Understanding clearly

[Ermintrude]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
There’s a body - but if you take it to bits you won’t find a self.
There is experience - but no self to experience it.
There are decisions - but no self to make them.
There are actions - but no self is in charge.

What are you looking for at LU?
I’ve been sent here because a mentor in another context said “you have a good theoretical grasp but not the full emotional turning about. ... do a spell on LU with a Guide to nail things down”.
I can’t see what I’m missing - it seems straightforward to me. So I hope you will help me resolve this.
Any of the following would be a good outcome:
- Validation that I already see this
- Guidance towards seeing it if I don’t yet.
- To find out that this kind of guidance is not a useful practice for me.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
You ask questions / set exercises; I will answer / do them. I can usually post frequently, at least once a day and often more if you are up for that. And I will need to ask questions if I don’t understand you.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Buddhist 20 years; various kinds of meditation; recent not particularly happy experience with guided enquiry style checking.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
10

[Ermintrude]

PS Please don’t volunteer to guide me at the moment unless I’ve asked you first. Thanks!

[Douglita]

Dear Ermintrude.

Hello :-) As agreed by PM I am happy to work with you here. What name would you prefer to be called?

* Please read the LU disclaimer before starting this dialogue.
* Please put aside any theoretical material on this subject and be prepared to look very honesty in direct experience (the raw, sensory data available) and answer any questions from me in Blue from looking at this experience.
* These dialogues work best with a bit of daily focus - every day or two at least - so let me know if for any reason you need longer to answer.

Let me know if you are happy with the above three starred points.

You wrote in your intro:

There’s a body - but if you take it to bits you won’t find a self.
There is experience - but no self to experience it.
There are decisions - but no self to make them.
There are actions - but no self is in charge.

This is clear! But as you're here and indicated there might be uncertainty about this, or about this form of inquiry, let's explore it!

Have a look at sensations, actions, feelings and thoughts (all experience) and write down any areas you notice identification happening, where you feel "This is me" or "This is mine".

Much love,
Maria.

[Ermintrude]

Hi Maria,

What name would you prefer to be called?

Thanks for working with me! Call me Ermintrude :-)

Have a look at sensations, actions, feelings and thoughts (all experience) and write down any areas you notice identification happening, where you feel "This is me" or "This is mine".

OK, I've been looking at my experience. Things like sensations, feelings, actions and thoughts don't feel like “me”. They feel a little bit like “mine”, I suppose, but only temporarily – a bit like clothes that you put on and take off again, except I can't find anyone wearing the clothes.

I feel a bit of resistance to saying “actions are not mine” because it sounds a bit like my 5 year old saying “It wasn't me who drew on the wall!” when it really was. But the actual experience in the moment, like thought, intention, moving the body or whatever, that make up the action – none of that is “me” in any way.

…

Some time later:

I was looking for “identification” and not finding it, and after a while I started wondering if I even understood the word. How would I recognise if I was identifying with something? Am I fooling myself? Is it perhaps having a belief, “Without xxx, I wouldn't be me any more” ? Anyway, I started looking for whether there was something in experience itself that would fit that. And I can't find it. Because sometimes sensations, actions, feelings and thoughts aren't there (like in meditation, or in any case in everyday experience they come and go), and everything is fine and I don't seem to have lost anything important.

Ermintrude x

[Ermintrude]

PS . Yes, I have read the disclaimer. I'm happy to put aside theory - please do tell me if you think I say something a bit jargony and I will rephrase or re-look or whatever. I can post every day usually but might miss a day or so over Christmas possibly.

[Douglita]

Hi Ermintrude,

Ok good to hear from you! We can look a bit more into actions, but let's look a bit first at the feeling of 'mine', even if it is only 'temporary' as you said, like wearing clothes.

Are you familiar with direct experience and the distinction between that and the content of thoughts? DE is where I'm going to ask you look and in case you are not familiar it is actually very simple. It is the difference between imagining tasting a small piece of fruit and actually tasting a sultana in your mouth...in fact try it now with any small edible you have available; first fully imagine the taste, then fully actually taste. So when I ask you to hold a phone in this exercise and tell me about the sensation I mean solely the tactile/kinesthetic sensations, not whatever the mind imagines about it :-).

Where is the 'mineness' inherent in experience?

Is it "a phone" or a "my phone"?
Is it "a sensation" or a "my sensation"?

5-10 minute exercise, holding a mobile phone.

* Looking at the phone, can you find an inherent characteristic of "phone" that makes it mine?

* Closing your eyes, can you find an inherent characteristic in the physical sensations involved in holding the object that make the sensations mine?

* Opening your eyes again, can you find anything in the appearance of the phone, or sensations of touch that make any of them mine?

* If not, where do you have to go to find "my" or "mine"? What is it that adds this element to the experience?

