Looking into the illusion of self

[mauricemoss]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
At conceptual level I understand the "self" is an illusion: it can't be located anywhere in the body -- yet my actual experience is that there is an "I" or "me" that thinks, moves, does the actions in the world. I don't perceive to be an an illusion at all, it just seems a natural thing to be "me" and to do things in the world.

What are you looking for at LU?
The self lies at the core of human existence; therefore, if it is merely an illusion, understanding this reality becomes paramount. Gaining a deeper comprehension of the self is essential. I seek guidance from those who have successfully navigated this journey themselves and can adeptly lead others through the process of breaking free from such illusion

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I hope the guided conversation will spark new ideas and insights, challenging my current assumptions and accumulated knowledge, so it's easier for me to see the concept of 'self' more clearly for what it is.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I'm a long term spiritual seeker (25 years by now), very sick of seeking, wanting to settle to a definitive ultimate answer. I resonate with non-duality teachings (e.g. Sri Nisargadatta)

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

[ty0]

Hi Maurice, I'm Tyler and welcome to LU :)

Why are you looking to see through the self? What are you hoping to get out of it? You've been seeking for 25 years, but what have you been seeking? If it's a definitive answer you want, I'm afraid there's nothing of the sort...

I hope the guided conversation will spark new ideas and insights, challenging my current assumptions and accumulated knowledge

What do you believe?

it can't be located anywhere in the body -- yet my actual experience is that there is an "I" or "me" that thinks, moves, does the actions in the world. I don't perceive to be an an illusion at all, it just seems a natural thing to be "me" and to do things in the world.

What are you then? You say your actual experience is that there is an "I", where is it in your experience? Can you put your attention on "you"?

[mauricemoss]

Hi Tyler! thank you for stepping in as a guide, your help is greatly appreciated, I'm very grateful!

Let's go straight to your questions:

Why are you looking to see through the self? What are you hoping to get out of it? You've been seeking for 25 years, but what have you been seeking? If it's a definitive answer you want, I'm afraid there's nothing of the sort...

I want to see this matter of "self" as really is. The self (or "I") sticks to everything in my experience, "I" wake up in the morning, "I" do this and do that. So what is this "I" in the end ? I want to know! As regards my 25 years long spiritual seeking, putting it shortly I suppose I was looking for something to fix life, escape suffering (alas, it didn't work).

I hope the guided conversation will spark new ideas and insights, challenging my current assumptions and accumulated knowledge

What do you believe?

currently I don't hold any specific belief, everything is very confused and it doesn't seem to matter what I believe in.

What are you then? You say your actual experience is that there is an "I", where is it in your experience? Can you put your attention on "you"?

When attention is put back on "me", I am the bodily sensations, the arms, the shoulders and so on. Sometimes the "I" it's what looks through the eyes, located behind the eyes. There's a strong feeling of an observer that looks through the eyes and moves the focus of attention at will. I am that observer.

[ty0]

This will largely be an exploration outside of thoughts. We don't want to get caught up in the content of thoughts and mistake them for reality. All a thought tells us is that the thought is there.

Try this exercise:
1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.
Don't go to thoughts – examine your direct experience.
Questions:
-How is the movement controlled?
-Does a thought control it?
-Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
-How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
-Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
-Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

There's a strong feeling of an observer that looks through the eyes and moves the focus of attention at will. I am that observer.

What's this observer? How do you experience it?

It's important here to distinguish between the content of thought and what's actually here. For example, in direct experience, is there:
1) What you're going to eat later
OR
2) A thought about what you're going to eat later
Which one is present in your direct experience?

Last thing, try to do this regularly if you can:
Meditate and drop in the question: "What's here that's not a thought?" If you have doubts about whether you're doing it correctly, note that these doubts are thoughts and return to the question. If you notice that there's silence after the question, note that the noticing of the fact of silence is a thought and return to the question. If you get frustrated, note that you're believing a thought like "this isn't working" or something similar and return to the question. Let me know how that works out for ya

[mauricemoss]

Hi Tyler!

the palm up/down exercise:

-How is the movement controlled?

the movement is controlled by itself, it's autonomous. As if the the palm turns by itself and "knows" when to do it. If there's something that controls it, I can't see it.

