Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

you might believe that only thinking about what happened, analysing and formulating a scientific opinion makes an event worthwhile - otherwise it is lost for you to use it as a learning experience

The issue is not that it's lost as a learning experience, but that it's lost as any experience. While it sounds nice to say that "when I don't identify with the mind or body then I am one with everything", without experience there is no one to say that, there is no one to know about it and no one marvel at it so in what sense does it even exist?

Do you always see or hear or smell? Or is the only constant *thing* the noticing, the being aware of all this happening (no matter if in an objective way or in an objectless, deep sleep like state)? If you have to identify with anything, wouldn't it be more logical to identify with the only *thing* that is always *with you* (as you)?

Well, since I've alway's equated "being aware" as having some degree of recognition then I can't say even this is constant. An "objectless, deep sleep state" is not something I can relate to or talk about, even indirectly, in any way. Speaking about awareness in deep sleep to me is the same as speaking about reality after I'm dead. Sure reality continues to exist, one doesn't need to be enlightened to know that, but what relation does it have to anything I now perceive? Perhaps I'm so habituated in instantly translating everything to thought that I don't even recognise the underlying awareness that enables them, but for now, whatever this "ever present, ever constant" awareness is, it remains beyond anything I can say I know and thus purely theoretical.

Obviously things exist when I don't think about them. Things also exist that I don't know or will ever know about

This is true if you consider the "I" to be this small, conceptual self - the I-thought.

How can it be considered to be anything else? Yes, I could say "This I is a story conjured up by a local process in awareness which is the only thing everyone and everything is and can ever be" but even though this describes the ultimate truth, I can't make the transition from believing I'm this character to realising I'm the screen it plays on - and as this character, there are an infinite number of things I can never know. Note that these things can't be known even when realising you're the screen (otherwise scientists would be spending much more time trying to be the screen...)

Can a thought ever really know anything? Or is thought being known? Not by a separate self, but simply as knowing being present... Is a sound heard by this separate self, or is it again simply known? Not by a knower, but as the knowing, the sounding, itself?

I understand the logic behind this and true as it is, this line of reasoning won't help stop the illusion of suffering when a toothache is happening. Again, the ability to be the knowing of the toothache, to be the happening of frantically searching for a painkiller without identifying with the search or the pain that triggers it seems so distant as to be beyond hope of being reachable.

Sit down and relax - try to let thought be thought and look at it as something not really more important than the humming of the fridge. When thought is in the background, no constant running commentary happing in your head, are *you* any less aware? Are you less here/now? If there is no thought at all, are you still here? If there is nothing objective arising, in deep sleep, do *you* still exist?

In addition to contemplating this during the day, I also sit and meditate between 30 and 45 minutes every day, just trying to be aware of my being aware, noticing thoughts without connecting to them, not trying to make anything happen or expect anything to happen - just letting things be. As you can tell by my replies, I'm none the wiser :-) To answer your question - No, I honestly can't point to any criteria of existence when there is no thought or in deep sleep. As yet, I haven't experienced anything that might point to a different understanding of what it means to be aware.

[Alexw]

The issue is not that it's lost as a learning experience, but that it's lost as any experience.

Version 1:
Something happens... the chirping of a bird... It is noticed... there is a thought stating "I hear a bird"... "It must be getting late. I better get up."

Version 2:
Something happens... the chirping of a bird... It is noticed... there is NO thought following...

Is the experience lost? Why? Who lost it? Does it mean that an experience is only valid if thought talks about it?
Does it require an after-thought to turn an experience into a real experience? Or is the after-thought another, a second experience? First experience of sound, then experience of thought, then more thought... Does thought about the primary experience mean that the thought states the truth about the primary experience? When thought states "I hear a bird!".... Is this true? Or is this just a thought that states something that fits into your conceptual understanding of how the world seems to work?

Do you really need to think about everything so it is allowed to be an "experience"? This would degrade every experience to an after-thought... There would be no real experience, only thought about it.. Does this maybe sound familiar? Do you think you maybe over-think this process? Maybe presence/awareness/knowingness is so simple that it is easily overlooked... Its hard to see something if its everywhere, always present, right?

An "objectless, deep sleep state" is not something I can relate to or talk about, even indirectly, in any way.

