Finding the narrow path

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

Sorry for not getting back before, busy weekend ...

Things are just emerging. There is a noticer, but it isn't an "I" or "me". This all happens in or around this body-mind, but no ownership is involved. There is no "I" agent causing things to happen. The "I" agent comes to the fore more when the "you are a victim" thought arises.

Nice - keep looking. Notice when thought story gets involved what happens with ownership. Notice also the weight of the story. Do you bring the stories? Or do they just appear? Do you have a choice to become involved with them or not?

In direct answer to your questions, yes, ownership increases as the story gets more involved. The "I" seems to appear in the story which is interesting since I have often heard that "I" is just a thought, but have struggled to see it. Still not absolutely clear, have not seen it absolutely clearly. There is another voice arising "no ... 'I' is a real, independent entity which happens to appear within each story."

The stories are not chosen, but either seem to come from memory, memories in which a younger version of this body-mind was present, or some imagined scenario which is either pleasant or bad (e.g. losing my wife/a child - "how would you cope ... you couldn't manage etc etc, or being 'heroic' in an imagined situation as if this would somehow prove the "I", along the lines of "imagine you did such and such a thing then everyone would know about you").

It seems however, for quite a lot of the time, life just flows, the "I" is either not present or very quiet. If I am struggling to solve a problem a work, there is invariably the story "you're such a lousy programmer ... look at your co-workers ... look how quickly they solve problems". That kind of story often emerges if this body-mind tries to do almost anything or even contemplates starting doing something new (e.g. DIY stuff).

The weight of the story ... hmm ... interesting ... I think this relates to the above paragraph. The "I" and the intensity of the story are related. The "I" is more clearly seen/identified when the story is intense, particularly negative stories involving pain, failure, fear. But there is also the temptation to egotism when something goes right ... a voice temptingly saying "look how wonderful you are ... etc etc" and emerging after that, another story trying to resist that temptation. Why the sense of resistance? It must be another conflicting voice saying "you really shouldn't take credit ..."

But yes, they - the stories - just appear just like the sound of the birds singing, and just as the hearing to the singing just happens so the story involving this body-mind, or put another way, "my" involvement in the story. But similar to writing, sometimes what is written just happens - there is no "I" and there is no witness, and at other times the witness appears saying "Look! Writing is happening and it happening of its own accord - there is no "I" writing". Not sure if that (the witness perspective) is itself a story ...

Thx again, Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hey S
Don't forget: You: there is a very vague sense of the noticer - yes, it is still there
Me: I want you to keep looking for it. Keep checking in to see if its ever not there. Ever not accessible. Get curious about it!

and at other times the witness appears saying

Are you the witness?

or some imagined scenario which is either pleasant or bad

What can a thought know?

It seems however, for quite a lot of the time, life just flows,

What is experienced when it doesn't seem to flow? What says it is not flowing properly?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

You: there is a very vague sense of the noticer - yes, it is still there
Me: I want you to keep looking for it. Keep checking in to see if its ever not there. Ever not accessible. Get curious about it!

Awareness of it is not always there. Though in hindsight it always was. Looks like I'm going to need to start using the word 'presence'. There is and always has been a presence 'there', but the awareness of it seems to come and go. The presence has no qualities other than just being there.

and at other times the witness appears saying

Are you the witness?

I was going to say sometimes, but I'm not sure that's quite right. There is awareness of the witness at times, and at other times awareness of the thing being witnessed. Almost like a switching back and forth depending on whether there is a prompt, be it a thought or, say, one of your questions, to consider who is witnessing. There is never an identification with the witness such as "Ah! I am the witness". It is more like that there is and has always been the continuous presence of the witness around this body-mind whether there was awareness of it or not.

or some imagined scenario which is either pleasant or bad

What can a thought know?

Hmm ... the thought and the sense of pleasantness or unpleasantness are highly intertwined. If I think of one of my children being hurt, it is very difficult to separate the badness/pain from the thought of the thing happening. There is no control over the nearness of the two things. They can't be willed apart, as it were. They just seem to arise spontaneously together as it were. Having said that, when it doesn't happen spontaneously, I can seemingly imagine the one without the other. But I don't really understand what I have just written in the sense of what is happening. There is a sense that I can decide to think about something bad without the associated bad feelings, yet those are just the next thing arising perhaps showing me that the two are separable. It is a bit like spontaneously moving ones arm above one's head to swat away a fly (accompanied by the thought "get that annoying fly away from here") and seemingly deciding just to move one's arm above one's head (accompanied by the thoughts, "I can decide to move my arm above my head" - moves arm above head - "Look I moved my arm above my head). In one instance there is the sense of control and the other just spontaneously reaction.

It seems however, for quite a lot of the time, life just flows,

What is experienced when it doesn't seem to flow? What says it is not flowing properly?

Yes. Thought says it. The sense of "things not flowing" is, of course, just arising. Or perhaps there is resistance there, the desire for things to be other than they are, but seeing the resistance is also tricky.

Many thx again. Am I going round in circles or perhaps dancing around something?

S

[Sarah7]

Hey S

The presence has no qualities other than just being there.

Can you rest there?

What can a thought know outside of thought?

Yes. Thought says it. The sense of "things not flowing" is, of course, just arising. Or perhaps there is resistance there, the desire for things to be other than they are, but seeing the resistance is also tricky.

OK - look every time resistance turns up - what is actually experienced in that moment. Outside of thought - is there anything actually wrong with right now?
And as looking occurs - what happens to the resistance if anything?
If forgetting happens - no worries, just pick up when remembering happens! :)

Am I going round in circles or perhaps dancing around something?

Are you? :)
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

The presence has no qualities other than just being there.

Can you rest there?

As soon as there is a seeking of this presence, it cannot be found. I am not always immediately aware that it is there. The "I" therefore must overlook it if the presence is real and doesn't just come and go like everything else. Though logically I'd have to say that it would be the awareness of the presence that comes and goes. I'm not sure what I could say of the nature of the presence itself. All I could say of the presence is that, from time to time, there is awareness of something being there

What can a thought know outside of thought?

It seems like a thought has the power to lead to or, even, cause action. There is not sufficient space to see the action arising independent of the preceding thought - even though the one appears after the other. That a thought is saying "this has caused that" it still not seen.

Yes. Thought says it. The sense of "things not flowing" is, of course, just arising. Or perhaps there is resistance there, the desire for things to be other than they are, but seeing the resistance is also tricky.

OK - look every time resistance turns up - what is actually experienced in that moment. Outside of thought - is there anything actually wrong with right now?
And as looking occurs - what happens to the resistance if anything?
If forgetting happens - no worries, just pick up when remembering happens! :)

Slightly different tone, perhaps ... there's a bit of frustration arising .. probably on the back of wanting to achieve some sort of state of being or, perhaps more correctly, thinking that I am not in "the right" state of being. But if that "I" is a thought, what else can it be. Can it become anything else? This body-mind is its embodiment, its context - and perhaps other body-minds ... who knows? (It's like Smith wanting out of the Matrix. Can a computer program exist outside of a computer?) What is it attaching to? There is nothing for it to attach to. Why does it feel so powerful? Does it actually feel powerful? Why can it not be dismissed like so many other thoughts which just come and go without frustration subsequently arising. (What's so wrong with frustration arising? Who's saying that frustration is bad/unpleasant?) What gives "I" its 'special' status? The "I" cannot be found just like the presence cannot be found when investigated. Does that mean the "I" is the presence? Does it matter? If so, why, who says so? Is this just how it is, how things are? Is there ever any answering of these thoughts/questions to silence them once and for all? Would that actually be desirable were it attainable? Why do thoughts so often appear adversarial, contrary, contradictory? Are they actually messengers continually pointing out that the perspective isn't quite right?

Am I going round in circles or perhaps dancing around something?

Are you? :)

Don't think I'm being fully honest, yet. I'm trying to invest in the right answers rather than see what is.

Thx again Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hi S

It seems like a thought has the power to lead to or, even, cause action. There is not sufficient space to see the action arising independent of the preceding thought - even though the one appears after the other. That a thought is saying "this has caused that" it still not seen.

Have you ever noticed sometimes that you arrive at a destination and don't really recall actually making the journey? It was as if the body was just doing its thing, driving just happened. It is only afterwards that the mind grabs hold of the experience and states 'I was driving the car' or, if questioned whilst driving (a present continuous activity), it would say 'I am driving the car'.
Whether your mind is totally concentrating on each gear shift that 'I' make, each look in the rear view mirror that 'I' makes, each twist of the steering wheel . . . or the entire journey is done automatically, the same result is achieved. Similarly when doing household tasks. Whether mind is involved or not, the task still gets accomplished. We call this autopilot. How much of your day is autopilot? Just give me a rough percentage.

and

Tap with two or three fingers on the leg. Tap, tap, tap. Then, hold the fingers poised ready to tap. Just waiting in the air for a command to tap.
Looking at the fingers in the air, it’s not quite known when they will tap. In fact, the thought “tap now” can quite happily show up and yet the fingers remain in the air.
See if you can notice the moment when the command is issued and from whence it comes SUCH THAT the fingers simply have to obey. Notice if other commands to tap can be issued which have no affect on the fingers, leaving them remaining in the air.
Is it true that in direct experience there is no command that can be issued to make the fingers tap?
What causes the finger to tap? Anything? See what can be discovered in experience rather than thought.

probably on the back of wanting to achieve some sort of state of being or, perhaps more correctly, thinking that I am not in "the right" state of being.

Is any state permanent?

But if that "I" is a thought, what else can it be.

Good question - is 'I' a thought? Can it be anything else? Look. What is experienced?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

It seems like a thought has the power to lead to or, even, cause action. There is not sufficient space to see the action arising independent of the preceding thought - even though the one appears after the other. That a thought is saying "this has caused that" it still not seen.

Have you ever noticed sometimes that you arrive at a destination and don't really recall actually making the journey? It was as if the body was just doing its thing, driving just happened. It is only afterwards that the mind grabs hold of the experience and states 'I was driving the car' or, if questioned whilst driving (a present continuous activity), it would say 'I am driving the car'.
Whether your mind is totally concentrating on each gear shift that 'I' make, each look in the rear view mirror that 'I' makes, each twist of the steering wheel . . . or the entire journey is done automatically, the same result is achieved. Similarly when doing household tasks. Whether mind is involved or not, the task still gets accomplished. We call this autopilot. How much of your day is autopilot? Just give me a rough percentage.

Well if you include all your bodily functions as well, I can't see anything which isn't. Can I magic up a thought? I can say to myself "think a new thought" and think of a purple caravan. What has happened then? What issued the instruction to think a new thought? I was just aware of it arising as did the thought of the purple caravan. Where did it all come from? What was the connection between my telling myself to think a new thought and thinking of a purple caravan? There seems to be something but I can't see what. Does it matter? Why do I think it seems to matter? Is this an endless cycle of question and more question? Does that even matter if it is? What is the need to find THE answer, to get to the bottom, the promise of finally understanding? A thought is like a painting which simply reflects the thing painted. It can never be the thing painted. Just the finger again and not the moon. A thought can only be a thought. But the thoughts as they arise seem to be leading to that conclusion.

Tap with two or three fingers on the leg. Tap, tap, tap. Then, hold the fingers poised ready to tap. Just waiting in the air for a command to tap.
Looking at the fingers in the air, it’s not quite known when they will tap. In fact, the thought “tap now” can quite happily show up and yet the fingers remain in the air.
See if you can notice the moment when the command is issued and from whence it comes SUCH THAT the fingers simply have to obey. Notice if other commands to tap can be issued which have no affect on the fingers, leaving them remaining in the air.
Is it true that in direct experience there is no command that can be issued to make the fingers tap?
What causes the finger to tap? Anything? See what can be discovered in experience rather than thought.

I don't know. I tapped when I read the first para above and refrained when reading further. Why did I tap when I read what you had written? There seems to have been a connection otherwise why would I tap? If I hadn't read what you had written, there is no reason why I would have tapped. I doubt that the thought of tapping would have even crossed my mind. It is as if your words established an agenda. But was any authority invested in what you had written to compel me to tap? No - I can't see anything like that! Yet it still happened quite freely without compulsion, resentment or resistance. It seems that some thoughts seem to arise which cause or are related to subsequent things/actions and others arise without consequence. Now I could re-read your words and not tap, but different thoughts arise (e.g. "no I'm not going to tap this time"). Every time is new.

probably on the back of wanting to achieve some sort of state of being or, perhaps more correctly, thinking that I am not in "the right" state of being.

Is any state permanent?

No - it would appear not, not even that state of being aware of presence.

But if that "I" is a thought, what else can it be.

is 'I' a thought? Can it be anything else? Look. What is experienced?

A thought can't be anything other than a thought. It cannot, for example, transform into an action. A thought is just a label to stuff happening "in the head" area.

Thx again Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Mornin S

What is the need to find THE answer, to get to the bottom, the promise of finally understanding? A thought is like a painting which simply reflects the thing painted. It can never be the thing painted. Just the finger again and not the moon. A thought can only be a thought. But the thoughts as they arise seem to be leading to that conclusion.

What if you never get an answer? What would that be a problem for?
Are you waiting for thought to understand? Why when 'a thought can only be a thought'.
Are thoughts always leading? Promising more if only. The grass is greener if you only go over there. Have a look.
How do you know this isn't it?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah - early start (assuming you are in the UK)!

So first thing this morning, I went to make a cup of tea. Someone had not put the top on the milk carton. There was annoyance, but then very shortly after but very clearly separately came the voice "Why are you annoyed?". In that moment, there was a recognition that the "I" appeared with/in that thought. Since that time this morning, there is further recognition of this continuing self-reflective commentary centred around the "I" ... "You should be doing this ... You shouldn't be doing that. You aren't very good at this ... why are you doing that ..." Sometimes positive, but generally negative. Incessant.

This experience was very helpful in seeing the thing so clearly - but I soon seem to get caught up in the "I" dialogue/monologue. Maybe this is a pattern at the start of each day. The establishment of the "I" is the first job of ... whatever.

What is the need to find THE answer, to get to the bottom, the promise of finally understanding? A thought is like a painting which simply reflects the thing painted. It can never be the thing painted. Just the finger again and not the moon. A thought can only be a thought. But the thoughts as they arise seem to be leading to that conclusion.

What if you never get an answer? What would that be a problem for?
Are you waiting for thought to understand? Why when 'a thought can only be a thought'.
Are thoughts always leading? Promising more if only. The grass is greener if you only go over there. Have a look.
How do you know this isn't it?

There is the acknowledgment that you are right. The intellectual acceptance of what you say - that the thoughts are painting a fantasy and I'm listening. How can I see that the grass isn't greener over there if I don't look? But that is giving credence to the content of the thought. But don't some thoughts reflect truth? Yes ... perhaps ... but that is exactly the problem. They reflect ... they are not the truth. Can you ever find truth by following a thought? Can you ever find the moon by seeing where the finger is pointing and looking there. The answer must be yes ... but I keep mistaking the reflection for the reality and then feeling somethings not right.

There is a sense that I am missing something - yet I know that that sense of missing something is the reason I sense I am missing something - but I can't see it. The "I" will never be able to see it ... definitely wandering around in circles over here! "Gateless Gate" is such a good phrase - I know there's nothing to be done, nothing to pass through, but I can't help doing something and trying to find the opening. If only the "I" wasn't there - says the "I".

Thx again Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hey

Me: What if you never get an answer? What would that be a problem for?
Are you waiting for thought to understand? Why when 'a thought can only be a thought'.
Are thoughts always leading? Promising more if only. The grass is greener if you only go over there. Have a look.
How do you know this isn't it?

You: There is the acknowledgment that you are right. The intellectual acceptance of what you say - that the thoughts are painting a fantasy and I'm listening. How can I see that the grass isn't greener over there if I don't look? But that is giving credence to the content of the thought. But don't some thoughts reflect truth? Yes ... perhaps ... but that is exactly the problem. They reflect ... they are not the truth. Can you ever find truth by following a thought? Can you ever find the moon by seeing where the finger is pointing and looking there. The answer must be yes ... but I keep mistaking the reflection for the reality and then feeling somethings not right. There is a sense that I am missing something - yet I know that that sense of missing something is the reason I sense I am missing something - but I can't see it. The "I" will never be able to see it ... definitely wandering around in circles over here! "Gateless Gate" is such a good phrase - I know there's nothing to be done, nothing to pass through, but I can't help doing something and trying to find the opening. If only the "I" wasn't there - says the "I".

Me: So go look! Don't intellectually think about it! Look! Notice if thoughts are pulling forward. Look for story overlaying sensation or emotion. Look into the sense that I am missing something- what is that made up of! What has a problem and where is that problem? You don't have to look at content. It's kind of like cloud watching, just notice thoughts as if they belong to someone else.
Don't answer so quickly. Take your time and look.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

So another interesting development. I'm can see the Now. I can see that the future and past are these ghostly grey images, devoid of real life, conjured up characteristics drawn from memories. The purple caravan I imagined is not a real purple caravan that engages my sight, hearing, causes judgments about whether I like the colour or the shape. Those activities can be mimicked by thought but they are just a hollow imaginary replica ... But the Now is full of sights, sounds, colour, smells, tastes, feelings, joys, surprises, pains and sorrows ... All these things are only available in the Now. They are what define the Now. Thought shifts attention away from these things and that's ok, because thought has its place in the Now. But when completely caught up by thought, the greyness returns. But life only seems to be experienced in the Now. How could I have overlooked that?

So go look! Don't intellectually think about it! Look! Notice if thoughts are pulling forward. Look for story overlaying sensation or emotion. Look into the sense that I am missing something- what is that made up of! What has a problem and where is that problem? You don't have to look at content. It's kind of like cloud watching, just notice thoughts as if they belong to someone else.
Don't answer so quickly. Take your time and look.

But there is noone to look. Arising from you saying 'Look', is the thought that a looker must be present - and maybe there is, but none can be found by looking. Looking just happens. Similarly, the sense/feeling/thought "there is something missing" gives rise/is followed by the notion that there is a subject who perceives something to be missing. The sensation just arises in the chest. It then gets labelled - and all hell breaks loose! But there's just a sensation. Nothing more.

Thx again Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hey S

But when completely caught up by thought, the greyness returns. But life only seems to be experienced in the Now. How could I have overlooked that?

Ok break this down. What is this statement made up of? Anything ,ore than story? Thought telling you it's all grey?
Watch thought rise and fall in the now. Notice story weaving problems. If ever there is something wrong investigate, what is it made up of. Notice thought. However is thought the enemy?

But there is noone to look. Arising from you saying 'Look', is the thought that a looker must be present - and maybe there is, but none can be found by looking. Looking just happens. Similarly, the sense/feeling/thought "there is something missing" gives rise/is followed by the notion that there is a subject who perceives something to be missing. The sensation just arises in the chest. It then gets labelled - and all hell breaks loose! But there's just a sensation. Nothing more.

Indeed. Has seeking ceased?
Have you anymore questions?
How do you feel?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hiya Sarah

But when completely caught up by thought, the greyness returns. But life only seems to be experienced in the Now. How could I have overlooked that?

Ok break this down. What is this statement made up of? Anything ,ore than story? Thought telling you it's all grey? Watch thought rise and fall in the now. Notice story weaving problems. If ever there is something wrong investigate, what is it made up of. Notice thought. However is thought the enemy?

No. Not at all - but it often appears adversarial - a catalyst to change the situation. But that must be another story overlaid. Is it really adversarial, or is it a guide - a demon being seen as really an angel. In reality so many thoughts are not adversarial at all. They can be interesting, lovely, funny etc etc ... There are just some arising which lead to more attention.

But there is noone to look. Arising from you saying 'Look', is the thought that a looker must be present - and maybe there is, but none can be found by looking. Looking just happens. Similarly, the sense/feeling/thought "there is something missing" gives rise/is followed by the notion that there is a subject who perceives something to be missing. The sensation just arises in the chest. It then gets labelled - and all hell breaks loose! But there's just a sensation. Nothing more.

Indeed. Has seeking ceased?
Have you anymore questions?
How do you feel?

Well there was lightness, peace and a lack of thinking. There was a looking round expecting thoughts to emerge, but none came. It just happened. Nothing was done to achieve this.

However, circumstances changed and there were stressful situations, decisions that apparently were needed. Pretty much immediately the clear, peaceful sky becomes cloudy. Now-ness dissipates. Instinctive responses - but what is responding? There is a tightening in the chest. There is a fogging in the mind - a lack of clarity. But this is accompanied by a story that this is unpleasant. Further, there is another story/expectation which says that the clear blue sky is the 'real' destination and that this 'unpleasantness' MUST be overcome in some way in order to restore peace. But it is being experienced. That is all.

I don't think there are questions arising, though. There is a sense of being "there" but the work now, although there is no work to be done, is to see through past "baggage" as it arises - and interestingly the itching isn't as prevalent at the moment. Certainly, currently, the story that accompanies it has lost some of its intensity.

Thx again Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hi S
Lets have a little look at separation and sensory experience. We are going to start with seeing.

Gaze at an object. Turn up that inner magnifying glass to observe what's happening in direct experience. In seeing, what is being experienced? What is happening when "seeing" is happening? What is doing the seeing? What is being seen? What does "seeing" consists of? Describe the actual, direct experience of seeing. Do you first perceive the object using some other sense, and then see it later? Can you find a dividing line between the object and the seeing of it? Or are the object and the seeing of it inseparable? Is there an entity called "you" experiencing the seeing? Can you find a dividing line between "you" and seeing? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and seer and an object? Or is there only seeing? What do you see about the thought, "I'm seeing that object"?

Try it with various sights e.g. out of the window at a distant view. See if you can find a way to separate the object from the seeing and the seeing from the seer. Where does one start and the other end? How many senses are there here - 1 or more?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hiya Sarah

Lets have a little look at separation and sensory experience. We are going to start with seeing.

Gaze at an object. Turn up that inner magnifying glass to observe what's happening in direct experience. In seeing, what is being experienced? What is happening when "seeing" is happening? What is doing the seeing? What is being seen? What does "seeing" consists of? Describe the actual, direct experience of seeing. Do you first perceive the object using some other sense, and then see it later? Can you find a dividing line between the object and the seeing of it? Or are the object and the seeing of it inseparable? Is there an entity called "you" experiencing the seeing? Can you find a dividing line between "you" and seeing? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and seer and an object? Or is there only seeing? What do you see about the thought, "I'm seeing that object"?

Try it with various sights e.g. out of the window at a distant view. See if you can find a way to separate the object from the seeing and the seeing from the seer. Where does one start and the other end? How many senses are there here - 1 or more?

Eyes open. Images appear. Images seem to come via the eyes. Hmmm. I say the eyes but the seeing experience is just happening (or not). Many things appear in this seeing. There is no experience of the eyes per se unless, say, dust gets in which case a whole host of other experiences are involved. There is just the experience of the appearing and disappearing of images. Seeing 'feels' like it is actualised up here behind these glasses as opposed to down there, say, where the hands are typing. But it is all arising in a single area. Near-ness, far-ness, locality - no real boundaries, just different experiences arising - including the seeing and feeling of the body.

There is also a story - "nearness to what, further away relative to what?" There is also the expectation of some sort of One-ness (non-dual) experience - the kind of experience whereby the here and the there disappear and there is no separation ... and yet ... that is just what has been described ... all this is occurring in a single area with no boundaries. That is my experience so I guess a voice must be overlaying "ah yes but that experience isn't quite what I mean - there's a much richer non-dual experience". If there is indeed a richer experience, it certainly can't be grasped at. Presumably it will arise in the same way as any other experience arises ... in its own time.

Thx very much again Sarah

S