Hello

[Xain]

No. Unless you open up 'seeing' to include the process of interpreting the visual data that happens automatically.

Well, I wasn't - But let's address it.
What can you find doing that?
Let's say in experience, you see 'a cup'.
What can you find that is interpreting 'seeing' and suggesting that within 'seeing' there is an object known as a 'cup'?

My body can be seen, but as it is seen it is simply 'a' body, not 'my' body.

Sure - That's fine. An object usually referred to as 'a body' or 'my body' is within 'seeing'.
However, what can you find DOING the seeing?
Can you find an activity called 'seeing' being performed? Or is there just 'what is seen'?

It's not even really 'a' body, since the recognition that it is a body requires the processing after the seeing.

Yes.
But you've hit upon something there . . . 'processing after the seeing'.
You've suggested that 'it's a body' is processing after the seeing.
What about 'I'?
Is 'I' an assumption added after the seeing?
What about 'Body / Pair of Eyes / Brain is seeing'? Same or different?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Well, I wasn't - But let's address it.
What can you find doing that?
Let's say in experience, you see 'a cup'.
What can you find that is interpreting 'seeing' and suggesting that within 'seeing' there is an object known as a 'cup'?

In direct experience, there is nothing which I can find doing the interpreting. The interpretation just appears in consciousness. In experience, I see light and somehow I know it it a cup. The how is mysterious.

Sure - That's fine. An object usually referred to as 'a body' or 'my body' is within 'seeing'.
However, what can you find DOING the seeing?
Can you find an activity called 'seeing' being performed? Or is there just 'what is seen'?

Nothing is found directly to be doing the seeing. Not in sight itself. This sense doesnt yield that finding. One one theoretical interpretation, if the body is this collection of atoms and it is this collection of atoms which is conscious, then it is this body which is doing the seeing, but even though I can see this body, there's no indication in seeing alone that this body is what's doing the seeing; I can't see the process.

Yes.
But you've hit upon something there . . . 'processing after the seeing'.
You've suggested that 'it's a body' is processing after the seeing.
What about 'I'?
Is 'I' an assumption added after the seeing?
What about 'Body / Pair of Eyes / Brain is seeing'? Same or different?

Its as you suggested before, the difference between finding and what is inferred in thought based off of what is found. A posteriori vs a priori. There's no indication of a self in what is seen, but it is inferred in thought that if something is seen then there must be a seer.

You can't see that your own body is seeing any more then you can see that somebody else's body is seeing. It's the same point as before about not being able to observe consciousness. Body, pair of eyes, brain; none of it is observed to be seeing. It is just known that there is seeing and therefore that there is consciousness. You can't even technically assign the consciousness you feel to the body which appears to contain it, not on the basis of the senses alone, I don't think.

[Xain]

In direct experience, there is nothing which I can find doing the interpreting. The interpretation just appears in consciousness. In experience, I see light and somehow I know it it a cup. The how is mysterious.

Good.
So what is doing that cannot be found.
So would 'I am interpreting' or 'Brain is interpreting' . . . would those statements be anything other than mental speculation / what is inferred in thought?

One theoretical interpretation, if the body is this collection of atoms and it is this collection of atoms which is conscious, then it is this body which is doing the seeing, but even though I can see this body, there's no indication in seeing alone that this body is what's doing the seeing; I can't see the process.

Good.
For me, I really want to get you to a place where it is clear that the only thing you can get from the visual experience is just 'what is seen' . . . the suggestion that there is a body or an 'I' or indeed ANYTHING separate that is performing a function of 'seeing' is only through thinking about what might be the answer. From speculation. Such answers appear as the content of thoughts - Does that seem clear to you?

One further important addition:
Objects in experience may appear to be 'at a distance' from a location where 'seeing' appears to be being performed.
This might be the same with all the other senses.
Don't worry about this - It's fine. This 'distance' is something you can address later on.
Right now, simply focus on 'what is the separate 'thing' experiencing all this'.