Well, in a way you can... Its black, its dark, its peaceful, its reviving, its warming... All these concepts come up when talking about deep sleep... not much different than saying the sky is blue, open, wide and clear...
"sky" is a concept, just like "deep sleep" - you might say "But there is the experience of seeing the sky and then I can think about it and make a qualified statement about it."...But: Is "seeing" the sky really different from "seeing" deep sleep? There is seeing happening... If there is no afterthought, seeing the sky or seeing darkness is in no way different. Then an after-thought happens stating something about the sky (or about deep sleep) - again, where is the difference? An experience is conceptualised. Thought happens and talks about it...
"I have been asleep!"... "I see the sky!" - Was there really an "I" asleep? Is there really an "I" seeing anything? Is there an "I" thinking? Or is all of this simply happening and thoughts talk about these happenings in a rather personal way..?

...when you wake up in the morning, try to notice how you feel in the first minutes of waking up - before the process of conceptualisation takes full effect.
See if you can find this presence also in the waking state... see if this "feeling" is present maybe as a backdrop of an experience, is it there when you simply look out of the window or when you listen to music..? Its not objective, no... its this presence, the aware-ing itself. When you look, don't see the object, notice the looking itself... See if you can be more aware of the process than the objects. When you meditate, don't focus on an object (e.g. breath), look at the looking, the hearing, the sensing itself...

[placebo8]

Something happens... the chirping of a bird... It is noticed... there is NO thought following...

Is the experience lost? Why? Who lost it? Does it mean that an experience is only valid if thought talks about it?
Does it require an after-thought to turn an experience into a real experience?

The only experience I know is a personal experience so I'd argue that If thought never follows then the only reason the experience is not lost because it never existed in the first place. I mean in what sense would it exist if there's no one to recognise it as such?

When thought states "I hear a bird!".... Is this true? Or is this just a thought that states something that fits into your conceptual understanding of how the world seems to work?

No, it is not true because it is a conceptualisation of reality and not reality as it is, but it appears to be all the truth I'll ever be able to get at.

Do you really need to think about everything so it is allowed to be an "experience"? This would degrade every experience to an after-thought... There would be no real experience, only thought about it.. Does this maybe sound familiar? Do you think you maybe over-think this process?

haha :-) saying that maybe I over-think this process has to be the understatement of the day...

An "objectless, deep sleep state" is not something I can relate to or talk about, even indirectly, in any way.

Well, in a way you can... Its black, its dark, its peaceful, its reviving, its warming... All these concepts come up when talking about deep sleep...

Well, not really - saying that deep sleep is black is like saying that a blind person sees black, when in fact a blind person does not see black. Seeing is nonexistent for the blind and is comparable to how I see from the back of my head, i.e there is no seeing - there is nothing.

where is the difference? An experience is conceptualised. Thought happens and talks about it...
"I have been asleep!"... "I see the sky!" - Was there really an "I" asleep? Is there really an "I" seeing anything? Is there an "I" thinking? Or is all of this simply happening and thoughts talk about these happenings in a rather personal way..?

The problem is that for this "I" thought, "I" is equated with personal awareness. The degree to which I exist is equated with the degree to which there's a personal awareness of existence with the ability to separate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood etc. I'm trying to shatter this limited view of a personal awareness but feel I'm overlooking something obvious...

See if you can find this presence also in the waking state... see if this "feeling" is present maybe as a backdrop of an experience, is it there when you simply look out of the window or when you listen to music..? Its not objective, no... its this presence, the aware-ing itself.

Music is a good example, as I love music and can get totally lost in it, but the fact is that while the music is playing I'm aware of it's beauty without having to think about it, but unlike deep sleep, I would say that I'm aware that I'm enjoying myself while it is happening, that is to say my enjoyment involves an appreciation of being able to witness it.

When you meditate, don't focus on an object (e.g. breath), look at the looking, the hearing, the sensing itself...

Yes, I try to do this but it is not easy. As usual, I put it to the test especially when things are less convenient, for example a certain physical discomfort develops, a thought arises "I wish this meditation would be over already", another thought arises "Great, this previous thought is good material to meditate on - who exactly wants this meditation to be over? what exactly is this discomfort apart from the thought about it? etc."
I'm still none the wiser but will continue digging in until something cracks or my time is up - whichever comes first...

[Alexw]

The only experience I know is a personal experience

This is your belief... but there really is never a "personal experience". There is an experience and there are thoughts that talk about it in a personal way... Do you see that?

I'd argue that If thought never follows then the only reason the experience is not lost because it never existed in the first place

Maybe thats true...

I mean in what sense would it exist if there's no one to recognise it as such?

As itself for itself.

No, it is not true because it is a conceptualisation of reality and not reality as it is, but it appears to be all the truth I'll ever be able to get at.

