Who Am I?

[andylongchurch]

HI Xain

I feel great gratitude towards you today. It feels as if after so many years of searching some real seeing is happening as a result of your patient guidance.

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?

I will answer this with my experience during meditation this morning:

I saw more clearly than ever before that the entire world of thought, imagination and the I has not substance, no true existence and is transitory. I found myself laughing at the absurdity at how I have not really noticed this before. How I have gone through life believing in the existence of this phantom which seemed to be experiencing and doing life. This morning that notion was seen through. The I trying to get this was seen for what it is - thought thinking thoughts and chasing its own tail. Equally as absurd.

Before I started this process, I had been reading the forum and I never understood this statement a lot of people made when they saw through the I: namely that the I is unreal and everything else is real. I did not agree with that and I still don't. But I totally understand why they are saying that: The I is a total fabrication; a belief only. Everything else is then left just as it is. This is why I guess you say nothing changes. It just is what it is. Yet ... so different.

Andy

[Xain]

I feel great gratitude towards you today. It feels as if after so many years of searching some real seeing is happening as a result of your patient guidance.

You honour me. Thank you so much for sticking with the process.

The I trying to get this was seen for what it is - thought thinking thoughts and chasing its own tail. Equally as absurd.

Yes indeed. The self-referencing nature really causes the problems.

Before I started this process, I had been reading the forum and I never understood this statement a lot of people made when they saw through the I: namely that the I is unreal and everything else is real. I did not agree with that and I still don't.

Neither do I. It is prevalent within the group due to a lack of understanding and a lack of desire by many in examining other things (and it is a personal battle of mine).
If you wish to, I'd be happy to continue guiding you into other areas after this (my focus would be to realise the emptiness of all things).

There are a further six questions to ask which may give other things for us to examine or highlight areas where there may be uncertainty. Ready for those?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

How is it known if the belief of I has been fully seen through? (what I said in my last email still stands today)

If you wish to, I'd be happy to continue guiding you into other areas after this (my focus would be to realise the emptiness of all things).

Yes, I would very much like that.

There are a further six questions to ask which may give other things for us to examine or highlight areas where there may be uncertainty. Ready for those?

Yes, ready

Andy

[Xain]

How is it known if the belief of I has been fully seen through? (what I said in my last email still stands today)

It is realised that there is no inherently existing separate self.
It is realised that no inherently existing separate self ever realised anything.
In Buddhist terms, 'I' is realised to be empty.

From our discussion, it would seem that you realised this quite a while ago but expectations held you back from really declaring it. Of course, I don't wish to presume. If it is still unclear we can discuss.
The questions themselves might bring things out that we can examine together.

Here are the first three of the six questions.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference between 'now' and from before you started this dialogue? Perhaps give a report from the past few days (weeks)?

3) Was there a last bit that pushed you over? Made you look and realise? Perhaps something that was mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

Here are the first three of the six questions.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference between 'now' and from before you started this dialogue? Perhaps give a report from the past few days (weeks)?

3) Was there a last bit that pushed you over? Made you look and realise? Perhaps something that was mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself?

1. The entity that we call I is an illusion based upon thought. No it can not be found anywhere as a separate entity in any way. It never existed. A belief of I or assumption has been seen through - nothing more.

2. It feels like a relief to see this, which does not imply that there is an I feeling relieved; just relief.

Mostly there is no difference: Things still happen in the same way, problems continue, the I thought continues as does other thinking.

Yet, it is rather like having discovered that Santa doesn't exist. You no longer believe the appearance. The I thought and all of its consequences continue to appear but they are not believed, though much of them time they continue sub-consciously.

Most of all, the difference is a real sense of connection and relationship to the apparent external world; quite simply because there is no longer any distance. This seems to have given rise to a frequent sense of deep well being and the ability to talk to others and be much more present to them. At times this connection is very strong, and other times it is hardly noticeable again.

Sometimes there is absolutely no difference to before. And then it is as if there is a new knowing that the I entity is just a belief.

On some level too, it feels as if life has just become very simple.