Its as you suggested before, the difference between finding and what is inferred in thought based off of what is found. A posteriori vs a priori. There's no indication of a self in what is seen, but it is inferred in thought that if something is seen then there must be a seer.

Yes, yes, yes! Excellent.

You can't see that your own body is seeing any more then you can see that somebody else's body is seeing.

Yes, but always make sure you 'go to your own experience' for the answer - It's important.
In other words, actually LOOK. This will be the same with ALL the exercises I ask you to do here.
If you grasp this and do LOOK into experience, you'll sail through this. :-)

Let's proceed on now to 'hearing' - Approach this in the same way - Just focus only on this one sense for the moment.

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside.
Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body' (a pair of ears)? A 'Person'? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or (as we saw before) are these statements as you say 'inferred in thought'?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Good.
So what is doing that cannot be found.
So would 'I am interpreting' or 'Brain is interpreting' . . . would those statements be anything other than mental speculation / what is inferred in thought?

'I am interpreting' ... well, it seems wrong, actually. Since the interpretation just appears in consciousness, there's a sense in which I don't feel responsible for the interpretation and as such would say it wasn't 'me' that did it. Of course there's an everyday language sense in which it's okay to say things like that. I am interpreting. I am making a decision. I am thinking. Etc. This everyday 'I' just parses out people and objects in the world, not 'selves' - so to speak. It's the narrower 'I' that takes the 'self' as its subject.

Good.
For me, I really want to get you to a place where it is clear that the only thing you can get from the visual experience is just 'what is seen' . . . the suggestion that there is a body or an 'I' or indeed ANYTHING separate that is performing a function of 'seeing' is only through thinking about what might be the answer. From speculation. Such answers appear as the content of thoughts - Does that seem clear to you?

It isn't clear, I have to say. I find it really hard to separate out 'what is seen' from 'the perspective from which it is seen'. If I ask whether 'the perspective from which it is seen' is a part of 'what is seen', it just sounds like word salad. I don't know how to approach that question.

'The perspective from which it is seen' might be interpreted as a conception of where my head is in 3d space, which is of course an inference from 'what is seen' not a part of 'what is seen'. But it seems like there is another sense of 'the perspective' which is a part of what is seen ... this I can't elaborate on because I don't understand it.

"The separate thing that is experiencing all this" ... perhaps the only evidence of this 'thing' is the aforementioned inference made in thought regarding the placement in 3d space of 'the perspective from which it is seen'. It's inferred that something exists at the perspective point doing the seeing because 'seeing' can't just happen on its own. And, of course, it doesn't! I do it! (So the story goes.)

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body' (a pair of ears)? A 'Person'? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or (as we saw before) are these statements as you say 'inferred in thought'?

Putting aside the issue of perspective, as you instructed.

1) No
2) I cannot hear the 'me' that is experiencing the hearing. No. (The narrow sense 'me')
3) I cannot hear anything doing the hearing. As in, I can't hear the hearing process being performed by anything.

[Xain]

Since the interpretation just appears in consciousness

Where is 'consciousness' that the interpretation is appearing in?

We might have to deconstruct consciousness, since you are mentioning it quite a lot.
When you say 'in consciousness', you are treating it like a container . . . and something appears inside it (interpretation).
Where and what is this container?

I don't feel responsible for the interpretation and as such would say it wasn't 'me' that did it

What is the 'I' or 'me' that was not responsible?

It isn't clear, I have to say. I find it really hard to separate out 'what is seen' from 'the perspective from which it is seen'.

Did you read the section I mentioned about 'objects appearing at a distance'. This might be what you mean here.
Sure, there might be a perspective to experience. What owns the perspective?

3) I cannot hear anything doing the hearing. As in, I can't hear the hearing process being performed by anything.

So is 'I am hearing' anything more than speculation?
As you say 'inferred in thought'?
What about 'ears are hearing' or 'brain is hearing'?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Where is 'consciousness' that the interpretation is appearing in?

Right here. Where I am. In my head.