Ok... and what if you forget this quest for (conceptual) truth for a little while and simply look at what is real/true all the time? Real truth is not dependent on anything, not on thought, not on a specific state... Is a birds "chirp" not real? Is the sensation of the wind touching your skin not real? You might not be able to describe it so it perfectly reflects truth/reality - but still, reality is here all the time. Its only your drive to describe it that takes you into thought-world, away from here/now/reality.

Well, not really - saying that deep sleep is black is like saying that a blind person sees black, when in fact a blind person does not see black. Seeing is nonexistent for the blind and is comparable to how I see from the back of my head, i.e there is no seeing - there is nothing.

Sure you describe deep sleep as "black" or "warm" or "peaceful" because you conceptualise it as an experience that compares to your "normal" way of experiencing. A blind person would maybe not use the label "black" but everything else might apply.
Also, an experience becomes an experience that you can talk about - meaning it is awarded certain qualities - when thought picks it up and conceptualises it. Before this process... what is there... just this... nothing conceptual... no-thing... But this applies for every experience - before the process of conceptualisation there is no-thing, no matter if its later called black, blue, hard or soft or nothing...

The problem is that for this "I" thought, "I" is equated with personal awareness. The degree to which I exist is equated with the degree to which there's a personal awareness of existence with the ability to separate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood etc. I'm trying to shatter this limited view of a personal awareness but feel I'm overlooking something obvious...

Maybe your are overlooking that fact and fiction are not really far apart - they are pretty much the same and its only your beliefs that tell you that one is fact the other fiction.
Even you admit that you might be overthinking it, you still are set on continuing your path that is only made of thought. You look for truth in thought even it might have dawned on you by now that thought will never be able to grasp reality/truth. Wouldn't it be a reasonable idea to put thought aside and look for reality outside of descriptive thought? Wouldn't it be nice to try a different angle of attack? If one tool does not achieve the desired outcome would you continue using it or would you put it aside?
What is it that tells you that there is a separate self, a personal awareness, a limited individual, a separate being? Is there really anything but thought that would state such a thing? Does seeing, hearing, smelling or feeling contain even the slightest shred or hint of a separate self? Do they state that they belong to a person?
Why not give up these acquired, false, idea of subject-looks at-object and look in all honesty what is really happening? What is this here/now? How do "you" know it? As a separate I/self? If so, where is this self if not in all these after-thoughts? What is immediate and always present?

As usual, I put it to the test especially when things are less convenient, for example a certain physical discomfort develops, a thought arises "I wish this meditation would be over already", another thought arises "Great, this previous thought is good material to meditate on - who exactly wants this meditation to be over? what exactly is this discomfort apart from the thought about it? etc."

Ok... good exercise... so who is the one that wants this meditation to be over? What did you find? Is it the sensation itself? Is it a separate entity that is in a state of discomfort? Or is there a simple, basic sensation and thought states "That's uncomfortable, I don't like it!"?
In your natural state you would also experience this sensation, but you wouldn't insist to go on in this position even it is obviously not a comfortable position. You would simply change your position. Do you think a cat would remain in a position that is uncomfortable simply because it believes that it is necessary for a special realisation to happen?
Sure, there might be situations when you cant avoid something being uncomfortable - maybe tooth pain etc - so a thought arises "This hurts. I don't like it. I will go and get a painkiller." Whats wrong with that? I don't see a problem in it at all, do you? Thats what thought does... Now, thoughts of self pity might arise... but once it is seen that they don't really change the sensation itself, that they hold no truth, that there really is no self that requires pity, that all they do is adding psychological suffering, you won't buy into them anymore - over time they will diminish and somewhen they wont even arise anymore as they have died from neglect...

[placebo8]

Is a birds "chirp" not real?

The bird singing outside your window is unreal to me. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that I have no way of being aware of it due to the limitation of my senses. You can claim that the same awareness that is the hearing of the bird outside your window is the awareness of the sensation of my fingers clicking on my keyboard, but while this is a nice description, to me that's more of a story than my limited personal awareness, as I have absolutely no access to anything outside my personal awareness, be it senses or thoughts about them.

Maybe you are overlooking that fact and fiction are not really far apart - they are pretty much the same and its only your beliefs that tell you that one is fact the other fiction.

My beliefs are telling me that non-duality is probably a fact while a separate "I" is probably fiction that seems like fact, so it appears that considering this alone implies that telling fact from fiction is important.

Sure you describe deep sleep as "black" or "warm" or "peaceful" because you conceptualise it as an experience that compares to your "normal" way of experiencing. A blind person would maybe not use the label "black" but everything else might apply.

