Question

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Question

Postby AWH301 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:05 pm

Dear friends,
I’ve been seeking for many, many years now. I had an inner explosion when I was in my early 20’s in the context of therapy. That explosion has led to over 30 years of seeking through spiritual practice and therapy. It’s been a long haul. I’m exhausted and ready to see what I’m missing. Ready for some relief from seeking.

My partner and I are involved in a consciousness practice in an on-line community. We go on internet calls several times a week, and one of the weekly calls requires a commitment to continue. I’ve mentioned to my partner my desire to try out the LU process. It seems that in the LU dialogs that people are asked to stop their participation with other approaches for the time being. I could drop most of the calls with this other community, though my partner is interested in staying on the committed call. I’ve really enjoyed that he and I have this particular practice that we can engage together. My question is whether I need to drop all of these calls while investigating with LU.

I really appreciate what I’ve been reading. There have been times while reading the book that I’ve had to giggle because it was apparent in the moment that there is no self.

Reading LU I’ve started to notice that part of my seeking is for some subtle self. The writings and dialogs made me look much more mechanically at the machine of me and mine and my thoughts and my labels. There’s no other machine inside, either subtle or gross that’s running the show. It’s just plainly that way. I have been so confused by looking for a subtle “me” somewhere. A ghost or spirit somewhere that was the me that would last forever, or at least a long time, until dissolution into light or awareness.

I also have a question about labels. Are labels discrete like words, or can they also be images/pictures in the mind?

Thank you,
Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:55 pm

Hi Allan.

I would say it is best to put the phone conversations on hold if you can. If you feel you should talk now and then then I would say that is fine, it is up to you, so long as you are committed to this dialogue.

I would be happy to be your guide if you wish to go ahead with this process. Can you confirm that you are willing to answer questions from direct experience, and will do you best to keep up a daily dialogue with me?

Can you tell me what you expect to get out of this process, and also what you hope to get out of the phone conversations? What are you hoping will change?
I also have a question about labels. Are labels discrete like words, or can they also be images/pictures in the mind?
Labels are assumptions made by thinking, these assumptions come in all different forms including imagined images. Close your eyes and listen to the sounds around you, can you see the images thoughts are creating that 'assume' where the sounds are coming from and what is making them? Can you see the thoughts that place 'me' at the centre of experience?

Can you tell me what that 'me' is made up of?

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 5:11 pm

Thank you Tao. I appreciate your assistance. I’ll talk to my partner about me staying off the other calls while I engage this process. Right now this seems much more alive to me. The calls with the other group have become repetitive and a bit boring. I’ve been staying on them mainly for the feeling of being uplifted and energized, but that just isn’t enough anymore. I’ll also talk to the call moderator about suspending my commitment on the one Sunday call for the time being. While my partner is on the calls, I can engage this process.

Yes, I am willing, but would like to talk to my partner before continuing. He’s still asleep so it will be a bit before he’s ready to talk once he gets up. I can respond daily as long as I have internet or phone access, which is pretty much always. Next weekend we are out of town with friends, so the schedule will be busy, but I can probably find a few minutes to check in.

About the sounds. Yes, I can see that thoughts and images form immediately. And yes, I can see that because the body seems to be receiving the sound, that “I” am the center of hearing and image creation. I can hear the cars on the street nearby, and an image forms of the traffic. I hear a siren and picture the fire truck or ambulance. Irritation about how frequently they come. Somehow it’s all about ‘me’. It’s funny that you would talk about sounds, because I’m very sensitive to sounds. I can barely stand to listen to my partner eat. He loves crunchy food and his chewing is very resonant. Makes me crazy. I wear earplugs to dampen it down. He's long since gotten over being offended by it.

The ‘me’ is the sensations/actions of the body, the thoughts in the mind, and an assumption that there’s a someone at the center of it. It’s only since I’ve been reading the LU materials that I’ve been open to actually look and assume that there may be no ‘I’.

What I’m hoping to get out of the phone conversations: I’ve been engaging my seeking (in the current context of the BV calls), and other things I’ve engaged in over the years, to find the feeling of freedom that I felt so many years ago with the explosion within. I believe that freedom would definitely bring happiness and inner stability which is what I felt for a brief period after that event when I was 23 or 24 years old. I’ve been looking for that ever since without actually even a small taste until now, in this conversation with you.