We might have to deconstruct consciousness, since you are mentioning it quite a lot.
When you say 'in consciousness', you are treating it like a container . . . and something appears inside it (interpretation).
Where and what is this container?

The container is consciousness. The perspective from where everything is experienced. I am the perspective from which everything is experienced. The container (consciousness) in in my head, behind my eyes. But it's not really a container in the traditional sense - more of an infinitely small point. This point is not observed with any of the senses. I can't see hear touch taste or smell the point. It's location inside my head is only an inference from what is seen/what is heard etc. But it's existence is as clear as if it were a direct sensation, like the taste of orange juice or the sight of yellowness. It's an effortless inference that seems baked into the experiences of the senses at ground level. None of the senses work at all without this inference being made. They'd be useless as tools for navigation of the world without the inference of a point.

What is the 'I' or 'me' that was not responsible?

The perspective from which things are experienced. This point is the observer, the seer, the hearer. There's no direct experience of the point, but all sensations come with a sense of proximity. It's like echolocation. The proximity of the thing heard/seen/etc to the perspective point always confers a sense of placement, of being in a place. (Inside my head). A thought appears in the minds ear. It's close. Very close, like it's echoing from inside my own head. It's a shadow of hearing, just like the candle I can imagine on my desk (in the minds eye) is a shadow of seeing - but it's there. But when I hear it, it's like it's spoken by an accomplice - not me, but an accomplice who follows me everywhere and is born about with me and who is like my shadow, my conscience, some part of me, but not the true me. It's not scary, and I even take the shadow into myself for most of my life - happily identify with it. That's how it feels when a thought arises. There's some shadow who speaks and I merge with or separate from this shadow depending on where my attention lies. When attention is loose, the thoughts seem to be the thoughts of the perspective point, but when attention is close, the thoughts are close to the perspective point but now appear unauthorised. The perspective point denies ownership of the thought because it is ignorant of the origins of the thought. It can't make sense of ownership and ignorance at the same time.

Did you read the section I mentioned about 'objects appearing at a distance'. This might be what you mean here.
Sure, there might be a perspective to experience. What owns the perspective?

Nobody owns the perspective; the perspective is the owner of the experience. The perspective is unowned. The perspective is me. I belong to nobody; my experiences belong to me.

So is 'I am hearing' anything more than speculation?
As you say 'inferred in thought'?
What about 'ears are hearing' or 'brain is hearing'?

I don't know; I'm struggling with this. It's all a mess of language right now ... I can come to one conclusion but in the next moment the words I used to express it seem to totally fail to capture experience. My experience of hearing is ... things are heard: dripping water, computer fan, harddrive whir, keyboard clicks, heartbeat. What hears them? Can it be heard? All that can be heard is the water, the fan, the heartbeat - are these things doing the hearing? I don't know. How would I know? Nothing heard can be heard to be doing hearing. 'I am hearing' is a separate experience from hearing. An experience that supplements 'what is heard'. Is it speculation? I don't know.

[Xain]

Right here. Where I am. In my head.

How are you determining that consciousness is inside the head?
Which sense or senses are you using?

The container is consciousness. The perspective from where everything is experienced.

How do you know?

The container (consciousness) in in my head, behind my eyes.

Ok, so there is a container inside your head, and interpretation happens in that container.
So right now, this moment, you are witnessing a container . . . it's inside your head . . . and it clear that interpretation is happening in there. Yes?
As you examine inside the container, is there anything else you can find happening?

There's no direct experience of the point, but all sensations come with a sense of proximity.

They do, but that's nothing to do with the investigation here. I already mention that when talking about, 'Objects in experience may appear to be 'at a distance' from a location where 'seeing' appears to be being performed.'

But when I hear it, it's like it's spoken by an accomplice - not me, but an accomplice who follows me everywhere and is born about with me and who is like my shadow, my conscience, some part of me, but not the true me

Is the accomplice inside the container also?