I didn't mean to say that a blind man wouldn't describe deep sleep as 'black', but rather that deep sleep is not indescribable in the same sense that the color red is indescribable. While "Red" points to something ineffeble which I label with a word, deep sleep is also labled with a word but points to nothing - like a deaf person's experience of Bach's music, or a blind man's experience of 'Green' - there can be no experience of "lack of experience".

Before this process... what is there... just this... nothing conceptual... no-thing... But this applies for every experience - before the process of conceptualisation there is no-thing, no matter if its later called black, blue, hard or soft or nothing...

I remember this was more evident when I was younger, now there's a lot of undoing to do in order to reestablish this knowledge.

Wouldn't it be a reasonable idea to put thought aside and look for reality outside of descriptive thought? Wouldn't it be nice to try a different angle of attack? If one tool does not achieve the desired outcome would you continue using it or would you put it aside?

I think it would require thought to agree that it is a reasonable idea :-) I'd be more than happy to try a different tool, but it's not like I'm in a tool shed with a set of different tools to choose from. I'm very fond of Maslow's quote who said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." so over the years I've been wary of every doctrine or explanation of life so as not to be stuck with the proverbial hammer, but letting go of thought as a measuring stick of what is true from what is false is a tough one.

Ok... good exercise... so who is the one that wants this meditation to be over? What did you find?

There's no tangible "who" - there is an identification that is very persistent. Saying "oh, this is just a persistent identification with the process of thought and emotion" does not do much to dissipate the identification. Of course I try not to just think about it but really dive deep into it's source, but usually the identification wins...

Is it the sensation itself? Is it a separate entity that is in a state of discomfort? Or is there a simple, basic sensation and thought states "That's uncomfortable, I don't like it!"?

I associate a thought of "That's uncomfortable, I don't like it" with something bearable. When things become extreme, rational thought will usually go out the window and there's only room for emotions of suffering, so any attempt to try and see it for what it is without becoming involved in the drama seems impossible.

Do you think a cat would remain in a position that is uncomfortable simply because it believes that it is necessary for a special realisation to happen?

No, a cat isn't that stupid, it takes a human to do that :-) Then again, the average cat probably won't do anything other than advancing what it perceives as it's own personal welfare. In that sense, it displays the behaviour of any self-worshiping human.

but once it is seen that they don't really change the sensation itself, that they hold no truth, that there really is no self that requires pity, that all they do is adding psychological suffering, you won't buy into them anymore - over time they will diminish and somewhen they wont even arise anymore as they have died from neglect...

There is a thought now longing for the day when this will not be just another thought...

[Alexw]

The bird singing outside your window is unreal to me.

I am not saying that the bird outside of my window should be real to you. I am talking about whatever shows up for you right now. When you hear whatever you hear - when you feel whatever you feel - then this sensation is real. It is here right now, or do you disagree?

My beliefs are telling me that non-duality is probably a fact while a separate "I" is probably fiction that seems like fact, so it appears that considering this alone implies that telling fact from fiction is important.

For who? Does life care if non-duality is a fact? Who wants to know?
Thought wants to know stuff. It wants to know the fact of non-duality... anyone else who would like to know?
When thought knows, whats next? Doubts? New theories that might prove the opposite..? Is there ever an end to it?

letting go of thought as a measuring stick of what is true from what is false is a tough one.

Its not so much about letting go of thought but seeing that thought is the only measuring stick around - but the problem is that there really is nothing to measure... All measures are thought measuring thought...
What if every idea, every thought is false. No true thought exists. What then?
What if the only truth is always right here/now? This sound, this visual perception, this physical sensation... whatever shows up... No meaning hidden in it, just life life-ing... and then there are thoughts trying to understand, trying to measure and distinguish true from false...
You can try to find truth for all your life, but its really always right in front of you, with you as you...
Look or listen or feel... this sound or this sensation.. it is real, isn't it? It is noticed/known - but when I say "known" I am not talking about thought labelling it and conceptualising it. I am talking about the direct knowing that is always present - as presence/awareness/knowing...

When you look at an object - an apple - do you see an apple? Is there a "you" doing the seeing of a separate object called "apple"? Or is there really only knowing/awaring/noticing happening? No knower, no thing known, just know-ING happening?
How do you experience this world? Is there an experiencer or only thoughts about one? Is there a real object that is being experienced or are there just concepts that transform certain parts of This into a seemingly separate object?
In a sleep-dream... are there any real objects present? Or is there only experiencing/knowing happening? You can still see and touch an apple in your dream, right... does this make the apple real? Or does this only indicate that noticing/knowing is happening?

