You Can Have a Label "I" that Has Nothing Existing Behind it in The Same Way You Can Write a Check with No Money in The Bank

HI folks,

If someone would have time to work with me one on one on using the Direct Pointing method, I'd be very grateful. Time may be a bit erratic as I'm busy at summer school. But I'll make time.

With respect, Paul

Hi, Paul. Erratic is good for me since I am also a little busy, but will make time for you. I love you expressed gratitude right from the beginning. How not to help?

I propose the following. For the sake of this forum, let's work here, in the open. But I also will be available for you on email, just in case we need to go private for some deeper work. You may come up with something that you don't want to post for the world to see. And I can come up with something that is off limit for this board. So we will see how it goes, ok?
To reach me on email go here: Complete Humanity
There is an email there, please send me yours before we start this chat.

Also while we chat here and/or email, I would want you to try not to read on board, but really spend your time on looking. That's why we are here together, and let's make it productive. Deal?

If yes, tell me why you are here, created this thread.

Thank you,
Elena

Hi Elena,
Thank you for agreeing to do this. I did send you my personal email.

Well, I've been spending some time looking over the last week or so and would like to try and take it further through this practice of dialog. I think I may get further with that method than I'm able to through simple self-reflection, so I think I should give it a try.

What I'm finding is that there are times when I'm aware of an absence when I look for the self. There's a 'nothing' there which is surprising in a way. For example, if I were to walk around all day thinking I had money in my pocket and I went to pay for something and found - ok, no money. It's a little disorienting and there are some physical sensations that go with it.

So quite often when I look for the self that's my experience. And it's not completely new, I've noticed it before on and off but it's not something that I've specifically cultivated. I've noticed it during practices like vipassana but also in daily life.

With respect,
Paul

Hi, Paul
Thanks for writing. Tell me what are you searching for? Take good look on it and write what is exactly you are searching. Thanks. E.

Hi Elena,
To live in the present moment. It sounds like a cliche but I do believe that's what I'm searching for.
Thanks,

Paul 

 Elena: If you live in present moment, why you searching for it? So, what's missing?

Paul: I may be in fact living in the present moment but a lot of the time my behavior doesn't reflect that. It's often dominated by stories: Thoughts of the present or past. Fantasy, worry, rumination. So I don't know if it's something missing or something 'extra' which is there.

Elena: Look that there is only present moment. Nothing else. All other staff you mention are thoughts/feelings. Is it true?

I do need answers from the neck down only. Before you answer anything - drop your mind into the heart. Then take a good look. Then only- write.

Paul: I spent some time looking. What I found was that each time I looked, there was a shift. So if I kept doing the looking, this feeling became continuous and like a state. Like the sound of a bell struck again and again eventually becoming continuous. This lasted for a few hours. Is this what you mean?

Elena: I didn't mean anything in particular when I asked yo a question. Every answer is unique. So I didn't get an answer from you except that you were described you were a little blissed out at the moment for couple of hours:)

My question is very simple, what is that that you are looking for here, on this forum, in your practice, in this work we are doing right now? Anything you want to achieve? What's missing from your current now?

Hi Elena,
As suggested, let's take the dialog offline. I'll respond through your personal email.
Thanks, Paul

Elena: Yep. Let's do that!

Maybe we can start here again.
Can you tell me a little about yourself, your practice?
Thank you!

Hi Elena,

Of course.  As far as spiritual practices,  I've been meditating for a long time, but not rigorously!  I started with TM when I was in my teens (I'm now in my forties). It was a very positive experience for me although my experience with the organization itself was not so positive.  I think the main thing was that it was a very happy meditative absorption that helped me with stress. It was an introduction to bliss and those things. I think after a while I stopped making progress with it and so lost motivation.

Ultimately I moved on to more Buddhist types of meditation, Zen and more recently vipassana.  I became more interested in these things a couple of years ago and since then I've had some fresh results that have motivated me to investigate further:

 - I'd never had a lot of success with breath meditation (preferring mantras) but suddenly this became easier and I experienced a sense of the breath as being quite separate from my body - of occupying a space that was not confined to the body and not even particularly attached to 'my body'

 - After reading Daniel Ingram's book I began to notice impermanence much more easily. Also, I became more aware of experiences taking place in a no-self type of space. So for example the sensation of walking would easily break down into very fine granules of sensation, like snowflakes. And it became clear that these granules were coming and going on their own with no effort from me, and that in fact they weren't attached to anything called a 'me' either.  I also started to become aware of the arising and passign of these events in an ongoing flow, and of the space around these events. 

 - Shortly after that point, I became more aware of a 'nothing'.  I don't know how else to describe it but it's a feelign of an absence rather than a presence that I get sometimes. I'm sure it's always been there but for some reason I see it now whereas I didn't before.