What I’m expecting from this process: Again, I’m looking for the feeling of freedom, happiness and stability. Of course, from my early experience, now the desire for inner stability has long formed into an idea, image of what that stability felt/seemed like. It’s now a longing to return to that feeling of aliveness and energy. That’s what I’m expecting.

Writing to you has brought a feeling of excitement about discovering what’s true, and returning to aliveness. How odd. This feels so powerful. Wow! I read what other people were saying in the dialogs with guides. I think I understand what they were talking about now.
Allan

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 5:42 pm

He's actually already been reading LU since I sent it to him the other day and already had the experience of no 'I', no 'author of the experience'.

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:26 pm

Hi Allan,

Great that you are excited about the process. It's certainly a process of clarity, I would say it's more about discovering what's not true.
About the sounds. Yes, I can see that thoughts and images form immediately. And yes, I can see that because the body seems to be receiving the sound, that “I” am the center of hearing and image creation. I can hear the cars on the street nearby, and an image forms of the traffic. I hear a siren and picture the fire truck or ambulance. Irritation about how frequently they come. Somehow it’s all about ‘me’. It’s funny that you would talk about sounds, because I’m very sensitive to sounds. I can barely stand to listen to my partner eat. He loves crunchy food and his chewing is very resonant. Makes me crazy. I wear earplugs to dampen it down. He's long since gotten over being offended by it.
Great that you see in experience what I am talking about. Also good that we have a sense we can work well with. Just looking at actual experience is all that is required to see what is happening.

So you see the images that form that 'imagine' what objects are making these sounds, and where they are in relation to 'me'. Can you see that these images also estimate a distance between you and the supposed object of the sound?

So, assuming your partner is ok with you continuing the enquiry, let's look again. Close your eyes and see the images that form in relation to the sounds.

Can you be absolutely sure that what the images 'imagine' is making the sounds, is actually what is making the sound?

Also, in actual experience, is there any distance between you and the sound?
The ‘me’ is the sensations/actions of the body, the thoughts in the mind, and an assumption that there’s a someone at the center of it. It’s only since I’ve been reading the LU materials that I’ve been open to actually look and assume that there may be no ‘I’.
Great. So we just got to turn that assumption into clear seeing. So it's possible that there is no 'me' that thoughts imagine, therefore we need to investigate actual experience to see if there really is a 'me' at the centre of the show. Can you find that 'me'? If so, where is it?
What I’m expecting from this process: Again, I’m looking for the feeling of freedom, happiness and stability. Of course, from my early experience, now the desire for inner stability has long formed into an idea, image of what that stability felt/seemed like. It’s now a longing to return to that feeling of aliveness and energy. That’s what I’m expecting.
Good that you see it has formed into an idea. No doubt at the heart of that idea is a 'me' that finds the freedom and stability. This is the thing about expectations, thoughts will never get what SEEing means, because thoughts see what it means for the separate self, but that separate self doesn't exist, so what finds freedom? For the purpose of investigation we drop all expectations.
Writing to you has brought a feeling of excitement about discovering what’s true, and returning to aliveness. How odd. This feels so powerful. Wow! I read what other people were saying in the dialogs with guides. I think I understand what they were talking about now.
Fantastic. Do what you feel is best on the phone conversation front. So long as you are still 100% committed to this enquiry then it shouldn't be a problem. Looking forward to continuing.

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Sun Nov 02, 2014 6:32 pm

Thanks Tao!
Can you see that these images also estimate a distance between you and the supposed object of the sound?
Yes. It’s a strange sensation to play with the distance. I can hear the fan running in the hallway, My mind interprets distance and direction and makes an image. The ceiling creaks and I imagine what makes it and how far away it is. Birds outside. The reflection is automatic and seems instantaneous. But if I relax, are the sounds actually happening right at my ear, in my mind?
Close your eyes and see the images that form in relation to the sounds.
Crows cawing, an image of a crow forms. A small dog barks and the image of a small dog forms. Since I’m not looking at those animals the images is not accurate. I have no idea what the small dog looks like since I can’t actually see it. I imagine the cars driving on the boulevard nearby since I can hear them, but I have no idea what the cars look like, just images of cars forming in my mind.
Can you be absolutely sure that what the images 'imagine' is making the sounds, is actually what is making the sound?
No. My mind is making up these images based on other crows, small dogs and cars I’ve seen. If I hear someone talking on the street in front of where I live, my mind is just making up the image of a person that might be in my neighborhood. It’s an assumption of what that person might look like (male, dressed in a suit, etc). It’s very biased. Emotions form as well. I hear my partner waking up. I can picture him in here being curious about what I’m writing. I feel anxiety about keeping my conversation private. So I’m making assumptions (mental and emotional) about who he is and who I am. I’m making assumptions about what is appearing.
Can you find that 'me'? If so, where is it?
I’m not able to locate a ‘me’ inside. It just seems like there is a ‘me’ because the looking seems to be coming from the head, the hearing seems to be received in the head, the sense of touch located on the body, and that is happening in one general location. So again, I’m making assumptions about what is appearing. There is the reality of what’s appearing, and my assumptions, images, thoughts and labels about what is appearing. In my mind I understand I’m making an assumption about ‘me’, and I can’t find a ‘me’. However, this doesn’t seem to have the impact I expected.

