Requesting a guide to help finish it off

[Azov]

Azov wrote:It’s funny, cause they just “sit” there, immobile, and I connect those sensations to a sense of “I”, of “existing”, more precisely. It’s not experienced that they “do” something - they’re connected more to a feeling of “aliveness”, of “me” “being”.

Yes, what if those sensations are just what it feels like to be alive - with no "me", with nothing "I" about it?

Yeah, I can access that mode of experiencing - the experience is like an open field. With no “I” about it. Or rather, it can be like that in experience, while experiencing goes on. It’s a more fluid, more open way of experiencing than the “I”. It is appreciated inside! Or, “appreciation occurs”. So yeah, that that is just how it feels to be alive, feels ok.

The mode of experiencing jumps quickly back into a default “I” mode. But as this is written it is acknowledged that there seems to be only disadvantage to adding contraction with the “I” mode. With thinking and analyzing starting, “I” mode is entered even more easily. At the same time, it is experienced that the “I” mode still only adds disadvantage, closure and tightness inside as well as in relationship to others. “I” mode can be stressful too, which “experiencing” mode rarely is.

So yes, this experiencing, this “just what it feels to be alive” mode, is entered now.

Azov wrote:It’s funny, cause they just “sit” there, immobile, and I connect those sensations to a sense of “I”, of “existing”, more precisely. It’s not experienced that they “do” something - they’re connected more to a feeling of “aliveness”, of “me” “being”.

So, what is this "I" that connects these sensations to a sense of "I"?

Well, to be precise, “they’re connected” in a way that means it’s just being “done” automatically without my control or me interfering or even being able to interfere. What is “my” control then, you ask of course. Well, no “I” can be found which connects the sensations to the sense of “I”. I can’t find it. Thinking can’t find it, I mean! It cannot be found by thinking or analyzing, rather. The cognitive mind can’t identify any “I” that connects anything to anything else.

Azov wrote:I believe the sensations are tied to a sense of "self" or separate, private existance because they are always present. It seems I can always tune into them.

And what is this "I" that can always tune into them? LOOK! What is really there?

Wow, well, they are always tuned in to, is better way to describe it. They’re present always in awareness in some form - and can be paid attention to. Attention can be directed unto them. There is no “I” that “tunes in” - it all just happens in the field of experience, in experiencing. To be honest, to really investigate, with full honesty, “tuning in” just seems to happen on it’s own. It seems to be just a process going on, in experience. That’s easily identified with as something along the lines of an “acter” or “doer” having agency and part in “tuning in”. But yeah, the “tuning in” just happens, arises on it’s own.

Azov wrote:And to come back to this one, too:

asmaha wrote:So, coming back to what you wrote: Is there any sensation of a "center"? Or is "center" just a thought, a mental image?

For sure, it's a sensate thing. There's strong sensations of that.

Please describe in detail what make the sensations you are experiencing into "sensations of a center".

No “center” sensations can be identified. There is a vague sense of centrality around sensations of the body and of the very nearest visual sensations, but, investigating centrality, there is a budding sense of no center to be found, and “center” seems like a made up concept. On one level, it is identified that awareness and it’s “contents” or real sensations does ot have any spatial locality. The visual sensation of the flower on the table and the visual sensations representing my left hand - the “distance” between them is uncalculable in absolut measures (unless sensations themselves are of a finite, discrete nature - then the number of actual visual sensations between the flower sensations and the hand sensations could be counted) - in any case, there are no “distances inside of awareness - or atleast they are not to be found while directly investigating. Similarly - what is the distance between the visual sensations of my left hand and the sensations making up the pleasant thought of a tasty dinner? Distance is not measureable inside this mind.

Ok, so to return to the “sensations of a center” - if there is no distance, there should be no center. That is a thought, though, and trying to close in on the sensations themselves, there is the familiar sense of the case of the “I” sensations - that it’s something that’s just been around for so long, it’s validity is taken for granted without scruitiny. No sensations inside match “center”-ness. There are sensations which seem in the middle in the way that visual sensations can be found in equal amount both “above”, “below”, and to both sides of them; hence making then “central”. There is nothing inherent in the sensations themselves which makes them central, though. Differently, with tactile sensations, there is also just habit of combining them with the visual sensations to discern which tactile sensations are “where” with regards to other tactile sensations. With closed eyes, leg and arm sensations both equally just feel suspended in the mind, with no distance or clear location.