Please get an apple (or any other object)... Now, when you experience "apple", you see and you touch it and thus feel it... But what is really happening? Is seeing really more than a bunch of colours in certain shapes that receive certain thought made labels? Is feeling more than a certain tingling/pressure that again receives its qualities/properties via thought?

Without the idea that there is a separate I/self touching an apple - is there really more to be found than pure knowing/awaring? What if this impersonal knowing is really "all there is"? What if absolutely nothing has to change for "you" to be perfectly free? This knowing is always present, no matter if you have thoughts of doubt or not... these thoughts are also known in/as this presence... is this presence any less present when a thought of doubt arises? Or is it always unblemished?
Look and see what is real and what is just story... If all thought is story then what is left? Are you this small, separate, doubtful story of a self that thought has conjured up? Is it real? Or are you the only reality, the always shining presence that is not affected by any thought story at all..?

There's no tangible "who" - there is an identification that is very persistent. Saying "oh, this is just a persistent identification with the process of thought and emotion"

OK, no "who" outside of thought stating that there should be one... So "identification" is really not more than just thought stating that every experience is owned by a person, right? Its not something you can find in hearing or sensing, just in thought... Agree?

[placebo8]

I am not saying that the bird outside of my window should be real to you. I am talking about whatever shows up for you right now. When you hear whatever you hear - when you feel whatever you feel - then this sensation is real. It is here right now, or do you disagree?

Of course my sensation is real right now, even thought can't disagree with that statement. What thought continues to say is that whatever is experienced is always limited to what this body can sense and then it concludes from this that awareness is a personal matter, tied to a specific body.
The funny thing is that it seems thought is trying to prove its case by using as evidence the fictitious situation that it itself has created. I feel this just has to be true (while thought continues to testify to the contrary).

For who? Does life care if non-duality is a fact? Who wants to know?

For who? That's a good one... I assume life obviously does not care about non-duality as it's totally busy doing the all-inclusive life-ing thing, including "animating" the thoughts that in turn think they experience life rather than being life. Regardless of the accuracy of this answer, it is still thought based - it is written and assessed by someone who still feels he's a separate conscious agent, even if all signs point that it can't be so.

Thought wants to know stuff. It wants to know the fact of non-duality... anyone else who would like to know?
When thought knows, whats next? Doubts? New theories that might prove the opposite..? Is there ever an end to it?

I have no doubt there is no end to it, but there certainly seems to be a direction to it. The history of science is not a bunch of random jumps from one crazy theory to another. There is a very clear direction of increasing power of explanation and prediction of the processes that are recognised by thought. The map science draws will never be the territory, but it does seem to describe the territory with increasing resolution, which suggests there is a separation between fact (a theory that can predict events in what the mind calls "the future") and fiction (a theory that can't predict anything).

Look or listen or feel... this sound or this sensation.. it is real, isn't it? It is noticed/known - but when I say "known" I am not talking about thought labelling it and conceptualising it. I am talking about the direct knowing that is always present - as presence/awareness/knowing...

I understand what you're saying yet find it difficult to separate the sensation from the immediate thought that follows it, so the "me" always pops up quite quickly. I mean, any time a sensation is recognised then it's already a thought about the sensation isn't it? So it seems that the only time I'm really aware is when I'm not there - but then in what sense am I aware? Awareness has always been equated with the "I" story - no "I", no awareness of awareness.

In a sleep-dream... are there any real objects present? Or is there only experiencing/knowing happening? You can still see and touch an apple in your dream, right... does this make the apple real? Or does this only indicate that noticing/knowing is happening?

Identical noticing/knowing is happening when seeing or touching an apple in either the dream or the waking state, but unless one devolves into solipsism, this observation only serves to show the subjective nature of awareness because, to paraphrase an old saying, an apple in a dream is a dream and not an apple...

Speaking of dreams - a recent dream I had involved being alone in some foreign country and all my personal belongings including passport, wallet and phone were stolen by someone. As alarm started to set in regarding what happens next, it occurred to me that I can't be harmed because whatever it is that happens is exactly what I am. It didn't last long in the dreamscape and identification with the dream body quickly set back in. Nothing too surprising considering the amount of contemplation I'm putting into this in the waking state, though I'm sure a psycologist would have had a field day with the metaphors and symbols involved...

Without the idea that there is a separate I/self touching an apple - is there really more to be found than pure knowing/awaring?

Still working on the first part (removing the idea that there is a separate I/self touching an apple) so can't provide so I feel unqualified to answer...

[Alexw]

I understand what you're saying yet find it difficult to separate the sensation from the immediate thought that follows it, so the "me" always pops up quite quickly. I mean, any time a sensation is recognised then it's already a thought about the sensation isn't it? So it seems that the only time I'm really aware is when I'm not there - but then in what sense am I aware? Awareness has always been equated with the "I" story - no "I", no awareness of awareness.

