work every time :)

During exercises today, suspicion crept up on me that: perhaps I am not looking "deep" enough. Because I am constantly also aware of what I am doing, and there is an underlying "desire" to "not find a doer" and "not find a self". So often instead of just observing without any expectations or "agendas", I am instead finding myself trying to see that there is no doer or no self. And so I wonder what would be found if the desire was instead to "find a doer" or "find a self", perhaps then I would think that I found it, or at least I would be looking deeper and the "not finding it" would cut deeper. Like with the example with the key in pockets. Perhaps I am looking in all the pockets, but I am not looking deep enough to really see that there is no key, so when I don't find a key there is a more superficial and theoretical idea of there being no key, but there remains a kind of unconscious belief that the keys could really still be hiding because I didn't look deep enough in all the pockets. So the question arise, how do I know that I am looking deep enough, and how do I look deep enough?

[graceabounds]

So often instead of just observing without any expectations or "agendas", I am instead finding myself trying to see that there is no doer or no self

Great, so drop it. :)
No agenda.
Just look.

Start small, find the one who is doing this conversation.


The “I” walks to the restaurant, the “I” gets the meal, the “I” gets the result, and not someone else.

But right now, looking with no agenda, can you find an “I” that is the walker, the eater, or the receiver, apart from the story about it?

When “walking to the restaurant” is happening:
Find the do-er. Is there an “I” walking? Or is there just walking, moving, sensation, planning, hunger, thoughts narrating?
When the meal is eaten, is there an “I” eating, or just taste, chewing, thoughts about pleasure, satisfaction?


The narrative connects the start (walk), the event (meal), the end (pleasure), and strings it together with a thread called “me.”
But outside the thread of thought is there an “experiencer” at all?

Look again:
As walking happens, is there an “I” doing walking, or just movement?
As pleasure arises, is there an “I” having pleasure, or just sensation + story about “I am pleased”?

Is the “unit of experiencer” anything but a thought referring to other thoughts?

When walking, is there any more “ownership” than there is when wind moves through grass?
Is pleasure “for” anyone, or just pleasure?

So the question arise, how do I know that I am looking deep enough, and how do I look deep enough?

The one who asks how is the one who does not want it to be seen. ;)

Answer every question. Don’t philosophize a general answer. Sit with each. Let’s find the gap.

Sitting in a room, curtains closed, you wonder what the weather is like outside. You can think about it, look it up on the internet, watch the forecast on TV, call your mother and ask her - or you can simply open the curtains and have a look.

[Tessmus]

Ok, see if I can get hang of that quote function :)

right now, looking with no agenda, can you find an “I” that is the walker, the eater, or the receiver, apart from the story about it?

No, not apart from the story.

Find the do-er. Is there an “I” walking? Or is there just walking, moving, sensation, planning, hunger, thoughts narrating?
When the meal is eaten, is there an “I” eating, or just taste, chewing, thoughts about pleasure, satisfaction?

There is just sensation of walking + thoughts narrating. Eating, there is just taste, chewing etc, satisfaction + thought narrating and thought-forms of a body sitting there eating.

Outside the thread of thought is there an “experiencer” at all?

Not outside the thought-form and the thought stories, there is just experience, but also the thoughts are part of this experience, gluing it together to an experience of "me" experiencing "this."

As walking happens, is there an “I” doing walking, or just movement?
As pleasure arises, is there an “I” having pleasure, or just sensation + story about “I am pleased”?

Just sensations of walking, and just sensations of eating + the stories and the thought-form of a body doing it.

Is the “unit of experiencer” anything but a thought referring to other thoughts?

I guess it's not, but it seems to be also a specific point of view in experience, however, I can also see that it is just what it is, the experience that it is. Its hard ot think of this "point of view" as just a thought, but I can also to some degree se that it is. It's not completely clear for me.

When walking, is there any more “ownership” than there is when wind moves through grass?
Is pleasure “for” anyone, or just pleasure?

The walking do feel more owned than the wind, or more connected to "point of view". Even if the ownership is nowhere to be found but in thought, there is a big difference in the thought about the walking and the thought about the wind. I think (sorry for philosophizing), this is where I am pretty much at for most part. I can see that there is only parallel streams of different experiences glued together to a "whole" experience by thought (stories and thought-forms), but some experience is connected to strongly believed thoughts about it being "me" or "my body" or "my thoughts", whereas other experiences is connected to strong believe about that being outside the point of view (things seen and heard).