So, to try and conclude this lengthy paragraph, there is no center sense or center sensations to be found. Centrality is a concept, an idea, a thought. My eyes (visual sensations) and the tactile sensations of my head seems particularly “centrish” on the thought or concept level, on the sensate level though, nothing distinguishes them from any other occuring sensation.

I gather from what you write that the difference between "imaginary" and "real" (that is thought-content and direct experience) is becoming clearer - nice.

Very much so - I have also started to realise why the distinguishing is so important. Insights doesn't "stick" unless they're experiential.

Did you do this exercise? If so, how did it go?

No, didn't do it, since I had the feeling that I had understood what you meant.

But with regards to the first paragraph in this post, I have a question. There is this sense that I could enter "experiencing mode" often during the day if I really made the effort. To manually force the "I" out of consciousness, in a sense. Over and over again. To abide in that for as long as the conscious effort is made. Or is it so that such practices are not needed, and that the direct inquiry enough so that the mind will eventually reach a point of such certainty that it will "spew out" the sense of "I" automatically or instantaneously should it arise?

[asmaha]

there is no center sense or center sensations to be found. Centrality is a concept, an idea, a thought. My eyes (visual sensations) and the tactile sensations of my head seems particularly “centrish” on the thought or concept level, on the sensate level though, nothing distinguishes them from any other occuring sensation.

Good looking! "Center" is a concept, a thought (just like "distance", as you also found out) - it cannot be found in actual experience.
What about "inside" and "outside" - is there really an inside and outside of "you" to be found in direct experience?

To be honest, to really investigate, with full honesty, “tuning in” just seems to happen on it’s own. It seems to be just a process going on, in experience. That’s easily identified with as something along the lines of an “acter” or “doer” having agency and part in “tuning in”. But yeah, the “tuning in” just happens, arises on it’s own.

Great.

Yeah, I can access that mode of experiencing - the experience is like an open field. With no “I” about it. Or rather, it can be like that in experience, while experiencing goes on. It’s a more fluid, more open way of experiencing than the “I”. It is appreciated inside! Or, “appreciation occurs”. So yeah, that that is just how it feels to be alive, feels ok.

The mode of experiencing jumps quickly back into a default “I” mode. But as this is written it is acknowledged that there seems to be only disadvantage to adding contraction with the “I” mode. With thinking and analyzing starting, “I” mode is entered even more easily. At the same time, it is experienced that the “I” mode still only adds disadvantage, closure and tightness inside as well as in relationship to others. “I” mode can be stressful too, which “experiencing” mode rarely is.

So yes, this experiencing, this “just what it feels to be alive” mode, is entered now.

and

But with regards to the first paragraph in this post, I have a question. There is this sense that I could enter "experiencing mode" often during the day if I really made the effort. To manually force the "I" out of consciousness, in a sense. Over and over again. To abide in that for as long as the conscious effort is made. Or is it so that such practices are not needed, and that the direct inquiry enough so that the mind will eventually reach a point of such certainty that it will "spew out" the sense of "I" automatically or instantaneously should it arise?

It is really nice if a mode of openess, or of focusing on sensual experience instead of thought, is becoming more accessible. As the believe in a separate self is shaken, this may happen. But it is not the goal of this inquiry to establish a certain state of consciousness. Rather than forcing the I out of consciousness, I suggest that you just keep looking for it - look if this I exists in the first place. Because if you find out that it doesn't - then what would there be that needed to be forced out?
So what is this "I" that can apparently be forced out of consciousness? What is it right now, in actual experience?
And what about this "sense of I" - didn't you say that there was "nothing I" about it, that it's simply a sensation like any other? If so, why would you want it to be "spewed out"?

[Azov]

What about "inside" and "outside" - is there really an inside and outside of "you" to be found in direct experience?

Actually, I find this a very interesting question. And it goes in line with our reasoning earlier, about distance and so on, that with real sensations none of them contains any information regarding inside or outside. Instead, the sensations becomes TAGGED by conceptual thought, or a layer of conceptual thinking and intuitions is put over the sensory sensations. I think I’m getting a clearer understanding of the difference between conceptual and real/sensory or real and imagined.

So no, in DIRECT EXPERIENCE, there is no inside or outside. In the ILLUSORY realm, there’s a sense of inside and outside. But that is nothing that is inherent to the sensations, themselves.