No... you award thought with too much power.
Thought doesn't make sound happen, it doesn't make visual perception possible, it doesn't generate the tingling in your feet. All these sensations are immediate. They are not only there because thought talks about them later on.
Sure, if you do talk about these sensations later on then all you are left with is thought, not the real thing, but the real thing is always right here/now. Just look past these thought-stories and see, hear, feel...
Try to see thought as something similar to sound - also just a sensation. Nothing special. Sit down and listen, look - you hear sound and you see whatever presents itself in front of you. Its the same with thought, you think whatever thought presents itself.
But there is also the noticing, the knowing, the aware-ing, of sensations (including thought). Not the conceptual labelling machine that thought is - the knowing of the thought itself. The knowing of the sound. This knowing is not to be found as a separate entity - its inherent in the process. It is the process.
When you said that "it occurred to me that I can't be harmed because whatever it is that happens is exactly what I am" then you are describing exactly this process, aren't you? Are you the separate thought in this process or are "you" the process (or is there only the process, and nothing separate from it)?
This process is always happening here/now. Simply look past the separation that thought conjures up and see what is left? Anything objective? A separate you? Or just the process, the knowing presence itself?

[placebo8]

No... you award thought with too much power.

Considering only a very few manage to escape it's clutches and see it for what it is plus the fact that this personal thought and belief in what seems like a "me" does not seem to be giving way, makes me think that if anything, I'm underestimating it's power...

This process is always happening here/now. Simply look past the separation that thought conjures up and see what is left? Anything objective? A separate you? Or just the process, the knowing presence itself?

I feel this whole thing is analogous to some stubborn optical illusion in which I can't see something that is plainly obvious to someone who has already seen it. I understand the description of where I'm stuck but that doesn't yet help getting unstuck Will keep meditating on it without hoping that something that won't happen, will happen...

[Alexw]

Hmmm... maybe this is the problem... You see, or rather understand, that there really is no separate I/self, but you still believe that you can do something to make this a permanent experience - something like non-dual awareness or whatever we might call it.
The problem is that by supporting this idea, that you have to do something to achieve this "state" of no-self, might be the main hurdle that keeps you from really "getting it".

How about you simply do nothing - simply be aware of what is happening. You can meditate, but don't set a goal, simply sit and observe. Without preference. Without the aim of reaching a peaceful state, no trying to figuring anything out intellectually - you have more than enough intellectual knowledge for two lives - no dreaming of how it might be when you finally got it. Simply be - and be aware of how things happen. Be aware of how identification happens, how this I-thought arises, how it lives in desires, judgement, ideas and beliefs. Simply see them but don't do anything against them - this is important! "You" will never get it, "you" will never solve it - it can only solve itself. Can you muster this trust and not do, but simply look? Not reject or strive but simply see? The dissolving of I-structures is nothing that the I can achieve - sounds logical, doesn't it? - so let it run its course and gradually reduce the amount of energy you feed into this I-movement by simply refusing attention... be alert but don't support... Can you do that?

[placebo8]

Be aware of how identification happens, how this I-thought arises, how it lives in desires, judgement, ideas and beliefs. Simply see them but don't do anything against them - this is important!

Are there any tips to help being aware of how the identification happens without becoming identified and absorbed in the identification? I try to sit for about an hour a day now just to watch. I try to look both at the awareness of the sensation and the awareness of the thought that follows it as two happenings that belong to no one. I try to absorb that whatever I do is just what happens and there's no "me" controlling it, and even if I think I control it, it's just another thought that belongs to no one.

The thing is that first of all, I do get lost in thought many times and only realise after a while that I'm deep in "I story-land" and it's time to get back to focusing on the awareness of the sensations and thoughts.

The other issue is that of suffering. I know it's thought speaking here, but one of the things that also might be a strong factor in keeping me stuck is the measurement of progress (or lack thereof). My thought says that the best part of "getting it" is being liberated of the suffering associated with various sensations and emotions. However, as much as I try to focus on the sensations and thoughts about them as just happenings in awareness, there will be a point when the sensations are such that the "I" will rear it's ugly head and demand to put an end to the sensation. Of course, I could just "choose" to stop the sensation (for example, by moving to a more comfortable position) but then how would I measure whether there's any real understanding going on? Being liberated isn't restricted to being at equanimity when sensations are pleasant, so why should I "work" with optimal conditions?