Forgive me for saying it, but you are now talking very strangely. We seem to have gone into a very weird and slightly worrying place. Have you mentioned to anyone else that you have an accomplice that follows you everywhere?

But it's existence is as clear as if it were a direct sensation

Good. But again, if you are determining it's existence, by which sense are you determining it?
Is it possible for other people to know that whatever you are referring to really exists?
If you are stating something 'inside the head', then perhaps it would be possible for a surgeon to cut open the head and find it's existence in there?

I don't know; I'm struggling with this. It's all a mess of language right now

Yes, it does seem that way.
It was requested right at the start to put all non-dual, spiritual, religious and scientific ideas completely aside and focus on all this is a very simple basic manner.

What I can say (and this is to help you, believe me), that continually holding onto the belief that there is a consciousness container inside your head will not assist you. This idea might be useful for certain aspects of examining things, but it will not assist you here.
The very guidance itself it a search for anything separate which we identify with, and this will include a separate consciousness container inside a separate head. As a guide, I will continually ask you what appears clear to you, and how exactly you know this.

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Is the accomplice inside the container also?

Forgive me for saying it, but you are now talking very strangely. We seem to have gone into a very weird and slightly worrying place. Have you mentioned to anyone else that you have an accomplice that follows you everywhere?

I don't begrudge you saying it, but I really didn't mean anything like that. As I mentioned, when going about normal life the inner monologue is not taking on this aspect, and even in meditation, when the monologue seems somehow separate from me, it is only in the sense that I assume to be quite normal when a meditator realises that the inner monologue is not controlled. Its as Sam Harris says, it's as if his head's been hijacked by the most boring person alive, who says the same things over and over again. Dan Harris also echoed this sentiment. Neither of them seem mentally ill! I recognise now that the terms I used - 'accomplice' 'shadow' - have quite negative connotations, but it wasn't the negative connotations or the darkness which those words can imply that I meant to utilise, just the sense of accompaniment by something separate (the aforementioned 'most boring person alive'.)

I didn't mean to worry you and I hope you don't fear for my mental health.

Yes, it does seem that way.
It was requested right at the start to put all non-dual, spiritual, religious and scientific ideas completely aside and focus on all this is a very simple basic manner.

What I can say (and this is to help you, believe me), that continually holding onto the belief that there is a consciousness container inside your head will not assist you. This idea might be useful for certain aspects of examining things, but it will not assist you here.
The very guidance itself it a search for anything separate which we identify with, and this will include a separate consciousness container inside a separate head. As a guide, I will continually ask you what appears clear to you, and how exactly you know this.

I still think a large part of my confusion is linguistic. I think I might just be too much of a pedant some times - but please believe that this isn't a result of conversing in bad faith. I'm grateful for your effort, sincerely.

I think the questions you're asking are just too difficult for me to answer. It's frustrating for sure. But the truth seems to be that 'self-ness' is too poorly defined. I mean one thing by it in one moment and another thing by it in another. You can't try to find something if the subject of the search keeps changing. And that's all on me, I admit it.

I had stuff typed out answering your other remarks, but none of it was cogent enough to post.

[Xain]

It is only in the sense that I assume to be quite normal when a meditator realises that the inner monologue is not controlled

Ah - I understand - That's fine.
It's just that you said it 'wasn't you' - That's something different. That would suggest, rather than 'not controlled', 'controlled, but by something or someone else'.

I think the questions you're asking are just too difficult for me to answer. It's frustrating for sure.

Actually, the questions I am asking are incredibly simple. The problem for you appears to be that you are attempting to 'think what the correct answer is' rather than simply answer from what you find in the experience itself, here and now.
Try to catch yourself doing this - This is important, and would be a KEY for you in getting this realisation.

Let's just drop back a little. Place a cup in front of you on a table.
Try these simple questions - ONLY ANSWER FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF SEEING.