Oh, I just realized I was doing this with “me” and “not me” instead of “inside” and “outside”. So I’m going ahead to try inside and outside, too. Well, there is not any visual sensations that are tagged “inside”. Nor are there any touch sensations which are tagged “outside”. Nor are any auditory sensations tagged “inside”. Except maybe a few, like stomach growling. My voice seems to fall somewhere in between.

In any case, it seems to me that the experiences them selves are not “outside” nor “inside”, they’re being labeled so by the conceptual mind. Like an add-on to the direct, sensory experience.



I'll continue with the other questions later, or tomorrow.


Thanks for making things clearer about the "experiencing"/"I" mode issue. I'm sensing more and more where we're heading - my suspicion is that it's in the direction of directly experiencing the sense of self as just a sense - having distinguished it from direct experience, and thereby dispelled it's notion of being "real", "true", or "existing" in the direct, real sense.

Speaking of this I also want to mention a habit of mine which I think caused the trouble earlier with imaginary and real. I have a habit of jumping to conclusions and confusing thought of something with the direct, actual knowledge of something. So before we clearly separated out "real" from "illusory", I believe I thought I "got" some things but that they were purely on a thinking level. Getting to the real, felt sense and experience of having directly looked, and found nothing, or having found whatever there is, produces another, totally different effect in the mind of the experiencer. I understand more why we're doing this process, and I understand more the way of how to go about it, and to not jump too quickly to conclusions.

Thanks, "post you later",
Malte

[asmaha]

Fine, "read you later" :-)

[Azov]

Ok, here we go...

Rather than forcing the I out of consciousness, I suggest that you just keep looking for it - look if this I exists in the first place. Because if you find out that it doesn't - then what would there be that needed to be forced out?
So what is this "I" that can apparently be forced out of consciousness? What is it right now, in actual experience?

In actual experience, “I” can’t find it. It’s a concept, a sense that is projected upon actual sensations. (E).
And I don’t feel the need to “get it out” of consciousness, now - I don’t think that is neccesary (or possible) (E). It’s fine just to let it be but to view it more as a “sense” than as something real. It’s becoming easier and easier to do that (E). I understand more and more that this process is about patiently and allowingly investigate experience with openness, rather than with a forceful agenda or “pushing through”. Which is hard for me to do - I become impatient. So, to take a few steps back, and investigate with more relaxedness and patience, is a challenge here for me.

So, in actual experience, the self or “I” is nowhere to be found, and there are no memories of actually experiencing a real, actual “self” or “me”.

[Azov]

Oh, and also you might wonder why there are the (E)'s in there - or on a second thought, you probably recognize them. My wife did her inquiry here also, and had (E) or (T) labeling instructions, sometimes I use those too but usually edit them out of the post.

[asmaha]

Speaking of this I also want to mention a habit of mine which I think caused the trouble earlier with imaginary and real. I have a habit of jumping to conclusions and confusing thought of something with the direct, actual knowledge of something. So before we clearly separated out "real" from "illusory", I believe I thought I "got" some things but that they were purely on a thinking level. Getting to the real, felt sense and experience of having directly looked, and found nothing, or having found whatever there is, produces another, totally different effect in the mind of the experiencer. I understand more why we're doing this process, and I understand more the way of how to go about it, and to not jump too quickly to conclusions.

Nice! Thanks for your honesty. Yes, this is all about really looking what is there in actual experience. About questioning every assumption and belief about reality and checking for yourself what's really true.

Actually, I find this a very interesting question. And it goes in line with our reasoning earlier, about distance and so on, that with real sensations none of them contains any information regarding inside or outside. Instead, the sensations becomes TAGGED by conceptual thought, or a layer of conceptual thinking and intuitions is put over the sensory sensations. I think I’m getting a clearer understanding of the difference between conceptual and real/sensory or real and imagined.

So no, in DIRECT EXPERIENCE, there is no inside or outside. In the ILLUSORY realm, there’s a sense of inside and outside. But that is nothing that is inherent to the sensations, themselves.