-Does a thought control it?

no, the hand turns up/down regardless of thoughts. There can be a verbalized thought "stop" but the palm keeps on turning or the opposite: "turn" and the hand stays still. But it doesn't seem a completely random process, there is a feeling that "I" intended to move it in the first place.

-Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

no controller, just the feeling (or call it "explanation") that was my will to turn the palm.

-How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

the decision can't be traced back to anything, the palm just turns by its own. But it doesn't feel unnatural, e.g. like I have a possessed hand, it's just normal that the hand moves by its own.

-Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?

ah ah, there was no evident decision on what hand to use. It was just automatically chosen.

-Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

No, when I look at palm turning asking "who's moving it" there's something (a thought?) that points back to my head/body and says "me".

There's a strong feeling of an observer that looks through the eyes and moves the focus of attention at will. I am that observer.

What's this observer? How do you experience it?

the observer can't be experienced like seeing or touching it, it's just the feeling of "existence", the feeling of being here alive and looking at the world. It can't be located in a specific place, I could say that the observer is "the observing" itself.

It's important here to distinguish between the content of thought and what's actually here. For example, in direct experience, is there:
1) What you're going to eat later
OR
2) A thought about what you're going to eat later
Which one is present in your direct experience?

ok, what I'm going to eat is in direct experience, the thought about it, not.

Meditate and drop in the question: "What's here that's not a thought?" If you have doubts about whether you're doing it correctly, note that these doubts are thoughts and return to the question. If you notice that there's silence after the question, note that the noticing of the fact of silence is a thought and return to the question. If you get frustrated, note that you're believing a thought like "this isn't working" or something similar and return to the question. Let me know how that works out for ya

this was a bit more difficult. I'm not good at looking at thoughts, sometimes they are verbal (small voice in the mind) some other times are silent, like feelings. They are not easy to identify.

Anyway: when I ask "What's here that's not a thought?", usually other thoughts emerge. Some are related to the question (e.g. "discard, this is a thought" or "look, this one might be a non-thought") many others not (daily chores, "this is boring", "what I'm supposed to do"). In the end just a stream of thoughts. If there's something that is not a thought, it might be bodily feelings (like itching somewhere) but as long I notice them there's a thought: "hey, itching there!".

[ty0]

Try this exercise:
Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise. Google for a picture of an apple.

When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Direct experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something… because that is only just more thought.

Direct experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

the observer can't be experienced like seeing or touching it, it's just the feeling of "existence", the feeling of being here alive and looking at the world. It can't be located in a specific place, I could say that the observer is "the observing" itself.

How is the feeling of the observer experienced? Is it a "feeling" (sensation)? How is "the observing" experienced? Can such a thing be found in experience?

[mauricemoss]

the apple exercise:

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Yes, I can experience its color, shape, taste etc, but soon after it comes a thought describing it, e.g. "this is apple", "I'm looking at an apple" etc. So in the end there is actual experience and thoughts that are labeling the experience.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

thoughts describe the experience. But sometimes the thoughts are totally unrelated, e.g. "I'm looking at apple" and then "I've a bill to pay".

Direct experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

are arising of thoughts part of direct experience? It's not easy for me to "notice" a thought arising, it seems a matter of chance.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

color, etc, and then a thought about "apple". This applies to everything else, e.g. a chair isn't a chair by itself, it's just an object that can be experienced and that we then label as "chair".

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

no, because it's just a label we use to describe the experience of the apple.

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

so are thoughts a closed loop ? I mean, do thoughts talk about other thoughts only?

How is the feeling of the observer experienced? Is it a "feeling" (sensation)? How is "the observing" experienced? Can such a thing be found in experience?