About expectations: I see the struggle I have with conflicting expectations. I’m suffering from the assumption and idea of ‘I’. I expect that I will feel better without the ‘I’, but is not something I can get rid of since it doesn’t exist. I can’t reach freedom in this bind. This image of ‘me’, ‘I’, is not something I have control over, but my expectation is that I do have control over it. This is suffering.

Last night I was using some of the Gate app quotes. I was considering ‘Looking’, and what is looking. If there is no ‘I’ then ‘looking itself’ is looking. As I considered it and played with the reality of looking, a sensation of heat poured over the front of my body. There was some notion to stay with the consideration, but I could only stay with it for a short period.

Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Sun Nov 02, 2014 11:52 pm

Hi Allan
Can you see that these images also estimate a distance between you and the supposed object of the sound?
Yes. It’s a strange sensation to play with the distance. I can hear the fan running in the hallway, My mind interprets distance and direction and makes an image. The ceiling creaks and I imagine what makes it and how far away it is. Birds outside. The reflection is automatic and seems instantaneous. But if I relax, are the sounds actually happening right at my ear, in my mind?
What even says that sounds happens in an ear or a mind? Could this be more interpretations that thoughts are making? Can you find the location with which hearing happens?

In actual experience, is there such duality, for there to be different locations?
Can you be absolutely sure that what the images 'imagine' is making the sounds, is actually what is making the sound?
No. My mind is making up these images based on other crows, small dogs and cars I’ve seen. If I hear someone talking on the street in front of where I live, my mind is just making up the image of a person that might be in my neighborhood. It’s an assumption of what that person might look like (male, dressed in a suit, etc). It’s very biased. Emotions form as well. I hear my partner waking up. I can picture him in here being curious about what I’m writing. I feel anxiety about keeping my conversation private. So I’m making assumptions (mental and emotional) about who he is and who I am. I’m making assumptions about what is appearing.
Excellent. So you can see that thoughts are continually creating a story out of raw experience, emotions/sensations show up too. This story as you say is biased, it is based on your life, thoughts relate everything to that story of me, including direct sense perceptions. Does this make sense?

How much of this story is 'assumption'? Can you be sure of any of it based purely on direct experience?
I’m not able to locate a ‘me’ inside. It just seems like there is a ‘me’ because the looking seems to be coming from the head, the hearing seems to be received in the head, the sense of touch located on the body, and that is happening in one general location. So again, I’m making assumptions about what is appearing. There is the reality of what’s appearing, and my assumptions, images, thoughts and labels about what is appearing. In my mind I understand I’m making an assumption about ‘me’, and I can’t find a ‘me’. However, this doesn’t seem to have the impact I expected.
Last night I was using some of the Gate app quotes. I was considering ‘Looking’, and what is looking. If there is no ‘I’ then ‘looking itself’ is looking. As I considered it and played with the reality of looking, a sensation of heat poured over the front of my body. There was some notion to stay with the consideration, but I could only stay with it for a short period.
Excellent. SEEing is occuring, but we can't find who's looking. So there is an assumption that seeing happens in the eyes or the head. Can we be sure that this is where the seeing is taking place? Can you find the location with which seeing happens?

And is there anyone 'looking'?
About expectations: I see the struggle I have with conflicting expectations. I’m suffering from the assumption and idea of ‘I’. I expect that I will feel better without the ‘I’, but is not something I can get rid of since it doesn’t exist. I can’t reach freedom in this bind. This image of ‘me’, ‘I’, is not something I have control over, but my expectation is that I do have control over it. This is suffering.
Well then if that 'I' isn't there, then who needs to reach freedom? What suffers? What is bound to what?