Alright, good. But, coming back to what you wrote above: do you SEE this, or is this becoming more like an intellectual conviction? It is not really clear for me from what you write. Are you really LOOKING, or are you just drawing conclusions, because you think you know the answer? Can you perceive this process of thought tagging sensation right now?
You mentioned the labeling exercise where you discern experience into thought and direct experience through putting (E) and (T) behind every sentence. Let's give it a shot, alright? I think it might be a nice thing to do in order to get this discrimination really straight.
So please describe what you are experiencing right now. Take a couple of minutes, write down what you perceive in simple sentences. Than put an (E) behind every sentence describing direct experience and a (T) behind every sentence describing thought.

And I don’t feel the need to “get it out” of consciousness, now - I don’t think that is neccesary (or possible) (E). It’s fine just to let it be but to view it more as a “sense” than as something real. It’s becoming easier and easier to do that (E).

Great!
But in which sense are those statements (E)? Are they sight, sound, taste, smell, bodily-/touch-sensation?

Oh, I just realized I was doing this with “me” and “not me” instead of “inside” and “outside”. So I’m going ahead to try inside and outside, too. Well, there is not any visual sensations that are tagged “inside”. Nor are there any touch sensations which are tagged “outside”. Nor are any auditory sensations tagged “inside”. Except maybe a few, like stomach growling. My voice seems to fall somewhere in between.

In any case, it seems to me that the experiences them selves are not “outside” nor “inside”, they’re being labeled so by the conceptual mind. Like an add-on to the direct, sensory experience.

Yes, nice.
But I am not really really sure if I get what you are saying about the tagging. If there was a visual sensation that was tagged "outside" by thought, or a auditive sensation that was tagged "inside" - would that mean that this particular sensation would indeed be inside or outside? Is there any such thing as "inside" or "outside" beside the thoughts "inside"/"outside"?

Posing the question about inside and outside in another way:
Do you experience an outside world that is separate from you?
Do you experience a border between yourself and the outside world?

I'm sensing more and more where we're heading - my suspicion is that it's in the direction of directly experiencing the sense of self as just a sense - having distinguished it from direct experience, and thereby dispelled it's notion of being "real", "true", or "existing" in the direct, real sense.

This "sense of self" - do you experience it now? If you drop all the labels and mental images and really look into experience, does such a thing as a "sense of self" really exist? Please, don't give an anwser that you think is right, but really look and ask yourself: What is the truth of my experience?

Rather than forcing the I out of consciousness, I suggest that you just keep looking for it - look if this I exists in the first place. Because if you find out that it doesn't - then what would there be that needed to be forced out?
So what is this "I" that can apparently be forced out of consciousness? What is it right now, in actual experience?


In actual experience, “I” can’t find it. It’s a concept, a sense that is projected upon actual sensations. (E).

Yes, great! It is a concept, a thought.
But please clarify for me, what do you mean by "a sense that is projected upon actual sensations"? Is this "sense" anything else than a thought, a mental image?

So, in actual experience, the self or “I” is nowhere to be found, and there are no memories of actually experiencing a real, actual “self” or “me”.

Beautiful!

[Azov]

I'll make a longer post tomorrow evening... got half-way through your questions.

[asmaha]

Alright.

[asmaha]

Hey Malte, how is it going? Are you still there?

[Azov]

Sorry it took me so long to get back on track here, but I've pondered this now:

Alright, good. But, coming back to what you wrote above: do you SEE this, or is this becoming more like an intellectual conviction? It is not really clear for me from what you write. Are you really LOOKING, or are you just drawing conclusions, because you think you know the answer? Can you perceive this process of thought tagging sensation right now?

Actually, I think it’s both. I notice that when I investigate inside "vs" outside, I continually go deeper with it, so I'll try and do this continually for a while and see where it goes. To take some time with it. In regards to your question, it's for sure both. Like a little bit of each.

[asmaha]

Nice that you are back! I already thought I lost you :-)

I notice that when I investigate inside "vs" outside, I continually go deeper with it, so I'll try and do this continually for a while and see where it goes. To take some time with it. In regards to your question, it's for sure both. Like a little bit of each.

Yes, take the time you need. Report back how it is going for you if you feel like doing so.
And feel free to come back to the other question from my post also, if you want to.
An intellectual understanding of all this is not bad at all - it's just that it won't be satisfying in the end. The only thing that will be satisfying is to see directly.
How do you feel in the meantime concerning all of this? Did anything change for you since we started the inquiry?