[Alexw]

The thing is that first of all, I do get lost in thought many times and only realise after a while that I'm deep in "I story-land" and it's time to get back to focusing on the awareness of the sensations and thoughts.

Whats the difference between getting lost in thought and getting "lost" in sound or visual perception..? When you are aware of sound or sensations then less thought will be present - thoughts might show up stating that "you" are now more aware than before when "you" were lost in thought... but is there really anything that can get lost? Or are there only different thoughts present? When you get lost in the story of I, then what is it that gets lost? Maybe its just a different experience, a purely thought based one, but the knowing of the experience is still the same, isn't it? You still have to be present to experience it... What is it that is present? A separate I or is there only the presence/knowing itself?

...as much as I try to focus on the sensations and thoughts about them as just happenings in awareness

Maybe this doesn't work as they don't really appear in awareness or to you, but rather as you... You are trying to introduce a separate observer that should observe something in a neutral way, which only works if this observer is untouched by it, when it is separate from the observed. The problem is that this is only a conceptual separation, not a real one. In reality the observer and the observed are one.
When something happens and thoughts of suffering arise then do these thoughts or the suffering happen TO you? Or are they simply happening AS you? Thoughts happen, they talk about suffering of some individual entity, physical sensations happen, more thoughts happen... does any of this happen to you or are these things just arising in/as awareness? Who is watching/observing these happenings? Somebody that is separate from the happening? Or is there only this knowing-presence?
When you observe whatever arises - pain, suffering (=thought), happy moments (=thought), a tree, a sound... - do you observe something that is really separate from yourself? Is there a self looking at stuff that is not-self? What do you find in this process of observation? Can you really find any thing, anything solid? Or is all that you can find pure knowing/aware-ing/being? Maybe every-thing is made of "knowing"? Are you the knowing or the thing?

the "I" will rear it's ugly head and demand to put an end to the sensation

Is a thought demanding anything really a valid "measurement of progress"? If you are in sever pain, surely thoughts will arise that state "I want this to end! I don't want to suffer anymore!"... So what? Does this in any way interfere with the knowing of these thoughts or the knowing of the pain? Does it cloud awareness of itself? Does it really matter at all what shows up in awareness or will the knowing of the arising form always be perfectly clear (no matter what thought says)?
Sure, as long as you identify with the small, separate, thought based I, you (the thought based you) will suffer. You will suffer from your own ideas which state that there is a sufferer that is enduring a painful state. But this identification is only thought based, only a belief.
If you have to identify with anything, what would be a logical object of identification?
The temporarily arising thought based I or the always present knowing/aware-ing of it all? With the permanently existing "no-thing" out of which all conceptual things arise or with a separate part of it which is only based on a belief? Its like saying the ocean is made of waves only, not of all the water that is its essence... Are you a wave or the ocean?

[placebo8]

When you get lost in the story of I, then what is it that gets lost? Maybe its just a different experience, a purely thought based one, but the knowing of the experience is still the same, isn't it?

True - no matter what the experience is, it requires a "being-ness" to exist - a being-ness that is always there. The difference between the "being-ness" of thought vs. that of sensation is that in thought there is the possibility (and usually also the actuality) of mistaking the thought for the truth rather than seeing thought as another happening in truth. This mistake is what I refer to as being lost in thought, i.e the belief in the separate "me" experiencing the thought, which is still the dominant belief in this body/mind illusion.

You still have to be present to experience it... What is it that is present? A separate I or is there only the presence/knowing itself?

My experience is that that the instant it is recognised that it is an experience, an experiencer is also created. It seems the recognition itself creates an "I" entity so I can't talk about or remember a non-dual experience. The only way I can conceive a non-dual existence to be is absolute nothingness since only then is there no one to talk of the experience of anything. Then again, this is just thought talking. I continue with my meditations while ignoring thought that is telling me that I'm on a wild goose chase.

The problem is that this is only a conceptual separation, not a real one. In reality the observer and the observed are one.
When something happens and thoughts of suffering arise then do these thoughts or the suffering happen TO you? Or are they simply happening AS you?

It all boils down to what this "me" is taken to be. At the moment, this "me" is mistakenly taken to be the perceived wants of this body/mind organism (The same organism through which an experience of being-ness can be known). While there is an intellectual understanding that the truth is exactly as you describe it and not the way a fictitious "I" thinks it is, making the shift from a perspective of an experiencer to that of "being what is happening" is not something within the reach of an experiencer, so I feel that all that is left to do is continue to sit and meditate on it until something clicks. I guess in some way, it doesn't matter whether something eventually clicks or not in the same way it does not matter whether a suffering dream entity understands it is unreal, because this entity will eventually be gone together with it's story upon waking up. It would be nice if it could happen within the dream though...