Love, Maria

[Ermintrude]

OK, good to hear from you! We can look a bit more into actions, but let's look a bit first at the feeling of 'mine', even if it is only 'temporary' as you said, like wearing clothes. 

Are you familiar with direct experience and the distinction between that and the content of thoughts? DE is where I'm going to ask you look and in case you are not familiar it is actually very simple. It is the difference between imagining tasting a small piece of fruit and actually tasting a sultana in your mouth...in fact try it now with any small edible you have available; first fully imagine the taste, then fully actually taste. So when I ask you to hold a phone in this exercise and tell me about the sensation I mean solely the tactile/kinesthetic sensations, not whatever the mind imagines about it :-). 

Where is the 'mineness' inherent in experience? 

There isn't any?

Is it "a phone" or a "my phone"? 
Is it "a sensation" or a "my sensation"? 

Um, it depends how you look at it. If you ask “Whose phone is that?” I might say “It's my phone.” If you say “Is it a phone or a tablet?” I might say “It's a phone”.

I suppose if I did this exercise with a friend I might say “her sensation was bumpy and my sensation was smooth” or something?

5-10 minute exercise, holding a mobile phone. 

Looking at the phone, can you find an inherent characteristic of "phone" that makes it mine? 

In direct experience (if I'm understanding you rightly) there isn't even a “phone”. There are just sensations like: visual sensation of a dark oblongy sort of shape, weight in my hand, texture under my fingers, temperature, tactile shape.

Closing your eyes, can you find an inherent characteristic in the physical sensations involved in holding the object that make the sensations mine?

Well, the sensations are present right now. That's all. There's no visual sensation from the phone now, just things like the weight in my hand, texture under my fingers, temperature, and tactile shape.

Opening your eyes again, can you find anything in the appearance of the phone, or sensations of touch that make any of them mine?

In direct experience I just notice these sensations are present.

If not, where do you have to go to find "my" or "mine"? What is it that adds this element to the experience?

Thoughts, feelings, recognition. Like if I go to pick up “my” son from school, I come home with the right child. If I see two phones, I can pick out which one is “mine”.

[Douglita]

Hi Ermintrude,

Ok that's great looking. Well spotted - thoughts create the identify 'mine'. But if you'll humour me some more more, lets look at a couple more senses, this time looking for an agent behind or doing the senses.

Conventionally it is said that 'I see' and it is assumed that it is 'eyes' or 'the body', that is 'me', that is doing the seeing.

Right here and now the words on this screen are seen.

What are they seen by?

Is it 'eyes' or 'the body' that are doing seeing?

Examine the immediate experience of seeing. What is going on?

With eyes closed and in a relaxed, seated position, just notice anything that is heard . Notice the immediate experience of hearing.

In the hearing, is there an experience of 'ears hearing'? Or just whatever is heard?

Notice a sound that is at some distance, possibly outside. Where does 'hearing' end and 'the sound' begin?

If thoughts appear, do they seem like something extra that is added on to the experience of hearing?

Try the exercises again and this time, as thoughts appear, look to see if there is actually someone attaching thoughts or thinking thoughts?

Love,
Maria

[Ermintrude]

Right here and now the words on this screen are seen.

What are they seen by?
Is it 'eyes' or 'the body' that are doing seeing?

The eyes are obviously part of it as I can test by opening / closing them.

When I open only the left eye, I see an image; when only the right eye, I see a slightly different image. But if both eyes are open I don’t see two images, I just see one, but with a more 3D effect to it.

So something is already happening in between the light-hitting-eyes and seeing. I can’t experience seeing directly. It’s coming already filtered.

So... it’s the eyes and mind working together? Is that too theoretical?

Examine the immediate experience of seeing. What is going on?

There are things like light, colour and shape. Movement. Depth perception. Recognition (screen, writing etc). When there are words, I immediately read them - it’s difficult to impossible to not read them. Eye movement is triggered following the lines of text. Associations with words, making sense of sentences, and then thought and emotion.

In the hearing, is there an experience of 'ears hearing'? Or just whatever is heard?

I don’t really feel much in my ears unless the sound is very shrill. I seem to feel resonance in my teeth, chest, and all through my head.

Notice a sound that is at some distance, possibly outside. Where does 'hearing' end and 'the sound' begin?

I am listening to traffic noise right now. When a car goes past, the sound I hear gradually fades away until I can’t hear it any more. Hearing stops, I guess, if you want to call it that. Maybe the sound continues but too faint for me to hear? But that would be outside my experience. If I'm not experiencing sound, I'm not hearing.

I don't really get this question. It doesn't make much sense to me.

You asked me to answer from direct experience, so you want to know about direct experience of sound, not theory, right? Not sound outside my experience or from a physics point of view? And hearing means “experiencing sound”. So you asked “Where does 'experiencing sound' end and 'the experience of sound' begin?” as far as I can tell.