And do you feel any reluctance to this? (I'm asking because you didn't respond for a couple of days). Or did you just need more time with the inside/outside-investigation?
All the best, Jonas

[Azov]

Oh no, you haven't lost me. I'm not giving up that easily. But I did feel lackluster about it. Which has much to do with my approach to things - expecting them to be easier than they are, then losing energy when that dawns on me, trudging on for a while, then pausing, then re-engaging with newfound vitality and more and more realistic expectations. This can cycle as expectations go up, again.

So yeah, I felt motivationally exhausted for a while. I still want to do this, but the experiential investigation takes more effort than from what I first expected. It's at the same time rewarding because I feel that the continual re-calibrating and 'getting' our task more also leads me to a better experiential AND intellectual knowledge about the mind and the nature of various enlightenment models. Which is one of my favourite interest areas :)

So we'll have to see how this goes. It will probably cycle like this, again. I feel that understanding "real" and "imaginary" as well as (E) vs (T) as further clarified by your previous post was crucial.

I should mention also that I'll be heading away for a 10-day Vipassana retreat on april 13th-24th so I won't be able to post anything here during that time. Besides that, there's no major interruptions in my calendar for quite some time.

Thanks a lot for the patience :)

Oh, and if I ever should give up, or even if i just feel close to it, I promise to post about that too, so we can talk about it first.

Regarding the other questions from your post; I'll be sure to adress them as I go along :)

[asmaha]

Oh, I just discovered your PM... I didn't check my mailbox, sorry.

Oh, and if I ever should give up, or even if i just feel close to it, I promise to post about that too, so we can talk about it first.

Good :-)

Oh no, you haven't lost me. I'm not giving up that easily. But I did feel lackluster about it. Which has much to do with my approach to things - expecting them to be easier than they are, then losing energy when that dawns on me, trudging on for a while, then pausing, then re-engaging with newfound vitality and more and more realistic expectations. This can cycle as expectations go up, again.
So yeah, I felt motivationally exhausted for a while. I still want to do this, but the experiential investigation takes more effort than from what I first expected.

I understand what you are saying. But please consider that a lot of the power of this process has to do with gathering and keeping momentum through sticking to the daily inquiry. That is why we make sure in the beginning that you commit to doing this.
It also has a lot to do with really wanting to know, no matter what. Unless this strong yearning to see the truth is there, it is unlikely that it will be seen. So you may want to ask yourself: How much do I really want this? And also: What gets in the way?
Mostly, what gets in the way will be fear, which can hide behind distraction, resistance, anger... etc. Or it will be expectations. Like the expectation that this is supposed to be easy, the expectation that looking into direct experience should take no effort. (It actually is really simple, it is just the veil of habitual thought that makes this looking seem complicated or difficult. And this apparent veil is exactly what gets cut through by simply looking into direct experience... But becoming familiar with looking will most likely require effort, yes.
Actually though, as far as I can tell, you were doing quite good with this.)

Regarding the other questions from your post; I'll be sure to adress them as I go along :)

I guess I'll just wait then until you feel ready to re-engage in the inquiry and tackle those questions.

[Azov]

Well yeah my endurance is low now because I did have an expectation this could go quicker or would be easier. It feels encouraging to hear you say it's seemed so far like I've been making good progress. Sticking to it and building momentum for the inquiry, this is a bad time for me (april), and initally I thought we would have completed this process by this time. I don't know why I thought it should be that quick, but I did. Anyways, I'm on a course now this friday 8th-10th (full days), then again there is the silent retreat 13th-24th, then the 2nd of may I'm starting a new job; during that week before that I need to also do the taxes & accounting for 2015 for my company (self-employed) so... this is not a good period for sustained inquiry. Also I want to mention that on top of this I've got an ADD diagnosis which these days mean that sometimes I "crash" and procrastinate on my commitments and then there is a period before I rebound into managing and keeping my commitments again... even though this has become a lot better the last few years this still repeats in cycles and that's what happened to me last week.

These things combined makes me think taking an inquiry break until the end of april is the best course of action; being able to pick it up again after starting the new job. If that's possible for you? It's not full-time so I am going to have some time set aside for other things. Regarding Liberation Unleashed and you guiding me here I've been really thinking about doing it since autumn last year and it still feels like an extremely valuable and worth-while spiritual task for me so no doubt there is a wish and desire in me to complete it. I'm sorry to disappoint you and to not meet up fully to your commitment to this process and guiding me though.