If you are in sever pain, surely thoughts will arise that state "I want this to end! I don't want to suffer anymore!"... So what? Does this in any way interfere with the knowing of these thoughts or the knowing of the pain?

I think it does interfere with the knowing of these thoughts because the natural focus is on the pain and wanting it to stop and not on the knowing of which it is part of and owes it's existence to. This is why when meditating I don't rush to fix an uncomfortable feeling - it's easy to be at peace when everything's nice and comfortable, but this will last only as long as the body/mind is comfortable, and therefore it is not real peace. Equanimity should not depend on anything. My mistake is that I'm trying to make this equanimity "my own", but while I know this is impossible and is actually what perpetuates the suffering, I'm still stuck there.

Are you a wave or the ocean?

Intellectually and also on some intuitive level, I know I'm the ocean. Practically, I feel like a wave. It's been like this for ages and it's quite exhausting...

[Alexw]

My experience is that that the instant it is recognised that it is an experience, an experiencer is also created. It seems the recognition itself creates an "I" entity so I can't talk about or remember a non-dual experience. The only way I can conceive a non-dual existence to be is absolute nothingness since only then is there no one to talk of the experience of anything.

This experiencer that seems to be created is not an independent, separate thing, is it? It is just another thought... you see that, don't you?

Now thought says "This is an experience and I am experiencing it, I can think and talk about it, so it can't be non-dual anymore!"... Is this true?
Is thought experiencing it? Is thought talking about an experience morphing a non-dual experience into a dual experience? Can thought make non-duality into duality? Or can it only come up with the idea and then more thought follows, stating: yes this experience is happening in duality!

How do you know that an experience is not non-dual? Do you know what a non-dual experience feels/looks like? You might think you know how an experience in duality feels like, but maybe this is not true... Maybe its all non-dual and there are only a few thoughts that state the opposite?
So... are you sure that there can be only "absolute nothingness" if an experience should qualify for non-duality? Why? Is this not just an idea about how non-duality should be/feel like? Why would there have to be "nothingness", why can't there be variety/diversity..? Diversity is not the same as separation.

This whole belief is a a bit like the "I haven't got it yet!" belief. You believe you haven't got it, but you really don't even know what it would be that you have to get... Yes, you have an idea about how thought should behave after you have "got it", but this is just an idea... Thought will do what thought does. So... What will you get or realise that you haven't got right now? A different thought? Seeing a belief as a belief and not as the truth? Yes, ok... but don't you see that already? All that you have to see is that there is nothing missing in this moment, right now. This knowing presence is obviously here/now. If that is all there is, what is missing from it?

It would be nice if it could happen within the dream though...

There really is no dream. It is only a belief that thought holds on to. The belief in being someone separate, a person in time and space... See that you are not this someone.
How? Look in all honesty at what is here/now.
What is it that doesn't go anywhere no matter what thought arises?

[placebo8]

This experiencer that seems to be created is not an independent, separate thing, is it? It is just another thought... you see that, don't you?

I see it, though rarely. Most of the time I'm too analytical for my own good: whatever appears is automatically translated into something that can be conceptualised - even the recognition that conceptualisation has just taken place is recognised as yet another conceptualisation and the feeling is of being trapped in a recursive cycle.
Sometimes though, this cycle just does it's thing and it is then "seen" as thought doing it's thing, just like the sensation doing it's thing or the sound doing it's thing. The "I" however, can't stand being locked out and usually comes back quickly (i.e, what comes back is the belief that this "I" thought is somehow more special than any of the other things doing their thing...)

How do you know that an experience is not non-dual?

That's simple - If there is suffering then the experience is not non-dual (the same goes for any feeling of attachment to a state). Yes, you are of course correct that I don't even know what it is I have to get, but I do know that whatever it is, if it can contain suffering without any problem then it can't be what this I believes to be true.

What will you get or realise that you haven't got right now? A different thought? Seeing a belief as a belief and not as the truth? Yes, ok... but don't you see that already?

What I will realise that I haven't got right now is total freedom from suffering. Perhaps my seeing a belief as a belief is not yet as clear as it should be for this to occur.

What is it that doesn't go anywhere no matter what thought arises?

It's that which in the moment knows that thought is there, that which knows the sound, the sight or any possible experience that can be. There's a tiny glimpse of that in moments of meditation when I stop taking the thoughts to be what I am. Usually, I'm too busy believing I'm the actor and not the screen. At this rate of progress it will require several hundred lifetimes to see things clearly... :-)