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:28 pm

Hi Tao,
What even says that sounds happens in an ear or a mind? Could this be more interpretations that thoughts are making? Can you find the location with which hearing happens? In actual experience, is there such duality, for there to be different locations?
I see. You’re pointing out that all of this is an assumption. It’s not based on my direct experience. I’m assuming that there are different locations and different actors in the story. Since hearing appears to happen around the ears, I assume there’s a mechanism and location. Since seeing appears to happen around the eyes, I assume the eyes are the seeing mechanism. The mind is always interjecting interpretation.

There’s no one in control of where hearing or seeing happen. Certainly there’s no intention in ‘me’ or ability in ‘me’ to cause that or make that happen. It's not possible.

I can see the mind really doesn’t like this notion of no self. Yesterday after I wrote you there was a sense of deflation about it all. However, I continued to use the Gate App to consider no I, no self. Thoughts don’t like the idea that they’re not in control. I can see the song and dance in thought to keep up the razzle-dazzle distraction to keep from seeing the no ‘me’. It’s ok though, to see no ‘me’.
Excellent. So you can see that thoughts are continually creating a story out of raw experience, emotions/sensations show up too. This story as you say is biased, it is based on your life, thoughts relate everything to that story of me, including direct sense perceptions. Does this make sense?


Yes, I see that thought is continually creating a story with ‘me’ at the center. Yes, it makes sense.
How much of this story is 'assumption'? Can you be sure of any of it based purely on direct experience?
I’m afraid the whole story is based on assumption. If there’s no self, then there is just seeing, hearing, tasting, experiencing going on by itself.
Can we be sure that this is where the seeing is taking place? Can you find the location with which seeing happens?
I’m at work and just went out for a break. While I was walking there were the usual emotional/physical contractions and relaxations in relation to stress. Contracting, crunching in, relaxing, expanding out. Pain and then relief. I noticed that all the reflections in mind about these sensations point back to the ‘I’ label. Otherwise they are just contracting and relaxing going on. The reference to ‘I’ can just be as it is, even if it doesn’t refer to something real. So I just allowed the no ‘me’ for that time.

On the way back to my office I said hello to someone in the hallway. I saw the same pointing to ‘I’. How do ‘I’ look to them? Am ‘I’ being friendly and liked? The ‘I’ thought is defensive. Defending its continuation.
And is there anyone 'looking'?
No, there isn’t. I’m saying this, but not wanting to trust that it’s true. Not wanting to trust that I’m looking directly and seeing this for myself. Maybe I’m just tricking myself and going along with the dialog of it because I can tell myself mentally that it’s the case.

Still, I’m interested in finding out for certain, and finally and for myself. I’m willing to look directly at actual experience.

Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:12 am

Hi Allan
I see. You’re pointing out that all of this is an assumption. It’s not based on my direct experience. I’m assuming that there are different locations and different actors in the story. Since hearing appears to happen around the ears, I assume there’s a mechanism and location. Since seeing appears to happen around the eyes, I assume the eyes are the seeing mechanism. The mind is always interjecting interpretation.
Yes exactly. A story has formed based on nothing but assumption. You say hearing appears to happen around the ears, and seeing around the eyes:

Where are 'ears' in direct experience?

Where are 'eyes?
There’s no one in control of where hearing or seeing happen. Certainly there’s no intention in ‘me’ or ability in ‘me’ to cause that or make that happen. It's not possible.
Are you saying you have no control over experience? Hearing and seeing are just occuring by their very own nature? Do you have control over anything?
I can see the mind really doesn’t like this notion of no self. Yesterday after I wrote you there was a sense of deflation about it all. However, I continued to use the Gate App to consider no I, no self. Thoughts don’t like the idea that they’re not in control. I can see the song and dance in thought to keep up the razzle-dazzle distraction to keep from seeing the no ‘me’. It’s ok though, to see no ‘me’.
Well spotted. Let's look into it. What is the experience of 'thoughts not liking something'? What is arising here. Break it down for me including any sensations.
Yes, I see that thought is continually creating a story with ‘me’ at the center. Yes, it makes sense.

I’m afraid the whole story is based on assumption. If there’s no self, then there is just seeing, hearing, tasting, experiencing going on by itself.
Exactly. The story is fabricated from nothing but assumption alone.