3. What really made a difference was sitting in meditation and suddenly realising that the whole realm of mind, including thought and the "I" sense had no real solidity or permanence. It was seen to be a transitory, ephemeral nothing. It was as if something (the I ) had always just been assumed and close looking revealed it to dream like. Finally, it was seen that given the I has no true existence, there is no I that can realise the emptiness of I. This is a kind of logical paradox which however experientially makes much more sense. This knowing still seems to vary in intensity. In meditation it can be absolutely clear; at other times whilst in the hustle and bustle of life it can seem more vague.

Best Wishes

Andy

[Xain]

What really made a difference was sitting in meditation and suddenly realising that the whole realm of mind, including thought and the "I" sense had no real solidity or permanence. It was seen to be a transitory, ephemeral nothing.

Yes indeed! Bingo!!!!! :-) Great replies, Andy.
Here are the last three of the six questions:

4) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if possible.

6) Do you have anything else you would like to say or add?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Xain

I am back to being a lot less clear. I will come back to the questions after sitting with this again.

It is not that all clarity of seeing has gone, but it just does not feel nearly as clear or obvious as before.

I can remember clearly what was seen, but it is more a memory than a seeing. I know it felt utterly obvious several days ago and now so much so again.

This is something of a pattern in my life.

Regards

Andy

[Xain]

This is something of a pattern in my life.

Who's?

Who or what is here to lose or gain anything?

Who or what is here to have a clearer understanding, or lose understanding of something?

What exactly do any of your sentences point to?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

I tried answering your recent questions yesterday and there was just utter confusion; almost like starting the process again.

Today, walking along the street, all of that suddenly cleared and once again the obvious was obvious, and of course there is no I to be confused.

It is like a flick of perspective from the trance of a conceptual I to just seeing what is.

I wonder if you might comment?

Thanks

Andy

[Xain]

It is like a flick of perspective from the trance of a conceptual I to just seeing what is.

Sure. And who or what is behind experiencing either of these apparent states or the transition in between them?
Who has control of being in one state or another?

I sense some sort of expectation still.

Either the entirety of what you are describing is 'automatic', 'uncaused' and 'uncontrolled' or there is something that wants something to be different than what it is.
Something that wants a permanent state. Something that wants lack of confusion.
What's that? (Other than thoughts appearing suggesting such)?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

Sure. And who or what is behind experiencing either of these apparent states or the transition in between them?
Who has control of being in one state or another?

I sense some sort of expectation still.

Either the entirety of what you are describing is 'automatic', 'uncaused' and 'uncontrolled' or there is something that wants something to be different than what it is.
Something that wants a permanent state. Something that wants lack of confusion.
What's that? (Other than thoughts appearing suggesting such)?

No one has control over being in any particular state. But is that what we are talking about - a state? When seeing is happening clearly it does not feel like a state; it simply feels like how things are; there is no I to be in a state. On the other hand, when caught up in an I position, there could be a multitude of states.

When in the I position, it is clear that this is the "ignorant" position that we started off this process in. That is recognised and there is then a process of attempting to see again.

Yes it does feel like the I thought wants a permanent state. When caught up in the I position that is how it seems. At that time it is not seen that that position is made of thought. Once seeing happens again, of course it is seen that there can not be such a permanent state because a state depends upon an I.

But still, it is like waking up and going back to sleep again. Who is doing that - no one but surely if there is no recognition of that we are back to square 1?

I wonder if there is still confusion about the role thought has in making decisions and therefore directing attention or action. Thought makes up the illusory I which then is like an artificial intelligence. That artificial intelligence has an artificial life in which it plays some role, though much of it is clearly random.

Andy

[Xain]

But is that what we are talking about - a state?

I am unsure - It was my reference to the way you are now talking.

In reference to your sitting meditation, you say -> there is clarity.
Then you said 'I am back to being a lot less clear'
That is two different states. Hence there must be an inherently existing 'thing' going from clarity to 'no clarity'.
What is that?

You speak about something in the 'I' position.
What is that? What is in the 'I' position (or out of it)?

I wonder if there is still confusion about the role thought has in making decisions and therefore directing attention or action

Does thought have any role in decision making or directing attention?
Is 'thought' a thing that does stuff?

Are you suggesting that there is no inherent self that makes decisions or directs action, but there is 'thought' that is responsible for these things?
What is in control of thought?