1) Can you witness a cup?
2) As well as the cup, can you witness all other objects around the cup?
3) Does the cup appear 'at a distance' from a particular point?
4) Can you 'go to' that particular point and witness what is there?
5) Can you find a container of consciousness?
6) Can you find anything that KNOWS / RECOGNISES that the object is a cup?
7) If yes, can you find the location of that 'thing' that knows?

Xain ♥

[Xain]

Just to clarify question three.

3) Does the cup appear 'at a distance' from a particular point (where 'seeing' appears to be being done from)?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

1) Can you witness a cup?
2) As well as the cup, can you witness all other objects around the cup?
3) Does the cup appear 'at a distance' from a particular point (where 'seeing' appears to be being done from)?
4) Can you 'go to' that particular point and witness what is there?
5) Can you find a container of consciousness?
6) Can you find anything that KNOWS / RECOGNISES that the object is a cup?
7) If yes, can you find the location of that 'thing' that knows?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) No
5) No
6) No
7) N/A

[Xain]

Ok, good.
So would 'container of consciousness' or 'separate thing that recognises' be any other than ideas?

Is the suggestion 'there is a container of consciousness inside my head' anything more than an idea? A belief you have?
Is the suggestion 'interpretation is happening inside the head' anything more than an idea? A belief you have?

Whilst the objects in 'seeing' might all appear at a distance, you agree that you cannot 'go to the place' where 'seeing' appears to be being done from. Ok.
So would any suggesting about what is 'seeing' be anything other than just an idea? A belief you have?

Xain ♥

[Space6006]

Hi, Xain. I think I might have had a small breakthrough. I was meditating earlier today and had an experience that I would call 'no-self'. I simply considered how 'full' experience felt by the contents of the five senses, and it became very obvious that there was no room for anything else in consciousness other than these experiences - no room for a self. The feeling of being separate from the experience dropped away briefly. This experience repeated itself over the course of the meditation, only staying for a moment at a time, not really long enough to fully explore it, but now it appears something has clicked; since I've experienced this now I feel quite confident that I'll be able to replicate it and it's making a lot more sense now how the illusion that there is something other than experience might take hold. It reminds me of this optical illusion:



The black circles are like the sense data of consciousness, and the white square is like consciousness.: it isn't really there as a discrete, separate object, but it looks to be there because of how what actually is there is arranged.

Of course, its a little different, because in the The Kanizsa Square illusion the edges of the illusory square appear quite clearly, whereas in consciousness there isn't a clear perception of the self with the senses, just a inference in ideas - but I find this to be a helpful way of understanding the nature of the self illusion. It's something like that.

So would 'container of consciousness' or 'separate thing that recognises' be any other than ideas?

Right; there's no direct experience of a self and imposing one onto the situation adds nothing of value to experience. It all goes on without it.

[Space6006]

A correction to the above, I made a typo:

The black circles are like the sense data of consciousness, and the white square is like consciousness.: it isn't really there as a discrete, separate object, but it looks to be there because of how what actually is there is arranged.

I meant to say: "The black circles are like the sense data of consciousness, and the white square is like the self"

[Xain]

I was meditating earlier today and had an experience that I would call 'no-self'

Who or what was having this experience?

and it became very obvious that there was no room for anything else in consciousness other than these experiences

What do you mean 'in consciousness'?
You are referring to it like a container, that there are things that fit inside it because it does or does not have room.
Can you see that edges of this container? If not, how do you know that it is a container?
How could other people know of this container? Could they witness it with their senses to know it's real?

Since I've experienced this now I feel quite confident that I'll be able to replicate it

Ok, so there is a 'you' replicating a temporary experience?

The black circles are like the sense data of consciousness, and the white square is like consciousness

At the moment, please regard me like a child who does not know what consciousness is, or where it is.
What you are saying makes no sense to me.

So would 'container of consciousness' or 'separate thing that recognises' be any other than ideas?

Right; there's no direct experience of a self and imposing one onto the situation adds nothing of value to experience. It all goes on without it.

So to get this right 'container of consciousness' is simply an idea that you have?
You wouldn't be able to prove to other people that this container really exists?

Xain ♥