So naturally we need to see which thoughts/beliefs are based on direct experience, and which are based on unfounded assumption.
I’m at work and just went out for a break. While I was walking there were the usual emotional/physical contractions and relaxations in relation to stress. Contracting, crunching in, relaxing, expanding out. Pain and then relief. I noticed that all the reflections in mind about these sensations point back to the ‘I’ label. Otherwise they are just contracting and relaxing going on. The reference to ‘I’ can just be as it is, even if it doesn’t refer to something real. So I just allowed the no ‘me’ for that time.

On the way back to my office I said hello to someone in the hallway. I saw the same pointing to ‘I’. How do ‘I’ look to them? Am ‘I’ being friendly and liked? The ‘I’ thought is defensive. Defending its continuation.


Great well spotted. Yes 'I' has to be defended and defended, just like any unsupported belief would.

Looking at the contractions and relaxations - Is anything contracting and relaxing? Are these just sensations occuring that are interpreted such?

So let's look directly for the 'me'. Where does the 'me' feel most located? What is it comprised of?

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:03 pm

Hi Tao,
Where are 'ears' in direct experience?’
‘Ears’ are felt on the sides of the head, though only when I search for them. Otherwise they are unnoticed. ‘Ears’ is also an image that forms in the mind with the use of the word. Images of ears also appear along with what it is assumed that the ears do. There’s an assumption that they are ‘mine’, though they are uncaused by me. Hearing is also uncaused by me and going on by itself.
Where are 'eyes?
The sense of eyes is on the front of the head, but only when I’m looking for them. And again, eyes also refers to images in mind about what eyes are, what they do and where they are. Eyes are uncaused by me and seeing is going on by itself.
Are you saying you have no control over experience? Hearing and seeing are just occuring by their very own nature?


Yes, there’s no control over it. The control over it is imagined. That imagining goes on pretty constantly. Seeing and hearing are occurring by their own nature.
Do you have control over anything?
No. It’s becoming apparent that there’s no control. Nothing is made or caused by me. Any causing or making is imagined.

If nothing is caused by me or made by me, including looking, then who is looking out? It seems absurd like some sort of trick. If nothing is me, then how could I even look out? It seems like a circular reference that cannot resolve since it makes no sense.
What is the experience of 'thoughts not liking something'? What is arising here. Break it down for me including any sensations.
The sensations in the body are tightness. There’s tightness in the head. Tightness in the heart and chest. Tightness in the stomach. An unpleasant sensation going down the arms. The mind wants to escape and is saying ‘no’ and arguing, ‘I want to go take a break and stop this exercise’ it’s saying. ‘I want to get away from this pressure’. ‘I just want to be quiet and not bothered’. The mind wants to control the flow of ‘unpleasant’ and ‘not liking’. That’s impossible since the thoughts cannot control what happens. If it were possible it would have happened a long time ago. This unpleasantness is going on right now, and the mind wanting to resolve the situation, by referring to ‘me’ as the one with the power to do something. ‘I’m responsible for my own well-being’ type of thing.

I keep bringing myself back to direct experience. The mind and the ‘me’ think they can resolve this conundrum. It’s not working.

At times though, there’s a stepping back into looking only. There’s no sense of difficulty there. Then the return of the dilemma.
Looking at the contractions and relaxations - Is anything contracting and relaxing? Are these just sensations occuring that are interpreted such?
First the mind jumps in and wants to interpret, explain and control. Direct looking. They are just sensations occurring. No explanation for them other than that they are occurring. When the sensation are nice, the mind wants to keep them. However, again there’s no explanation for why, or how they are occurring. They just are and it’s better to leave them like that.
So let's look directly for the 'me'. Where does the 'me' feel most located? What is it comprised of?
The ‘me’ feels like wherever there are sensations in the body and mind. It especially feels located in the thoughts and mind. Unpleasant physical sensations also seem to call up ‘me’.

'I' feels as though it's supposed to be accomplishing something through this conversation and process. Though I know that there's no way for 'me' to accomplish anything due to what I've seen so far. It’s pressure for the ‘I’ idea, but a relief from the part of looking.

