Thank you, Rali. I hope the answers below are clear. I haven’t had quite as much time as I’d like to answer them.
My workweek was compressed into 4 days so that I can take tomorrow (Friday) off for a dental procedure. Since I don’t know how I’ll feel after the procedure, I’ll send them now. Please let me know if anything is unclear or if you need more explanation of anything. I’d be happy to clarify it.
Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.
I have tried to avoid any sort of “ideal” answer. Responding to these questions has been tricky because experience changes back and forth between clear seeing and thought-stickiness. I think that I’m probably in the period that Ilona Ciunaite describes as “falling,” where the core belief has been knocked out, and a lot of lost beliefs are left hanging, so the realization is not stable yet.
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No. There is not and has never been a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form.
In fact, there are no separate entities. Separation, divisions, and boundaries have no existence outside of thought content.
The way to discover that there is no “self” is to look in direct experience, which means to look in seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and thinking—but not the content of thought. Thought content does not exist in direct experience.
What is found in direct experience is knowing-experiencing, which includes seeing (color), hearing (sound), feeling (sensations), smelling (smell), tasting (taste), and thinking (but not the content of thought). (These ways of sensing are inseparable in direct experience.) The reason for using verbs (“seeing” and “feeling”) rather than nouns like “color” and “sensation” is because nouns are conventionally used as labels for “entities.” There are no entities in direct experience. Entities do not exist outside of thought content, as the boundaries that supposedly separate them from each other have no existence outside of thought content.
2) 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.
The illusion of separate self is the sense that there is a “thinker” or “agent” that exists in a “body” which is separate from everything else. It also involves the idea that this separate self continues over “time.”
The illusion of separate self results from believing thought content rather than looking in direct experience. The way the illusion of separate self starts and is elaborated can be broken down into a few steps:
1. Thinking draws boundaries around “particular sensations” and labels these sensations “I” or “me.” (Drawing boundaries around particular sensations already involves believing thought content because there are no boundaries outside of thought content. In direct experience, there are no isolated sensations separate from the rest of knowing-experiencing.) Thinking can also separate out “particular sensations,” label them an emotion (e.g. “sadness”), and create a story such as “I am sad,” which attributes the sensations to the fictional “I.”
2. Thinking creates stories about the “self”: for instance, the “self” exists in a “body” over “time,” and the “self” can act as an “agent” that “causes” events. (All of these are thoughts about thoughts—fictions about fictions layered on top of one another. “I,” “me,” “self,” “thinker,” “agent,” “witness,” “doer,” “body,” “time,” “past,” “present,” and “future” cannot be found in direct experience.)
3. The illusion that the “self” exists “over time” arises when thoughts are interpreted as “memories” of the “past” and “plans” or “intentions” for the “future.” (Past, present, and future cannot be found in direct experience. All that can be found in direct experience is what’s arising now—knowing-experiencing right now.)
3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.
There’s a spaciousness, lightness, buoyancy, carefreeness, bounciness. There’s less belief in “boundaries” around a “body”: these are seen to be thought content.
Sometimes, there is very clear seeing that all thoughts/memories of “my past” are completely fictional, and the only thing real is knowing-experiencing right now. At other times, thoughts are sticky, but even when they are sticky, direct experiencing can dissolve them.
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
I’m not sure. Your message from 1/11/24 with the exercises with the mirror set off a series of shifts that have continued. This exercise may have been it:
Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.
(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?
5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.
Here is how a “decision” arises:
1. Thinking labels a thought as a “past event” (or “future event”) and labels sensations as “I” or “me.”
2. Then thinking creates a story that the “past event” was “caused” by “me” or “I made a decision.” (In the case of a “future event,” thinking creates a story that “I” will “cause” a “future event.”)
These stories consist of thoughts on top of thoughts about the “I” as an “agent” that “causes” “events.” None of this has any existence outside of thought content. Cause and effect do not exist outside of thought content, as past, present, and future do not exist outside of thought content.
In direct experience, it is not possible to find a “decision” or an “I.” “I made a decision” is a fiction (thought content) retroactively layered on another thought that is interpreted as a “memory” of a “past event.”
Example: “I made a decision to answer these questions.” In direct experience, a “decision” cannot be found, and an “I” cannot be found. Thinking interprets a thought as a “memory” of a “past event,” in which “I made a decision.” There’s a story in which an “I” “caused” something to happen (“answering questions”). But these are thoughts about thoughts. It’s impossible to find an “I,” “decision,” “answer,” or “questions” in direct experience.
Describe intention & give examples from experience.
Here is how an “intention” arises:
1. Thinking labels a thought as a “future event” and labels sensations as “I” or “me.” (“I” and “future event” do not exist in direct experience.)
2. Thinking creates a story that “I” can “intend” an “event” in the “future.” (“I intend to do something in the future.”) None of this has any existence outside of thought content.
These stories consist of thoughts on top of thoughts about the “I” as an “agent” that “intends” to “cause” “events.” None of this has any existence outside of thought content. Cause and effect do not exist outside of thought content, as past, present, and future do not exist outside of thought content.
For example, “I have an intention to stand up.”
Thinking labels a thought as a “future event” (intention to stand up) and labels sensations as “I” or “me.” Thinking creates a story that “I intend to stand up (in the future).”
In direct experience, there is only feeling [sensations] and seeing [color]. Sensations are labelled “standing up,” and color is labelled “standing up.” Thinking creates a story about an “I” that “will cause standing up.”
These stories consist of thoughts on top of thoughts about the “I” as an “agent” that “intends” to “cause” “standing up.” None of this has any existence outside of thought content. Cause and effect do not exist outside of thought content, as past, present, and future do not exist outside of thought content.
Describe free will & give examples from experience.
There is no such thing as free will in direct experience. Free will does not exist outside of thought content.
In terms of thought content, “free will” means that the “I” is an “agent” that “causes” “events” and is therefore responsible for the events it supposedly causes. (Free will is the ability to control one’s life by making choices.) None of this exists outside of thought content.
Take a very simply example, such as taking a cup of coffee rather than tea.
There’s a cup of coffee and a cup of tea in front of me.
The cup of coffee is taken. Did “I” have “free will” to take the coffee instead of the tea?
The “choice”—the impulse—to take coffee rather than tea cannot be found in direct experience. In direct experience, there is only feeling [sensations] and seeing [color]. Sensations are labelled “choosing coffee,” and color is labelled “choosing coffee.” But the choice cannot be found anywhere in direct experience.
Describe choice & give examples from experience.
There is no such thing as “choice” in direct experience. “Choice” does not exist outside of thought content.
Example: There’s a cup of coffee and a cup of tea in front of me.
The cup of coffee is taken. Did “I” “choose” the coffee over the tea?
The “choice”—the impulse—to take coffee rather than tea cannot be found in direct experience. In direct experience, there is only feeling [sensations] and seeing [color]. Sensations are labelled “choosing coffee,” and color is labelled “choosing coffee.” But the choice cannot be found anywhere in direct experience. The fiction “I made the choice” comes afterwards.
Describe control & give examples from experience.
There is no such thing as control in direct experience. Control does not exist outside of thought content.
In terms of thought content, “control” means that the “I” is an “agent” that “causes” or at least “influences” “events” and is therefore responsible for the events it supposedly causes.
Example: Arms lifts
Is there an “I” that “controls” the “movement” of “arm”?
The impulse to lift the arm and the control of the arm’s movement cannot be found in direct experience. In direct experience, there is only feeling [sensations] and seeing [color]. Sensations are labelled “arm lifts,” and color is labelled “arm lifts.” But “I,” “control,” “arm,” and “movement” cannot be found anywhere in direct experience. The fiction “I controlled the movement of arm” comes after.
What makes things happen? How does it work?
Knowing-experiencing just happens. The “cause” that makes things happen cannot be found in direct experience. “Cause” and “effect” do not exist outside of thought content.
What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.
“Responsibility” and “I” do not exist outside of thought content.
In the conventional world, where thought content is believed, “I” am “responsible” for “my actions”—for how I “choose” to act. This is all based on beliefs in thought content—the idea that “I” am an “agent” that “causes” events through “my actions.” (The “I” is “responsible” for what the “I” “causes.”) However, as illustrated above, “I,” “agent,” “choice,” “cause,” “responsibility” and “actions” do not exist outside of thought content. They cannot be found in direct experience.
In the examples above, the “I” is not “responsible” for “answering questions,” “standing up,” “choosing coffee,” or “lifting arm.” The “I” is simply a label. It did not “cause” any of the above.
(If anyone is concerned that, in the conventional world, I'll start acting unethically and using this as an excuse, that's not going to happen.)
6) Anything to add?
As mentioned at the beginning, please ask questions about anything you’d like me to clarify.
Love,
Liam
