In search of a guide

[b0dhi]

Good work Ed

This is what I wanted you to get a grip on with the sense of seeing:

1. There is an image - shapes/colours. This is direct seeing.
2. There is labelling that happens AFTER all the seeing is done. By this time the image has been "processed" and now we have "objects" labelled from the initial image.

There is a gap between seeing and labelling - some lag. Seeing is a direct experience of life, labelling is the thinking process.

At what point in this process does an observed and an observer appear? When does reality (in which an experiencer cannot be found separate from experience) collapse into a subject (namely Ed) and the objects being experienced (table, chair, tree, sky etc.)?

This is subtle so your sharp observation is required :)

[Edward Q]

Bodhi,

Thank you for the explanation, it was very helpful.

I think I might have a hint of what this is pointing to.

We create observer/ observed when we try to silence the other senses. When we experience a sunset, for example.... the observer/observed response is to look at the scene. To look at the sun setting.

In reality, the experience of the sun setting is so much more than what visual information is happening "out there "

If we were to fully experience this event, it would include all of the senses. The sound of the wind, the taste in the mouth, the feeling in the body, emotions, etc. In this way, all is one experience, and there is no "you" blocking the way.

I hope I am on the right track with this.
-Ed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hey Ed

Nearly there, we are making good progress :)

We create observer/ observed when we try to silence the other senses. When we experience a sunset, for example.... the observer/observed response is to look at the scene. To look at the sun setting.

When you watch a sunset, there are two things going on:
1. The actual experience of "Seeing"
2. The commentary about what is being seen "I am watching a sunset", "How beautiful", "Look at the colours, the depth..." etc etc

When you feel the wind on your skin, there are two things going on:
1. The actual experience of "feeling"
2. The commentary about what is being felt "Wow that feels so good" "The wind is really warm today" "Where's the ice cream" etc etc

When you listen to sounds, there are two things going on:
1. The actual experience of "hearing"
2. The commentary about what is being heard "Truck" "I wonder where that aeroplane is going" " Wow, the birds sound so happy today" etc etc

So what is happening is, in all the (1.'s) above there is direct experience. When you have done the exercises relating to this previously you said that you could not find an "Ed" here, just the experience (the seeing, feeling, hearing).

Conversely, in all the (2.'s) above, there is commentary about what is being experienced - about an object being seen, heard, felt. For instance a "sunset" being seen by an "I", a "truck" being heard by an "I" and "the wind" being felt by an "I".

In all the (1.'s) there is no "I". In all the (2.'s) an "I" appears. In the (2.s) there is a "someone" and a "something".

Like I had mentioned in my previous post:

1. There is an image - shapes/colours. This is direct seeing.
2. There is labelling that happens AFTER all the seeing is done. By this time the image has been "processed" and now we have "objects" labelled from the initial image.

I just want to check at this stage if this is becoming clearer? Do let me know.

One thing to note is don't worry too much if you're not seeing the whole picture at this stage, we are putting together a jigsaw puzzle and only when the pieces are all laid out and you step back will you go "Aha!" :)

My warmest regard - look forward to your response.

[Edward Q]

Hi Bodhi,

I think I am slowly putting some of the pieces together here.

We are interested in the truth here...

The purest truth comes in its raw form, and if it is tampered with it is no longer pure.

One thing that throws me off is the commentary.

Back to the sunset example, I understand how " How beautiful", "Look at the colors", "this is a good morning" are all in relation to an "I"

But when I look at that same "raw" sunset, I know within me, without any sort of mental commentary, what I am looking at. Is this sort of "knowing" the same as the commentary that you speak of ?

Right now, I am looking at a light.
There is an awareness as this looking arises. I can not find a "me" within this experience.

Ok, now A label is given to this image... It is now "light". I can not make the connection of how this creates an "I" ?

As you said, it feels like the pieces are there, but I somehow can't put them together yet.

-Ed




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hey Ed

I think I am slowly putting some of the pieces together here.

Excellent. And we will do so patiently, the whole picture will fall together of itself :)

One thing that throws me off is the commentary.

Back to the sunset example, I understand how " How beautiful", "Look at the colors", "this is a good morning" are all in relation to an "I"

But when I look at that same "raw" sunset, I know within me, without any sort of mental commentary, what I am looking at. Is this sort of "knowing" the same as the commentary that you speak of ?

The mental commentary I am referring to are the formation of thoughts as words, which then refer to what is being experienced. While the experience is happening there is a purity of experience without the mental commentary in words. There is a "oneness" of the experience. For example with the hearing, there is just hearing - not the hear-er and the heard. Just seeing, not a see-er and the seen.

Then once the commentary starts to turn the experience into words, the labelling begins - there is the object that is heard (say a bird) and the hearer (that is "I").

As in your example:

Right now, I am looking at a light.
There is an awareness as this looking arises. I can not find a "me" within this experience.

The above is the direct experience

Ok, now A label is given to this image... It is now "light". I can not make the connection of how this creates an "I" ?

The above is labelling.

Since you now have the label "light" that is applied, is there a labelled "you" looking at the light? For instance, for the self reference "I see the light!" to appear, there must be a self to refer to? Hasn't this just created an "I"?

You seem able to sit in the oneness quite easily and naturally, which is fabulous. And from what you have reported to me, you are able to discern that in this oneness there is no Ed to be found, there is just the oneness - such as a sunset, or the sound of the birds.

What we are chasing down is how Ed is then created. Since Ed cannot be found in direct experience, is Ed being created by the formation of thoughts which start referring to an Ed?

If so, does this make Ed real, or just a product of thought?