Thanks,
Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:37 am

Hi Allan
‘Ears’ are felt on the sides of the head, though only when I search for them. Otherwise they are unnoticed. ‘Ears’ is also an image that forms in the mind with the use of the word. Images of ears also appear along with what it is assumed that the ears do. There’s an assumption that they are ‘mine’, though they are uncaused by me. Hearing is also uncaused by me and going on by itself.
Great well noticed. Amazing how much is assumption. Do 'ears' even exist, except for thoughts about 'ears'? The sensations that are felt as 'ears on the side of the head', are these sensations being created by 'ears' or is this more assumptions?
The sense of eyes is on the front of the head, but only when I’m looking for them. And again, eyes also refers to images in mind about what eyes are, what they do and where they are. Eyes are uncaused by me and seeing is going on by itself.
Well spotted again. Do eyes exist? Could this be more assumptions? Can they be found in direct experience?
Yes, there’s no control over it. The control over it is imagined. That imagining goes on pretty constantly. Seeing and hearing are occurring by their own nature.
Do you have control over anything? : No. It’s becoming apparent that there’s no control. Nothing is made or caused by me. Any causing or making is imagined.
Great. So is there anything that can be done?
If nothing is caused by me or made by me, including looking, then who is looking out? It seems absurd like some sort of trick. If nothing is me, then how could I even look out? It seems like a circular reference that cannot resolve since it makes no sense.
From the perspective of thinking it doesn't make sense, thoughts imagine the outside world that one would look into. Is anyone or anything looking? Seeing is undeniable, but looking is an imagined scenario in which something separate looks outwardly. In direct experience, is there any outside world, or is it all just here, now, no inner or outer?
What is the experience of 'thoughts not liking something'? What is arising here. Break it down for me including any sensations.
The sensations in the body are tightness. There’s tightness in the head. Tightness in the heart and chest. Tightness in the stomach. An unpleasant sensation going down the arms. The mind wants to escape and is saying ‘no’ and arguing, ‘I want to go take a break and stop this exercise’ it’s saying. ‘I want to get away from this pressure’. ‘I just want to be quiet and not bothered’. The mind wants to control the flow of ‘unpleasant’ and ‘not liking’. That’s impossible since the thoughts cannot control what happens. If it were possible it would have happened a long time ago. This unpleasantness is going on right now, and the mind wanting to resolve the situation, by referring to ‘me’ as the one with the power to do something. ‘I’m responsible for my own well-being’ type of thing.
Excellent that this is seen. Yes thoughts throw up all kinds of apparent resistance when those unfounded beliefs are questioned deeply.

What exactly is being defended? Where is that 'thing' that has power and responsibility?

Those tight sensations - what is tight or constricted? Look deeply into the sensations, is there something there that is being contracted around?
First the mind jumps in and wants to interpret, explain and control. Direct looking. They are just sensations occurring. No explanation for them other than that they are occurring. When the sensation are nice, the mind wants to keep them. However, again there’s no explanation for why, or how they are occurring. They just are and it’s better to leave them like that.
What is it about the sensations, in direct experience, that make them nice? Is comfort / discomfort really how the sensations are? What finds them uncomfortable and what interprets them that way?
The ‘me’ feels like wherever there are sensations in the body and mind. It especially feels located in the thoughts and mind. Unpleasant physical sensations also seem to call up ‘me’.
Look into the sensations again, are these sensations 'me'? Are they coming from a real body, or is the body imagined?

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:45 pm

The noticing is much more subtle isn’t it? I’ve been looking for it like someone clomping around with heavy metal boots on. Yesterday I was reading some other people’s posts and it suddenly occurred that the labels, assumptions, thoughts and ideas are simultaneous and seamless. I can’t say how many times I’ve heard that, but suddenly it was apparent. The ‘I’ idea is the same ‘thing’ as looking awareness (I’m saying ‘thing’ understanding that they are not things).

I wrote a note to myself yesterday about mixing them up, the ‘I’ notion and the looking. I get confused assuming that the ‘I’ is real because the looking is real, and they appear seamlessly at the same time.
Do 'ears' even exist, except for thoughts about 'ears'? The sensations that are felt as 'ears on the side of the head', are these sensations being created by 'ears' or is this more assumptions?
The assumptions that they exist and they can be felt are strong when attention is drawn there. When I’m not noticing and assuming, they’re not even noticed. So when the looking goes to ‘ears’ and an assumption arises automatically that something is known. In the same moment ‘feet’ exist in the same way as ears, but they are not noticed until looking draws attention there. As soon as attention goes there, it is assumed that they exist and can be felt. Direct looking: Sensations are there. The looking does is not stopped there and does not have limits at the ‘boundary’ of the assumed ear. The ‘ear’ assumption is not different from looking.