 - Sometimes I have the experience of an observer, like a camera recording my entire experience.  Other times (and this is quite difficult to explain!) it's like the camera and the viewed object are one, or else there an infinite number of 'cameras' of awareness saturating through all phenomena. I usually get this after practicing some inquiry-based practice such as 'how am I experiencing this moment of being alive (HAIETMOBA)' or 'What is this?', 'Where is the self?', etc.

 - As I said, I'm not a very rigorous formal meditator - a lot of this stuff I see on walks, exercising, etc. as well as sitting in meditation.

Hope this helps!

Paul

Elena: What is "I" for you?

Paul: I would start with the living body - no living body, no me. Therefore me = body.

Elena: What does it mean you start with the body?
And why you are giving me a concept?

You are truly believe you is the body?

I am not going into any discussions with you. You are the one who should look. So if you believe you are the body - then look closer.  Which part of the body is you? Exactly which part? See the stupidity of your answer?

If not, then try to cut each part of the body and see what remains and can you find you there.

go.

Paul:

""And why you are giving me a concept?" - no other way to communicate than with language, concepts. Can't upload my experience to you.
Ok - if I look, I can't see 'self as body'.  Looking and experiencing the self are incompatible activities. 
If I look all I experience is looking.  So maybe the self is "my unique perspective when I look".  But of course I can't look at my perspective. So Icould say from that point of view that my perspective doesn't exist. Or Icould say that it's like a fly on the back of my head - something that exists but can't be viewed directly.  

Elena:

"And why you are giving me a concept?" - no other way to communicate than with language, concepts. Can't upload my experience to you.

If your family's life would depend on how honest you are looking onto reality, you would not give concepts. So stop doing it. And look.

 

Ok - if I look, I can't see 'self as body'.  Looking and experiencing the self are incompatible activities. 

of cause it is incompatible because if you really look, there is no self to experience. Life looking

If I look all I experience is looking.

yes

 

So maybe the self is "my unique perspective when I look". 

"unique perceptive when you look" is a part of the reality, you - no. just a label. you do not exist. you is a thought of you. thought - exist. you - no.
 

But of course I can't look at my perspective. So Icould say from that point of view that my perspective doesn't exist.

Unique perspective exists. It just is. not yours.
 

Or I could say that it's like a fly on the back of my head - something that exists but can't be viewed directly.  

it's not linear, yes. But its simple. Just look and will see.

Paul: I look and I see phenomena,- no self there.

However I also see behavior that seems to imply a self - in the way that praying seems to imply the existence of God. 

When I was a kid and started to doubt the existence of God, praying seemed like a waste of time and stopped. But the equivalent behavior that I see in myself - I'll call it "selfing" - it seems like it just carries on whether I believe in it or not.

Elena: Paul, this is great what you wrote. Sorry I was away not to answer earlier. I really liked it.

So if the prayer stops, God at a though will disappear, but God as Existance itself won't, right?

Same here. If you stop behavior, change behavior or etc, self doesn't have to do anything with it, it's just a thought, a label. Existence itself is selfing as all these unique embodiments.

Can you see that Life is just lifing? There was never you there, an object. All this time, if we apply time, all what was happening is life lifing, patterning as "Paul", 'you'?

Look if you can find Unicorn in your room. If I can tell you this, you won't even try to find - you know it does not exist. Why would you look and look for self that is the same - a thought, a label?

Look deeper. Tell me what you see.

Paul: Hi Elena,

What I see today is: nothing different inside from outside.  Just matter interacting with matter. So nothing special about the inside part.

And that made me think – is this like being a robot?  A robot is no different from the stuff he’s made from – there’s nothing ‘extra’.  If he has a sense of self that’s just a program running.  But then I thought – no, a robot is still a kind of a thing that is separate from his environment, his context.  But if the inside is the same as the outside, there’s really no way to differentiate –there’s no basis for that separation.  So no robot.

All these words and labels (not just the ‘self’ ones but perhaps all of them) – maybe they don’t mean anything at all. I think I’m seeing that they are just patterns being exchanged back and forth, like birdsong. There’s this pattern of back and forth and somehow we get a self from that.

I see that sensation is very mysterious. How does it just happen on its own?  Why is it happening over here and not over there? I’m not looking for answers, just noticing that this is something very strange.

Paul

Elena: Just be cautious to use any concepts in your investigation. Inside-outside is something that you heard, and now you are trying to fit the reality into the concept. You did right with robot, but it's more deductive reasoning then looking on the reality.

 

All these words and labels (not just the ‘self’ ones but perhaps all of them) – maybe they don’t mean anything at all. I think I’m seeing that they are just patterns being exchanged back and forth, like birdsong.

I like that:)
 

There’s this pattern of back and forth and somehow we get a self from that.

No, there is no self. No. No. No.