???

It feels like I have done far more thinking here than I have observing my direct experience, which I don't expect was the intention. But unfortunately I don't know what to look for. Can you explain a bit more?

If thoughts appear, do they seem like something extra that is added on to the experience of hearing?

Yes. Verbal thoughts stand out a lot as overlay: “Am I doing this right? What does this question mean?”

Some kinds of mental stuff (I don't know if you'd call it thoughts) seem quite automatic - it's difficult to hear someone speaking without recognising their words, identifying the speaker etc. It's extra, but it happens so fast that by the time I notice hearing, it's already happened.

Try the exercises again and this time, as thoughts appear, look to see if there is actually someone attaching thoughts or thinking thoughts?

When I go to look for thoughts, they hide away like fishes!

I repeated the exercise. A little thought kept repeating “I don't know!” like a grumpy child in response to everything. I can't find someone attaching or thinking thoughts. Stuff just happens. I'm not sure what I would be looking for anyway. A little person in my head who was somehow in charge?


Ermintrude x

[Douglita]

Hi Ermintrude,

It feels like I have done far more thinking here than I have observing my direct experience, which I don't expect was the intention. But unfortunately I don't know what to look for. Can you explain a bit more?

Yes, sorry if those instructions were a bit maddening...seems you got a little tangled up with thinking about it, and adding actions like opening/closing eyes to test a theory about seeing with the eyes! Ok so this is not about coming up with any right answers about what is happening, only about first being sure you can distinguish the difference between the raw data of sense experience and the thoughts (usually that come swiftly afterwards) interpreting the experience. Then, it becomes easier to look to look solely at the sensory 'information' to see if there is something separate from experience experiencing it - a 'watcher', 'witness', experience-r.

I'm not sure what I would be looking for anyway. A little person in my head who was somehow in charge?

Well we'll look for something 'in charge' or in control of experience for sure, but first let's see if there is an entity receiving it !

Sit with your eyes open, look at what is appearing. Note this as a direct sense experience of seeing. Close your eyes and imagine the scene you were just looking at. Identify this as a mental activity – imaging. Repeat until you’re completely clear about the difference. 

Looking at something with eyes open now, is there a seer (witness/’watcher”) separate from the seen? 

Another way of putting the question: Is there ‘something’ or ‘somewhere’ that is separate from sensate experience that can receive it?

Now with hearing. If you’ve got a bell or some kind of musical instrument you could use that – or some music on a CD, for instance. Imagine the sound, then listen to the sound. Mental activity … direct experience. Know the difference, directly.

Hearing - is there really an experience of inside / outside? Can you tell, solely from the sensation of sound, where it is located?

Love,

Maria

[Ermintrude]

Looking at something with eyes open now, is there a seer (witness/’watcher”) separate from the seen?

Another way of putting the question: Is there ‘something’ or ‘somewhere’ that is separate from sensate experience that can receive it?

No! In experience there is not, never was or could be.

I was getting tangled because when I read things like “What are they seen by?” then the only way to give a sensible answer is with theory, and you don’t want theory.

In experience, there’s just sights, sounds etc. And the experience of thoughts and other mental stuff happening.

Yes I am clear that thought content is not the same as seeing / hearing.

Hearing: in experience there’s no inside or outside, just sound / vibration.

[Ermintrude]

Another way of putting the question: Is there ‘something’ or ‘somewhere’ that is separate from sensate experience that can receive it?

I do still feel mystified at being asked to find something IN experience that is SEPARATE from experience. I mean, if something is in my experience, then it’s not separate, right?

It’s not my intention to argue about theory or anything! I just feel uncomfortable because you and I both want to look at experience, but it’s turning kind of heady because words seem to be getting in the way. I don’t feel confused about my experience, just about whether I understand what you are asking me to do, or whether I am conveying my experience to to you.

Ermintrude x

[Douglita]

Hi Ermintrude,

Re your first post today: This was excellent looking and describing:

I

n experience, there’s just sights, sounds etc. And the experience of thoughts and other mental stuff happening.

Yes I am clear that thought content is not the same as seeing / hearing.

Hearing: in experience there’s no inside or outside, just sound / vibration.

Re the 2nd post:
Right there is nothing to be found that is separate in experience from experience. This inquiry asks you to look for something that is not there in experience even if you already understand conceptually that it isn't there. So even though you know the 'punch-line': there is no self I will ask you to look in all the usual places you might assume a self will be found, because it's only by thoroughly searching for this thing and exhausting all the usual hidy holes that the illusion (should you still have it) gives up the ghost. So I asked you to look for the experiencer or the one ‘doing’ sense arisings. You didn't find it - is that correct? You found nothing separate from seeing - a 'seer of sights', or separate from hearing: a 'hearer of sounds'?