At times this is an intense process, and I find myself needing to take breaks during responses.
Well spotted again. Do eyes exist? Could this be more assumptions? Can they be found in direct experience?
The assumption is immediate as soon as attention goes to ‘eyes’. I’m busy doing my daily activities, not even thinking about ‘eyes’, and as soon as I come back to the conversation, bang, there’s the assumption. Wasn’t there a minute ago. What’s found in direct experience is the looking and a lot of assumptions about what’s going on.
Great. So is there anything that can be done?
There are also the assumptions of control and doing. It just takes a little look under the surface to see that there’s nothing ‘I’ can do or control. It’s all just happening and being seen, felt, etc.
In direct experience, is there any outside world, or is it all just here, now, no inner or outer?
In direct experience there’s just what’s happening.
What exactly is being defended? Where is that 'thing' that has power and responsibility?
The assumptions are defending themselves in the scheme of this appearance. It’s not really happening as something real but as an appearance.
Those tight sensations - what is tight or constricted? Look deeply into the sensations, is there something there that is being contracted around?
There’s no center to it that I can find, though the mind forms the image of a center and points to the body. The idea is, ‘there’s something wrong and it needs to be changed’. Confusion of sensation for ‘I’.
What is it about the sensations, in direct experience, that make them nice? Is comfort / discomfort really how the sensations are? What finds them uncomfortable and what interprets them that way?
The mind wants to control experience, and considers ‘uncomfortable’ something to be gotten rid of and ‘nice’ something to keep. Mind has no effect on the matter though. The experiences come and go and change anyway. The ‘I’ idea wants to manage experience. Since it’s an idea, it can take no action.
Look into the sensations again, are these sensations 'me'? Are they coming from a real body, or is the body imagined?
The sensations, experiences, thoughts are so fluid within awareness and easily confused as the source of experience themselves. The actual source cannot be found, though experience goes on. The sensations have no edges and are undefined.

‘I’ makes problems by focusing. The whole time the field of awareness is there and undisturbed.

At times I’m amazed how quickly this seems to be to happening. At other times I think I’m just fooling myself. Thank you for your help. This is amazing whatever this process is. My responses seem a bit long, but it really helps me to stay in the process.

Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:05 am

Hi Allan
The noticing is much more subtle isn’t it? I’ve been looking for it like someone clomping around with heavy metal boots on. Yesterday I was reading some other people’s posts and it suddenly occurred that the labels, assumptions, thoughts and ideas are simultaneous and seamless. I can’t say how many times I’ve heard that, but suddenly it was apparent. The ‘I’ idea is the same ‘thing’ as looking awareness (I’m saying ‘thing’ understanding that they are not things).

I wrote a note to myself yesterday about mixing them up, the ‘I’ notion and the looking. I get confused assuming that the ‘I’ is real because the looking is real, and they appear seamlessly at the same time.
Yes. The SEEing is undeniable. The sensation is undeniable. The assumption that the sensation is separate, well it's just an assumption, a completely unfounded one.

Does SEEing have to give rise to the separate 'I' assumption?
The assumption is immediate as soon as attention goes to ‘eyes’. I’m busy doing my daily activities, not even thinking about ‘eyes’, and as soon as I come back to the conversation, bang, there’s the assumption. Wasn’t there a minute ago. What’s found in direct experience is the looking and a lot of assumptions about what’s going on
.

Excellent. So there are thoughts and sensations, but no actual separate 'things' whatsoever?
There are also the assumptions of control and doing. It just takes a little look under the surface to see that there’s nothing ‘I’ can do or control. It’s all just happening and being seen, felt, etc.

In direct experience there’s just what’s happening.
The assumptions are defending themselves in the scheme of this appearance. It’s not really happening as something real but as an appearance.
Excellent.
There’s no center to it that I can find, though the mind forms the image of a center and points to the body. The idea is, ‘there’s something wrong and it needs to be changed’. Confusion of sensation for ‘I’.
Yes. So the image of the centre that appears, does it point to an actual centre? Is there any entity that can be found?

So an idea appears that something needs to be changed. Does this point to anything real? Does anything NEED to be changed? What is it that needs that? Where is the entity in the centre that can need or resist or change or control anything?
The mind wants to control experience, and considers ‘uncomfortable’ something to be gotten rid of and ‘nice’ something to keep. Mind has no effect on the matter though. The experiences come and go and change anyway. The ‘I’ idea wants to manage experience. Since it’s an idea, it can take no action.
Excellent, can thoughts 'do' anything? Can thoughts control anything? Can anything control anything?
The sensations, experiences, thoughts are so fluid within awareness and easily confused as the source of experience themselves. The actual source cannot be found, though experience goes on. The sensations have no edges and are undefined.