 

I see that sensation is very mysterious. How does it just happen on its own?  Why is it happening over here and not over there? I’m not looking for answers, just noticing that this is something very strange.

sensations are part of the reality. they exist. Just like flesh, thought, feeling - all part of the reality. Exist. You have no trouble to notice the sensation or feeling or thought

So why it is a trouble to notice self? Why it is so vague, illusive? You can't pinpoint it just like you can do with sensation, thought or a cup on your table. Why when I tell you about santa, you won't try to find it. You know - there is a thought of santa, there is a fuzzy feeling this thought causes, sensation. And you can pinpoint thought, feeling, sensation of Santa. But if I tell you to pinpoint Santa, you will say santa is an illusion, it does not exist in the reality.

Self is the same. It's an illusion. Does not exist in the reality. Look. Is there any self found?

Paul: Ok, so what I get when I look now is a sense of inversion – of the current flowing in the opposite direction from before. I’m reminded of an album title by a band I like – ‘And then nothing turned itself inside out’

Elena: Look at your immediate experience and write again. Is there you in the reality?

Paul: Work is a bit busy. Looking out the window there is light, movement, etc.  In the body there is warmth, sensation, etc.  A sense of continuity from one to the other. No ownership or causation as such. That’s about it.  Same feeling as yesterday that something is reversed from how it used to be – tough to describe more clearly than that. It feels good though.

Elena: Ok perfect. No ownership. And what is "I"?

Paul: There’s no answer to that question – the word “I” has no referent that is real

Elena: "I" is a thought. Would you agree?

Paul: No problem with that :)

Elena: will give you some entertainment tonight, ok?
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Then write to me what's cooking.

Paul:

Very interesting. So the child is originally learning to physically indicate his/her body in the mirror or social interaction. Later this is done through language, first spoken out loud and then internalized. And this is reinforced by people – maybe because it’s useful behavior – it might be socially useful in various ways for the child to say ‘I’m  hungry’ rather than ‘there is hunger arising’? In any case, out of all of this social behavior comes a private ‘theory of the self’, which is also a kind of behavior.   However usefulness is not the same thing as truth of course...  Just as we’ve discussed with the example of praying, you can have a behavior that assumes the existence of something, and it could even be useful in a limited situation (for instance as a way of escaping being punished for not praying). But that doesn’t mean it causes anything to exist in reality.

So, taking a look at the light on the trees outside the window.... Now as we’ve discussed, there is in the act of looking no experience of the looker, nothing except the totality of looking. And because there is no looker, there is no experience of past or future either because these things are just ways of referencing the looker. And there are a bunch of other things that are just no longer relevant for the same reason. So there’s an experience of a lot of what you might call ‘suffering’ being out of the picture because it really has nowhere to grab onto in this sense of just being.

So this is way better and truer than the old behavior that has been reinforced since childhood – which seems quite bizarre from the point of view of just being. More than that – it seems actually painful to contemplate the idea of ‘selfing’ and all it involves– things like guilt, shame, worry.   

Elena:  Great, great.

Define self please. What is self? "I"?

Anyone living life?

Paul: Well, ‘selfing’ is a behavior really. Mainly a verbal/cognitive/discursive type of behavior so it’s based in language. So from that point of view “I” is a word. However, that doesn’t mean it points to anything that exists. I guess you can have a label that has nothing existing behind it in the same way you can write a check with no money in the bank. The behavior is not supported by ontology.

So any ”one” living life? No, the living of life happens as experience only. It’s an impersonal process. There’s an experiencing of that process, but the experiencing is not compatible with owning it or identifying with it.

Elena: is there you

in any shape or form

in the reality?

Paul: No!

Elena: Ahahahaha!!! Is it kind like a joke ?!?!!

Tell me dear friend how are you doing?! Love ya!

Paul:

Yes – no me – it’s strange. Everything is different but the same. No big fancy words to describe it. No words at all in fact. But it’s freeing, that’s for sure.

Elena: Yep. Look at it like this - Life was before, and self was never there. Self was just a concept, thoughts, mental construct. So Life was always living without self, so to speak. And Life is lifing now. So what's changed for Life? :) That's why it is so plain, so simple, so ordinary. But so fascinating how it was not seeing!:)

So no big bang, you didn't become a saint or an angel:)

You became natural. That's all it is. Free man - embodiment free of self concept.

chop wood, carry water - hahaha

Of cause years of self preservation created a lot of tensions/resistances/limiting believes in the body/mind - that need some time to unfold those "tension pockets":)

This was awesome, Paul. I really appreciate you stepped up. And if you remember how vague you was in the beginning. Look at the clarity and simplicity of what realized. Thank you very much for liberating consciousness - each time there is a relaxation in the embodiment - ripples of that goes and touch others, if we can put it in this imperfect wording. That is why it is so easy now to wake up - it's a waive, the tsunami:)

Much love! Warmly hugging you.

Paul: Hugs in return! Clarity and simplicity, yes... I’ve waited a day to reply just to see what happened. Of course everything is still the same – there’s nothing else to happen really. Thank you Elena for all your work, this has been truly helpful.