But still, it is like waking up and going back to sleep again

For who?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

Does thought have any role in decision making or directing attention?
Is 'thought' a thing that does stuff?

Are you suggesting that there is no inherent self that makes decisions or directs action, but there is 'thought' that is responsible for these things?
What is in control of thought?

I think this is where the confusion still is. And I think I understand what you are saying though I am still left confused.

Thought is not an inherently existing entity; for example, one thought seems to be dependent upon another or thought may be dependent upon an apparently external happening. So it seems given that there is no entity there, thought can can not make decisions. It obviously is there though as part of a chain reaction of happenings without which much would not happen.

Is anything in control of thought: yes and no. No because there is no true entity there to control thought and thoughts keep happening anyway whether we want them or not. Yes, because the apparent I is a structure made of thought which has become more than the mere sum of its parts. The apparent I, even though it has no inherent existence, can cause thoughts to arise such as visualisation, rehearsal, intentional self talk etc. This is why I refer to it as a virtual I creating a virtual reality. So we end up living in a world which is created by a virtual I with a virtual mind which seems real. Once caught up in that illusion, the illusion of itself is not seen. When the illusion is seen through, it is seen that it was all just thought. Who sees it? No one sees it but there is a knowing.

So, it is not that there is an entity there that sees or doesn't see, but there is seeing or ignorance. The first is not a state because there is no I to have a state. The 2nd is a state because ignorance arises from the I thought. To see that the I thought is illusory is not possible from within the I state.

Andy

[Xain]

Yes, because the apparent I is a structure made of thought which has become more than the mere sum of its parts.

This is something you have found in experience? Or another idea?
Right now can you find a structure made out of thought?

You say 'structure made out of' . . . which suggests that thought has inherent existence.
Hence other 'things' can be made out of it.
Really?

It looks like you are trying to solve a problem created by the mind, using the mind.
You are still tied to an expectation for an illusory separate self.
This guidance is to realise that there is no inherently existing separate self . . . never has been and never will be.
Have you managed to find one so far?

The apparent I, even though it has no inherent existence, can cause thoughts to arise

How can anything that has no inherent existence cause anything?
Is this something you have witnessed? Or another idea?

To see that the I thought is illusory is not possible from within the I state.

Right here and now, describe this 'I' that is in an 'I' state?
How big is it? What does it look like?

Xain ♥

[andylongchurch]

Hi Xain

Thanks for pointing me back to direct experience.

So, I sat this morning and again it was obvious that there is no inherently existent I.

There was just thought, and thought creating a sense of I which I could see had no real existence. I don't see why it is a problem to say that thought has effects. It obviously does in direct experience. That is not to say that thought chooses what effects to create. I can see that. Thought is informed by thought; not as an entity informing it, but as a chain reaction. that can be clearly seen in direct experience simply by sitting and watching the mind.

I don't see a problem in talking about the conventional self as a structure made of thought. That does not imply it is real or inherently existent. Again I can sit and watch the mind and watch the structure being created - direct experience surely? The structure is a complex woven illusion made from thought which appears to direct life and does direct life within its own illusory reality. When we look for what is there, of course we do not find anything truly existing. Ultimately, things are just happening by themselves because there is no entity to direct them. But within the illusion of self they are directed by self. It seems that all of this can be observed in direct experience. What we can never find in direct experience is any real entity called self. Does this make sense of is there still a flaw in what I am seeing?

How can anything that has no inherent existence cause anything?

I don't understand what you are suggesting. Does cause and effect have to have an inherent entity to work. Isn't the entire universe cause and effect without an entity directing it? If I have a thought (no real I, no real thought) about sucking a lemon, I salivate almost immediately - cause and effect or not? Or what are you meaning?
Is this something you have witnessed? Or another idea?

As i write this, it is not too long since my meditation. It is seen there is no Self.

This afternoon, that seeing may have faded. I hear you say, but who is there to not be seeing anymore? Of course, I get that. But that would have to be seen to have any meaning, which it isn't at the time. Or not?

Right now as I write, it is seen that there is no person here writing, even though there is a strong sense of I (appearing to no one apparently) . The writing seems to be part of a cause and effect of thought' a response to your writing and this discussion thread or not?

Andy