The one who asks how, is the one who does not want it to be seen. ;)

The one who asks how to look deeper, is the one who does not want to find a self? Or that does not want the illusion of self to be seen through? The one writing this, who is that one? Is this just happening, writing writing to itself?

[graceabounds]

Great, keep using the quotes ;)

Let’s go through your own words...

There is just sensation of walking + thoughts narrating. Eating, there is just taste, chewing etc, satisfaction + thought narrating and thought-forms of a body sitting there eating.

Perfect. The machinery exposed. No doer, just doing + narration.

Not outside the thought-form and the thought stories, there is just experience, but also the thoughts are part of this experience, gluing it together to an experience of “me” experiencing “this.”

Notice how “me experiencing this” is the glue, and the glue is only thought and sensation paired together.
Can you find the “me” other than as a thought that says, “I am experiencing”?
If you strip the label off, is there anyone left in the experiencing?

I guess it’s not, but it seems to be also a specific point of view in experience, however, I can also see that it is just what it is, the experience that it is. Its hard ot think of this “point of view” as just a thought, but I can also to some degree se that it is. It’s not completely clear for me.

Don’t try to “think” of the point of view as a thought. :)
Instead, look: What exactly is “point of view”?
A set of sensations:
Visual field,
Proprioception,
Auditory field,
Maybe “location” feeling.

Are any of these owned?
Or is it just that thoughts about them arise within the field, gluing them together as “my” experience, but never, ever, uncovering an actual entity at the core?

Is the “point of view” anything but a locationless arising? Is there a “viewer” separate from what’s being seen, or just the happening?

Can point of view of ‘another’ possibly exist except in thought?

The walking do feel more owned than the wind, or more connected to “point of view”. Even if the ownership is nowhere to be found but in thought, there is a big difference in the thought about the walking and the thought about the wind.

Yes! But what is this difference made of?
Only thoughts, sensation, and habits of attention.
Ownership is a story glued to sensation.

Right now, is “ownership” anything but a sensation + a thought that says “this is me/my body/my thoughts”?
Or is it always just sensation + narration?

some experience is connected to strongly believed thoughts about it being “me” or “my body” or “my thoughts”, whereas other experiences is connected to strong believe about that being outside the point of view (things seen and heard).

What happens when the “strong belief” itself is seen as just another thought, another story arising with sensation? Does that collapse the difference?
Can you find the substance of belief, apart from the story and its intensity?
Or is belief just certainty applied to a thought?

The one writing this, who is that one? Is this just happening, writing writing to itself?

Right now, who or what is writing, reading, or even searching?
Is there any agent apart from the typing, the thoughts, the appearance of these words, and the movement of fingers?

If the writing, the searching, the inquiring, and even the uncertainty, is all just arising, who exactly is uncertain? Who wants to get clear?


Right now, take the “point of view” that feels like “you,”
and don’t try to think about it, just relax all intention.

Let the question hang:

If there is no story, and no intention, what remains that is “me”?

Not the sense of location.
Not sensation.
Not ownership.
Not narration.

Is there anything there at all, except for the story about there being something there?

Go through these, but don’t analyze…
Look.
Direct report.

If question is a non-compute in direct experience that is fine. If the words come out sloppy or no words come that is fine too.

[Tessmus]

Ok, I will try my best to not analyze or think and just report what I experience for each question, but I "think" :) am not always exactly clear of where the "border" between reporting direct experience and thought goes, because thinking is also part of the direct experience, and always very intertwined with everything. But I will try (and probably fail).

Can you find the “me” other than as a thought that says, “I am experiencing”?
If you strip the label off, is there anyone left in the experiencing?

No, but the thought "I am experience" is not just a simple label like that for me, it is not in words, the "thought-form" feels more intimate integrated into experience.

What exactly is “point of view”?

It is just what is, labeling as "point of view" require thoughts about another point of view or thoughts about past or future, that is thoughts that something could be different. In the now, there is no point of view

Is the “point of view” anything but a locationless arising? Is there a “viewer” separate from what’s being seen, or just the happening? Can point of view of ‘another’ possibly exist except in thought?

There is no viewer separate from what's being seen, another point of view can only exist in thought.