‘I’ makes problems by focusing. The whole time the field of awareness is there and undisturbed.
Very good, so you are saying that sensations have no limits. When an idea of 'ears' happens for example, then the assumption is that the sensation is limited and coming from 'ear'.

So 'ear' is an idea and not the source of sensations. Body is an idea and not the source of ANY sensations.

Does this make sense?
At times I’m amazed how quickly this seems to be to happening. At other times I think I’m just fooling myself. Thank you for your help. This is amazing whatever this process is. My responses seem a bit long, but it really helps me to stay in the process.
It's a pleasure. It's a beautiful process, incredible how simple it all is too. Thoughts just can't figure this stuff out. Even the thoughts that say you are fooling yourself, these show up fully formed and known thoroughly, it is just appearance.

Tao

User avatar
AWH301
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Question

Postby AWH301 » Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:53 pm

Hi Tao,
Does SEEing have to give rise to the separate 'I' assumption?
No it does not. The seeing is just there.
Excellent. So there are thoughts and sensations, but no actual separate 'things' whatsoever?
Yes. No separate things. Just assumptions about what thoughts and experiences are.
Yes. So the image of the centre that appears, does it point to an actual centre? Is there any entity that can be found?
No. No entity and no center. Just the assumption of a center when I focus with mind.
So an idea appears that something needs to be changed. Does this point to anything real? Does anything NEED to be changed? What is it that needs that? Where is the entity in the centre that can need or resist or change or control anything?
No. The mind just tends to go to problem thinking and thinking that things need to be changed when assumptions arise. There’s no need to change things. Yes, I see now that the confusion I was referring to is the mind wanting to control or act by melding together the looking and the label. This isn’t possible or necessary for the mind since everything is already continuous. There’s no entity to need or resist. These are ideas that arise.
Excellent, can thoughts 'do' anything? Can thoughts control anything? Can anything control anything?
No. There’s no control.
So 'ear' is an idea and not the source of sensations. Body is an idea and not the source of ANY sensations.
Does this make sense?
Yes. This makes sense.

I have an expectation based on what I’ve read in the past, and on what friends have experienced in processes similar to this, that at some point there’s an ‘aha’ moment, or a moment of ‘oh, that’s what it is’, or ‘I understand now, maybe not what I expected, but I understand’. Some kind of certainty. It’s an expectation I have in this process. Certainly this process feels alive, and I’d like to take it to the conclusion, but the expectation is clear.

You’ve helped me with this examination, and it’s getting clearer. When I’m engaging in it I notice what we’re talking about. However, when I get engaged in life, the noticing diminishes until I engage it again in some form.

I've been using some of the LU resources, audios, videos, blog posts. Very helpful.

Thank you,
Allan

User avatar
Tao
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Question

Postby Tao » Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:47 pm

Hi Allan

Great answers.
No. No entity and no center. Just the assumption of a center when I focus with mind.
So let's take a look at what focusing the mind is. What is actually happening here? Are you able to focus anything?

What is 'mind' in direct experience?
So 'ear' is an idea and not the source of sensations. Body is an idea and not the source of ANY sensations.
Does this make sense?
Yes. This makes sense.
Can you tell me, does the body or mind actually exist? Are these both just ideas?
I have an expectation based on what I’ve read in the past, and on what friends have experienced in processes similar to this, that at some point there’s an ‘aha’ moment, or a moment of ‘oh, that’s what it is’, or ‘I understand now, maybe not what I expected, but I understand’. Some kind of certainty. It’s an expectation I have in this process. Certainly this process feels alive, and I’d like to take it to the conclusion, but the expectation is clear.
Very good that this expectation is noticed. Any kind of 'aha experience', or any other state arising is not what we're looking for here. We are looking for a simple recognition of reality, SEEing things as they are, it's that simple. Nothing needs to happen, nothing can make anything happen, everything already is at it always is. What would experience an 'aha' moment anyway? They make great stories to tell, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing shifts or changes.

If we are looking upon it from the perspective of a separate self that experiences a shift, then we could say:

The process of this SEEing infiltrating thoughts so it is understood on a conceptual level does not happen in an instant, this process is continuous. From the story perspective, we could say it takes time after SEEing for understanding to align with what is seen.

Expectations do not get resolved, they fall away with SEEing, because no 'me' ever experiences a shift.

Have a look in direct experience - what is it that is hoping for some kind of 'aha' moment?

Tao


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests