Finding the narrow path

[Sarah7]

Hi S
Think of a tv screen. Thought says mountains behind, hills in between and river up front, but the screen is flat. Seeing being a screen with various things coming and going within that screen, including bits of body. Where do you end and over there starts? Could you find that line?

Does seeing happen even when attention is elsewhere?

Onto hearing:
Notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought, "Those are birds." Notice the habitual thought, "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with it. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening? Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you," doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and hearing and a sound? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer. Look closely. Try it with various sounds. See if you can find a way to separate the sound from the hearing and the hearing from the hearer. Where does one start and the other end? So what do you see about the thought, "I'm hearing that sound"? Is it an accurate description of direct experience?
What is a noise? Is that a label also? Is the sound there? Can you really know?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Think of a tv screen. Thought says mountains behind, hills in between and river up front, but the screen is flat. Seeing being a screen with various things coming and going within that screen, including bits of body. Where do you end and over there starts? Could you find that line?

No. It is just all one continuous landscape - from the end of the nose to the distant trees

Does seeing happen even when attention is elsewhere?

Hmm. There is something peripheral. If I look out of the window and see the trees, I am aware of the computer screen in the corner of what is seen. There can be a shifting of focus, a concentrating, on that area of what is seen and the trees in the centre of the view go out of focus as it were. If the focus shifts to a sound, then something definitely happens to the images seen but they do not disappear - they just go out of focus and form more of a background. But experience tells me very clearly that it is not possible to focus on 2 things at once. It seems to be a "limitation", or perhaps an expression of perceptions true nature. "Limitation" is a story about it - because arising from that is the temptation become frustrated.

Onto hearing:
Notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought, "Those are birds." Notice the habitual thought, "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with it. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening? Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you," doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and hearing and a sound? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer. Look closely. Try it with various sounds. See if you can find a way to separate the sound from the hearing and the hearing from the hearer. Where does one start and the other end? So what do you see about the thought, "I'm hearing that sound"? Is it an accurate description of direct experience?

The sound arises in the empty field in which all experience arises, the same field that seeing, feeling and thought - and interestingly seeking - come into being. Although apparently distinct experiences, perhaps it is just the labelling that causes the distinction. There is the arising of experience and then the labelling. This experience arises as seeing. That arises as hearing.

"Arises"? No! That isn't quite right. I'm just re-using words I've heard elsewhere. It isn't there, then it is and then it isn't. There is no gradual-ness about it. The increasing intensity of awareness of the experience is just another experience. It only exists with focus/attention. As the I exists in thought, so the experience exists only in attention/focus. But even that isn't quite right. What is focus/attention? Just another experience which exists and then doesn't. In fact, the differentiation between the experience of seeing, say, and the focus/attention is just a matter of labelling. The experience of whatever type IS the attention/focus. They are one and the same. The seeing experience is only separable from the attention/awareness of it through labelling. It is not somehow "inside" the awareness of it. There is an empty field in which all these experiences begin to exist and then cease to exist, and there does seem to be some sort of qualitative difference between experiences. But whatever that difference is - if indeed there is one - that is what it is.

What is the state of no-focus/no-attention? Is such a state possible? Has it ever been experienced? Does it occur when asleep? Is the waking state just the state in which focus/attention is active? It would certainly seem to be the case.

What is a noise? Is that a label also? Is the sound there? Can you really know?

Good point. It just is. The knowledge of it is in the experience itself, the labelling as "sound" - a word which distinguishes it from other experiences.

Very, very interesting. All this drawn from experience and not logic/reason!

Thx very much Sarah.

S

[Sarah7]

Hi S
Lovely noticings here.

What is the state of no-focus/no-attention?

Well can you chose to be attentive or not? Can you control attention in anyway?

Onto touch:
Touch the table (or any object) with your eyes shut (or open). Pretend like it’s the first time you have ever touched a table. Go straight to the raw sensation/perception. What is your direct experience of this ‘table’? List your direct experience. Is it senses again? Is it thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the senses or the thoughts?
Does the sensation of touching come with a shape, density, weight, size, colour, age or function? Does this sensation come with a ‘not me’ label or ‘other’ label? Is it one sensation/perception or two?
Look at how thoughts try and take over, try and explain, try and prove. Notice your memories or references with which you compare the experience.
Sit with these sensations. Look at them. Look at the labelling e.g. table, hand. Look at the thoughts or story that attach at the end of this list if any. What is your direct experience of these words? Do they exist outside of thought? Are they sensations again? Are they just thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the sensation or the thoughts? Don’t pay attention to the thoughts just look at what they do, when they come in.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

What is the state of no-focus/no-attention?

Well can you chose to be attentive or not? Can you control attention in anyway?

Good point. Nope.

Onto touch:
Touch the table (or any object) with your eyes shut (or open). Pretend like it’s the first time you have ever touched a table. Go straight to the raw sensation/perception. What is your direct experience of this ‘table’? List your direct experience. Is it senses again? Is it thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the senses or the thoughts?
Does the sensation of touching come with a shape, density, weight, size, colour, age or function? Does this sensation come with a ‘not me’ label or ‘other’ label? Is it one sensation/perception or two?
Look at how thoughts try and take over, try and explain, try and prove. Notice your memories or references with which you compare the experience.
Sit with these sensations. Look at them. Look at the labelling e.g. table, hand. Look at the thoughts or story that attach at the end of this list if any. What is your direct experience of these words? Do they exist outside of thought? Are they sensations again? Are they just thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the sensation or the thoughts? Don’t pay attention to the thoughts just look at what they do, when they come in.

As I touch, eyes closed, there is sensation: hardness, warmth - table, hardness, coldness - wall, softness, warmth - trouser leg, awareness of the finger touching and its softness. All these nouns are just overlaid on the experience of touching. There is a specific experience which gets labelled "coldness and hardness".

Interestingly, getting focus to stay on the area of contact is difficult. Many thoughts happen. "Come on! What is it really like? There must be more to it. Your descriptions are lame ... " Focus moves back to the mind. There is a glimpse - but only a glimpse - that the sensation of touch also gives rise to a sense of "I". I am where the point of contact is. But it is very vague. Thought dominates and pulls focus back to the mind area shifting it away from the point of contact the finger makes with the table - making it feel like the "I" is actually located in the head area where the experience of thought seems to happen. There is no control in stopping the thoughts dominate - though perhaps a bit of frustration - the desire for the thoughts to quieten - which itself is another thought - "If only these thoughts would be quiet, you'd see this much more clearly."

With respect to the hand moving towards the table top, this is all dominated by thought. "Closer, closer". If the question comes - but what actually is moving towards the table top? - and seek to put focus there - very difficult with the eyes open - seeing dominates, but with eyes closed, there is awareness of the hand area and a sense of movement, occasionally a shifting of focus up the arm muscles, as it were - but there is this seemingly constant experience in the head making everything feel relative to the head. Not really thought, though, since it doesn't give rise to words - "head-centric" experience. Perhaps seeing re-enforces this because it seems to occur in that same area.

With eyes open, there is a watching as the finger approaches the surface and then the back and forth of focus between the sensation of touch and the watching of the finger touching the table surface. The thoughts are secondary. "You are focussed on the sensation of touching the table. You are now focussed on the watching of the finger".

It is interesting that my "problem" with itchiness actually is one of the few times when the head-area doesn't dominate in the same way. There is always thought saying not to give in to the temptation to scratch and to retain control. If I give in and just scratch, then the consequences are immediately condemned by thought - but was giving in also accompanied by a sense of freedom? This is a scary area. There is definitely fear of letting go and just scratching. Yet scratching happens anyway. I don't know how to let go. That door is not yet open. There is no control in all this - just the suggestion of control by thought.

Trickier this.

Thx Sarah

S

[Sarah7]

Hi S

very difficult with the eyes open - seeing dominates,

Can you combine the seeing exercise with the touching?

I don't know how to let go. That door is not yet open. There is no control in all this - just the suggestion of control by thought.

Where is the one who can let go? Without the thought 'let go' would there even be a problem?

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed. Feel the Direct Experience of sitting there. Notice thoughts thinking, labelling and explaining. Notice memory too. Notice sensations experiencing. Notice the sensation of bottom on chair – what is that – a thought? Notice the ‘me’ ‘mine labels e.g. this is my bottom – but look closely at that sensation labelling – is it yours, or just coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. Is it the thought that wants to own? How many sensations do you notice? 2? One bottom sensation, and one chair sensation? How is that possible? Where does one sensation end and another begin? Locate that line. Can you feel that line? Or is that thought? Can you sense that line – or is that thought explaining the sensation?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi S

very difficult with the eyes open - seeing dominates,

Can you combine the seeing exercise with the touching?

OK. So I may have made progress with this - see the last para below. Looks like expectation was getting in the way.

I don't know how to let go. That door is not yet open. There is no control in all this - just the suggestion of control by thought.

Where is the one who can let go? Without the thought 'let go' would there even be a problem?

Nowhere ... but shouting very loudly! It is difficult to see beyond the thoughts, to be honest. There is dichotomy between the 2 thoughts "don't scratch, you'll end up a bloodied mess" and "be free to scratch - that way lies freedom". Both bringing with them the "I". There is scratching and there is no scratching and there are thoughts. That is the pure experience. But there is struggle as well. But who is struggling? There is noone to struggle. "You have the sense that you are struggling" - yet another thought - believed. It couldn't have been otherwise. And now it has come into the light and been seen.

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed. Feel the Direct Experience of sitting there. Notice thoughts thinking, labelling and explaining. Notice memory too. Notice sensations experiencing. Notice the sensation of bottom on chair – what is that – a thought? Notice the ‘me’ ‘mine labels e.g. this is my bottom – but look closely at that sensation labelling – is it yours, or just coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. Is it the thought that wants to own? How many sensations do you notice? 2? One bottom sensation, and one chair sensation? How is that possible? Where does one sensation end and another begin? Locate that line. Can you feel that line? Or is that thought? Can you sense that line – or is that thought explaining the sensation?

There is the sensation of the bottom on the chair. It is all just one amorphous but unique experience. The "me" doesn't really figure. The thoughts/labelling all come after. Once on the chair, is there a dividing line between "me" and the chair? If the attention moves to a full area of contact, it is difficult to break the experience apart. Thought, however, seems to find it easy! But the oneness of the experience is foggy. Is there just one experience? Ah, OK. There is just experience/sensation. How many of them, I really don't know. Thought was wanting to count them to get "the correct answer".

In fact, there are no distinct experiences - just a flowing of different experience. The only thing that separates the bottom-on-seat experience from what is subsequently experienced is time or, maybe more properly, sequence. This then that. Time is the label put onto that sequencing. But there is no line anywhere dividing up experiences. Cool.

However, a further confusing bit seems to be the reference back to the head area. But this now can be seen as a thought saying "It shouldn't be like this. Why, if there is no me, are you experiencing anything in the head area if this is a bottom-on-seat experience? This is a bottom-on-seat experience not a bottom-on-seat- and-feel-something-in-the-head-area experience". Now maybe that is just what the bottom-on-seat experience actually is. Rationalising it, maybe that is just the experience of the nerves back into the brain yet "I" have the expectation that that head experience shouldn't be present. Rather, the bottom-on-chair experience should be experienced in the "bottom" area only. But obviously, the experience is what it is. If part of the bottom-on-chair experience is something experienced in the head-area ... then fine. The expectation of what the "no-me" experience should be like is the bit giving rise to the confusion.

Thx once again, Sarah.

S

[Omen]

... plus the "head" and the "bottom" are just labels for particular experience ...

[Sarah7]

Hey S

However, a further confusing bit seems to be the reference back to the head area. But this now can be seen as a thought saying "It shouldn't be like this. Why, if there is no me, are you experiencing anything in the head area if this is a bottom-on-seat experience?

Go into that - is it anything but thought? Are you actually experiencing a head area?

So I want you to explore taste and smell - have fun! :)

Are you in the body looking out, of the body as a whole or in certain part of the body? If all – then will you exist if you cut your hair, lose an arm or lose weight? If in a part – which part? Is there a time when the self is not experienced? Did the self chose to not experience itself? Did it chose to come back at some point? Or did that just happen? When you had no sense of self – did you disappear?

Close your eyes and relax for a minute.
Then examine the body from inside.
Can you know, without memory and concepts, how big this body is? How far away the head is from toes? Is there a line, that separates inside from outside? Here from there?
Scan the body for tensions and look at them closer, what is happening? What are these sensations? What are these sensations happening to? Is there awareness of hand if focus goes on a foot?
Play with this and write what you notice.
Notice this, where focus goes, labelling, narrating story follows. Mind is describing what is being experienced after it has been experienced.
Now do the same exercise with eyes open. What is different? Is there a line between inside and outside? What is that separates here from there? Is there an edge to experience?
Describe what feels true!
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

Seeking has come to an end. It's futility has been seen. Has the narrow path been found? Who knows!

Many, many thanks for your time and input.

Simon

[Sarah7]

Hi S
I've sent you a PM. You can find that in your private messages section above right. Ok.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Sarah7]

Hi S
OK then to sum up! Answer these questions in as much detail as you feel is needed to be clear and no rush.

Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience.
Describe it fully as you see it now.

How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

Anything to add?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Omen]

Hi Sarah

Here is where “I” am up to … but I’m finding it increasing difficult to say anything … words seem to be more like a ‘playing around’. I can try and enter into the game, but as soon as anything is said, it is seen not to be so.

Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

There is experience of separation. That experience is seen as experience. I am loathed to say “another experience” because “another” implicitly implies separation, as if individual experiences are happening. The language thereby supports the notion of separation.

Was there ever?

I don’t know.

Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

Any description only serves to hide/obscure. It does not describe the very thing that it is trying to describe. Even the notion/phrase "separate self" reifies. A path for thought is opened up. It is given a focus, an idea/label which is accused of being the source of separation, and by implication is a bad thing. Seeking then happens for that non-existent thing in order to identify it with a view to being rid of it. It is trying to catch the wind.

Having tried to express this, I would add that there can be no clear conceptual expression. In my experience, any such statement misleads. Koanic-style, self-contradictory expressions seem safer to the restless mind, providing fewer inherent hooks to latch onto.

How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

It feels very similar to previously, with perhaps a small adjustment. There is no major epiphany or the like. The current relaxation of the desire to seek is admittedly pleasant and liberating.

What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

That seeking itself was getting in the way. Once seeking stopped, something, that is, nothing, became apparent. Any attempt to look at, investigate or understand that nothingness causes obscuration.

Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

The “I” continues to decide, choose, claim control. Does anything happen? Things appear to happen. Are they caused? I don’t know.

Anything to add?

No. Words so often seem to obscure. Silence seems to express things better.

Many, many thx Sarah, once again.

Simon

[Sarah7]

Thanks Simon
Will be in touch as soon as poss. Please keep checking in! Hugs S xxx