Are any of these owned?
Or is it just that thoughts about them arise within the field, gluing them together as “my” experience, but never, ever, uncovering an actual entity at the core?

Not owned. Yes, just thoughts (stories and thought-forms) gluing it together.

What happens when the “strong belief” itself is seen as just another thought, another story arising with sensation? Does that collapse the difference?

Oddly enough, no, the difference is not collapsed, both "views" seems to be there in parallel or something like that.

Can you find the substance of belief, apart from the story and its intensity?
Or is belief just certainty applied to a thought?

No, its definitely just certainty applied to thought.

Right now, who or what is writing, reading, or even searching?
Is there any agent apart from the typing, the thoughts, the appearance of these words, and the movement of fingers?

Ahh, I just don't know. I mean, I can conclude from investigation that no agent can be found in experience other than thought or stories about one, that's for sure. But, it really feels like an agent is behind it even if it is outside experience. I "understand" that this can never be known, and are just thoughts + thoughts saying they must be "true" or at least very likely. Still there is the vague, untouchable sense that there is agency in parallel with the vage untouchable sense that there is no agency. Like both views are there in parallel. This became speculation and thought - I know, but I am not really able to report the pure experience straight away here, because it's ambiguous.

Right now, who or what is writing, reading, or even searching?

I don't know.

Is there any agent apart from the typing, the thoughts, the appearance of these words, and the movement of fingers?

No

If the writing, the searching, the inquiring, and even the uncertainty, is all just arising, who exactly is uncertain? Who wants to get clear?

Yeah ... this question really rise some strain. I don't know what it is that is going on.

Right now, take the “point of view” that feels like “you,”
and don’t try to think about it, just relax all intention.

I really have problem with this, "relaxing all intentions", I can try to "imagining" what it would be like to not have the intentions, but I can not forget them.

If there is no story, and no intention, what remains that is “me”?

There is also a kind of thought-form gluing sensations into "a body", that really doesnt only feels like a story.

[graceabounds]

Hi!

Site has been up and down, feel free to use my email if needed.

thinking is also part of the direct experience, and always very intertwined with everything

Thoughts arise. It is part of what is, like a sound or sensation. But the content of thought is not direct experience.

Don’t step outside and think about thinking being part of experience. Drop back into raw experience now.

Can you find any boundary between “thought” and “not-thought” or is the whole division just a mental habit, a story?

Oddly enough, no, the difference is not collapsed, both "views" seems to be there in parallel or something like that

bone. In direct experience, right now, what actually happens when the “strong belief” arises? Not in theory. Notice:
• There is a story, and
• There is sensation
• And there is a meta-story about “the strong belief being just a thought”

Now:
Can you actually find a difference, or are you just running two stories at once—one that’s “inside” and one that’s “outside,” or one that’s “believed” and one that’s “seen through”?

Pause.
In this moment, can you find anything except:
1.Sensation (raw, alive)
2.Thoughts (words, images, commentary)

What else is here? Not the content of the thought… what is the actual stuff?

And this “parallel” thing: can you find two things, or is it just another story, another commentary looping around the sensations?

Is there, in this moment, any actual difference between “seeing through” a thought and “being caught” by a thought, except another thought that claims there’s a difference?

Still there is the vague, untouchable sense that there is agency in parallel with the vage untouchable sense that there is no agency. Like both views are there in parallel.

Back to the body. :)

Drop into the “vague, untouchable sense.”
WHERE is it? that vagueness, that untouchable-ness? Is it in the chest, the head, the throat? Is it a tension, a fog, a blankness, a contraction?
Don’t look for “agency”, look for the actual sensation of this “vague untouchable sense.”

What is actually here?

If the writing, the searching, the inquiring, and even the uncertainty, is all just arising, who exactly is uncertain? Who wants to get clear?

Yeah ... this question really rise some strain. I don't know what it is that is going on.

Great! What is actually here, right now, without the story?

Describe it. No concepts.
What is actually here? sensation, thought, movement, contraction?
Where is “the one” who is uncertain? Point to it, if it can be found.

And here are two more questions, see if this strain arises:

If a thought says “I don’t know,” where is that experienced? Is there a location?

Can a “someone” actually be found as the experiencer? Or only thoughts and sensations?

In gratitude,
Becca