Either ‘I’ appear to be the experiencer, or the doer. We tend to believe that volitional actions are ‘my’ volitions, that ‘I’ am thinking ‘my thoughts’. (Clue: "I" is always a thought added to experience, creating separation in various ways)

So some more ways to explore that:
 
 Divisions – what and where are they? Are there any divisions or boundaries in experience?
In the body? In the senses? In the mind?
 
Body – are there edges, limits, in experience? 
Seeing – where is what is seen?

Do any sensations feel more like 'you'? Feel directly. Feel the sensations that feel like you. Which sensations are present? What in these sensations is YOU?

Much love,
Maria




 

[Ermintrude]

even though you know the 'punch-line':”there is no self”

It's not so much that I know the punchline. I'm really willing to forget all that and redo this from the beginning! Thank you for helping me.

It's more that I no longer seem to know what a self is, or I/me for that matter. Or maybe I'm not sure I mean the same by it as you do. So if you ask me to look for it, do I not find it because it isn't there or because I didn't understand what it was supposed to be in the first place?

Like looking for a black cat in a dark room if you've forgotten what a cat is.

I will ask you to look in all the usual places you might assume a self will be found, because it's only by thoroughly searching for this thing and exhausting all the usual hidy holes that the illusion (should you still have it) gives up the ghost.

I kind of get it. It's like “Who sees?” “Me!” “So where's that me then?” “Oh shucks, I can't find it!”.

Except I don't feel the “me” or have a feel for what the me is supposed to be like. So I find myself feeling rather, well, lost and emotional about the whole thing. I don't know if this is because I already get it, or whether I just have a weird view of the world.

So I asked you to look for the experiencer or the one ‘doing’ sense arisings. You didn't find it - is that correct? You found nothing separate from seeing - a 'seer of sights', or separate from hearing: a 'hearer of sounds'?

Right. No, I found nothing separate. But I did spend a while wondering what on earth a seer or hearer was and thinking that even if there was such a thing, would I expect to see or hear it anyway? So I was kind of distracted from experience by wondering what I was looking for.

Either ‘I’ appear to be the experiencer, or the doer. We tend to believe that volitional actions are ‘my’ volitions, that ‘I’ am thinking ‘my thoughts’. (Clue: "I" is always a thought added to experience, creating separation in various ways)

Yeah. Either I'm not adding this thought, or adding a different one, I suppose, because it's just not making sense to me.

So some more ways to explore that:
 
Divisions – what and where are they? Are there any divisions or boundaries in experience?
In the body? In the senses? In the mind? 
Body – are there edges, limits, in experience? 

OK. I'm lying on my bed at the moment. When I try to sense the boundary between body and bed, it's not a thing. There are little bits of sensation coming and going of pressure, firmness, pain, tingling, warmth. There aren't any limits in experience.

I find even my sensations are not easily divided up into hearing / vision / tactile / taste / smell etc without a bit of thought. They all mingle together.

There are lots of things that change, but the divisions are fuzzy not hard.
 

Seeing – where is what is seen?

I can't really sense where the seeing is. I think that's what you mean. I mean obviously if you ask “where is the chair?” I could say “over there”, but my experience of what is seen doesn't have a place.

My experience of seeing is just – seeing. Round light bit here, blobby dark bit there.

You know, it doesn't have extra stuff like a place or a seer or labels or whatever. Of course I can tell you where I am, or where the things I see are, but that's not part of the seeing.

Do any sensations feel more like 'you'? Feel directly. Feel the sensations that feel like you. Which sensations are present? What in these sensations is YOU?

Honestly, sensations don't feel like me. I don't even know what you/me means here.

My sensations right now: pressure in back. Pressure in fingers [typing]. Tension in forehead. Hearing noise [traffic]. Seeing light/shapes [screen]. Sour taste in mouth. Warmth in legs. Thoughts arising. Hearing noise [voices]. Etc etc.

A thought arises, how weird would it be to feel a sensation and identify it as me? That tickle in the left elbow – me! The search is over.

Thank you again for exploring this with me.

Ermintrude x

[Douglita]

Ok - wonderful! You're very welcome to my help exploring this. From your answers you seem clear on this.

If you do not feel a 'me', find the thought of identifying with a sensation "weird" and can say "the search is over" - then it looks like it very likely is.

I kind of get it. It's like “Who sees?” “Me!” “So where's that me then?” “Oh shucks, I can't find it!”.

Exactly!

Except I don't feel the “me” or have a feel for what the me is supposed to be like.

Ok, great! Can you tell me how (if) a me ever was assumed/felt to be there in the past, and describe the point it changed? What made the 'I' illusion drop away?

If you're not 100% sure it has, I can suggest a couple more places a "me" illusion could be hiding out :-)

Much love,
Maria