Ok, using direct experience investigation, an observer can't be found. There is observing and perhaps a thought that tells "I'm observing". But it's not easy to recognize it as a thought... it's more like a deep feeling. But certainly it's not something found in direct experience. Overall the observing seems to be the direct experience itself, if it does make any sense.

[ty0]

are arising of thoughts part of direct experience? It's not easy for me to "notice" a thought arising, it seems a matter of chance.

Yes, because you experience them. Everything you experience is a part of direct experience. Work on the "What's not a thought?" meditation consistently, the noticing of thoughts arising will become habitualised.

so are thoughts a closed loop ? I mean, do thoughts talk about other thoughts only?

Sure. Isn't this question also a thought about thoughts?

Ok, using direct experience investigation, an observer can't be found. There is observing and perhaps a thought that tells "I'm observing". But it's not easy to recognize it as a thought... it's more like a deep feeling. But certainly it's not something found in direct experience. Overall the observing seems to be the direct experience itself, if it does make any sense.

I don't really get what you're talking about. I don't find anything like "observing" anywhere in my experience. Listen to a sound. In experience, is there hearing of the sound apart from the sound? Is there a hearer of the sound apart from the sound?

[mauricemoss]

Work on the "What's not a thought?" meditation consistently, the noticing of thoughts arising will become habitualised.

I'm trying to do it more often, but it's difficult. The mind drift away and it's hard to keep it back on the question.

so are thoughts a closed loop ? I mean, do thoughts talk about other thoughts only?

Sure. Isn't this question also a thought about thoughts?

right, that is another thought. It seems like there is "thought domain" and "actual experience domain" and that the two don't come in contact, yet there is still belief that thoughts affect experience in some way... that the two are correlated.

Listen to a sound. In experience, is there hearing of the sound apart from the sound? Is there a hearer of the sound apart from the sound?

no, hearing of sound and sound are one and there's no "hearer". Only when the mind focuses on the sound there's a thought that says "hearing sound".

[ty0]

I'm trying to do it more often, but it's difficult. The mind drift away and it's hard to keep it back on the question.

No worries. Don't judge it when you find your mind has wandered. If you do judge that, don't judge the judgement of it hahah.

I want you to now explore the "observing". What is this?

[mauricemoss]

Hi Tyler!

I want you to now explore the "observing". What is this?

in direct experience there is no "observing" as a something definite or separate... there are just the things that come into the field of experience from ordinary life (sight, touch, hearing etc...). "Observing" is nowhere, it's just how we describe the process.

The issue is that this is realized only when I stop and look at direct experience. If I don't put attention to it I still feel an observer looking at things and doing actions in the world.

[ty0]

The issue is that this is realized only when I stop and look at direct experience. If I don't put attention to it I still feel an observer looking at things and doing actions in the world.

Why is it an issue?

[mauricemoss]

The issue is that this is realized only when I stop and look at direct experience. If I don't put attention to it I still feel an observer looking at things and doing actions in the world.

Why is it an issue?

the illusion of the observer keeps coming back as if no prior investigation was made before. Is it possible to have it established once for all?

[ty0]

There is nothing called "once and for all". What does establishing something once and for all actually mean? What do those words refer to in your direct experience? Or do they just refer to other concepts? Now is all the time there is. What you see now, you see now. What you see, you see

[mauricemoss]

There is nothing called "once and for all". What does establishing something once and for all actually mean? What do those words refer to in your direct experience? Or do they just refer to other concepts? Now is all the time there is. What you see now, you see now. What you see, you see

Hi Tyler,

I understand what you mean. "Once for all" is merely another thought, and even the concept of the "illusion of a separate self" is just another thought. Thoughts that reference other thoughts, and then on a different level there is exists direct experience, which is always present and available.

Sometimes when looking at direct experience it feels scary that "all there is" is all there is... I mean that there's nothing else beyond. It feels so sad and lonely.