[Edward Q]

Bodhi,

I think that at this point, my expectation of what sight would be like while awakened is a factor.

"The mental commentary I am referring to are the formation of thoughts as words, which then refer to what is being experienced. "

When sight arises, I do not have this commentary. I can see that nothing within this raw experience contains a "me".

I think I was expecting that there would be a change of perception, similar to a magic eye puzzle, where I suddenly experienced life as shapes and colors, and somehow "I" would become one with the experience.

Now that I look back at what I just wrote, I find it interesting that my expectation of how this should be is saturated with an "I" that experiences this expected "state".

I have always had trouble figuring out how I create an "Ed" to begin with. Perhaps this might be a clue ?

"...is Ed being created by the formation of thoughts which start referring to an Ed? "

I am not certain. I understand that thoughts arise, then fall into nothingness.
The exercise I did with thoughts, it was clear that "I" was not the one thinking but thinking happens.

It might be possible that I am identifying with a certain "story" that surrounds "Ed".
It is a subtle story that contains the personality, habits, tendencies. Although it feels as if there is no "Ed" per say, it sometimes feels like these things follow "me". That they seem constant. I can see how that creates an "I" now, but not sure how to move forward.

-Ed



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hi Ed!

Good work man!

When sight arises, I do not have this commentary. I can see that nothing within this raw experience contains a "me".

Can you confirm that you cannot find an Ed through all the senses - sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste?

I think I was expecting that there would be a change of perception, similar to a magic eye puzzle, where I suddenly experienced life as shapes and colors, and somehow "I" would become one with the experience.

Now that I look back at what I just wrote, I find it interesting that my expectation of how this should be is saturated with an "I" that experiences this expected "state".

Good observation. You are already one with the experience! You cannot find an experiencer, just what is being experienced through the senses. In reality there is no sens-er and sens-ed :) Is this clear?

"...is Ed being created by the formation of thoughts which start referring to an Ed? "

I am not certain. I understand that thoughts arise, then fall into nothingness.
The exercise I did with thoughts, it was clear that "I" was not the one thinking but thinking happens.

It might be possible that I am identifying with a certain "story" that surrounds "Ed".
It is a subtle story that contains the personality, habits, tendencies. Although it feels as if there is no "Ed" per say, it sometimes feels like these things follow "me". That they seem constant. I can see how that creates an "I" now, but not sure how to move forward.

Can you find in reality something called "story"?
How is a story created if not from thought?

In fact a story is just a strung together habitual pattern of thoughts. Hence we keep repeating the same stories to ourselves - no matter how subtle it is :)

In an earlier post you had mentioned a certain "tension" in the body that you were associating with "a sense of self".

There is a great exercise by Ilona which shows the relation to the story of "I" and the "tension".

Have a look here.

http://markedeternal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/labels.html

I look forward to what you find as well as your answers to the questions above.

You are doing great Ed, keep pushing on :)

[Edward Q]

Hi Bodhi,
I hope you are having a nice weekend.

"Can you confirm that you cannot find an Ed through all the senses - sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste ? "

Yes, I can confirm that when I look at each of these, There is only an awareness present, there is no "Ed" to be found.

"You are already one with the experience ! You can not find an experiencer, just what is being experienced through the senses. In reality there is no sens-er and sens-ed :) Is this clear ? "

Yes, it is becoming clear now.


"Can you find in reality something called 'story' ?"

No, you can not.
I can feel the tendencies of the body pull behavior in a certain direction. The story that is added on is not necessary. It does not contain information about "me"

"How is a story created if not from thought?"

I can see that if I am caught in "story", I am identifying with thoughts about the past which have no relevance to the truth.

Thank you for the link to llona's exercise. I glanced at it today and seems like it will shed some more light on this.

I am back a bit late today, so I will do the exercise tomorrow and let you know what comes up.

Take care,
-Ed



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hi Ed

Thank you for all the answers. I look forward to your next response.

Have a great weekend :)

[Edward Q]

Hi Bodhi,
Having a nice weekend here, thanks :)

I have completed llona's exercise.

I can see now that the tension in the body was an attempt to separate "myself" from reality. This separation was done in order to feel as if "I" was in control of what was out "there".

When this tension was in the body, it felt as if there was something to protect. Something that was in opposition to what was "out there". Since there is really no "me", this tension was the only way the body could create the illusion of separate self.

-Ed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hey Ed

I knew that exercise would resonate with you. Good going!

Can you see now how the "I" narrative (self-referential thinking) is related to the tension clearly? One feeding off the other?

Since there is really no "me", this tension was the only way the body could create the illusion of separate self.

I'm interested in this statement. Since you seem quite clear that there is no separate self, how would you describe the body?

Is it your body? Do you control it?

Can you define an inside and an outside to this body?

[Edward Q]

Hi Bodhi,

"Can you see how the "I" narrative (self-referential thinking) is related to the tension clearly? One feeding off the other?"

I notice that the tension is present when the "me" story is operating, yes.
This arises mostly when the "story of Ed" is here. The past and future story, the story about how he thinks things should be in this moment.

"...how would you describe the body? Is it your body? Do you control it? "


This body does not not feel like my own, for sure. It is becoming more and more apparent that I am not in control.

How would I describe it ? It sometimes feels as if I am an observer of the body. I feel closer to the awareness that surrounds the senses than I do the body.

"Can you define an inside and outside to this body?"

My first response would be the boundaries of the skin. Perhaps the visual boundaries of the skin ? Something tells me that there is more to it than that, but I can't piece it together.

-Ed



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hi Ed

This arises mostly when the "story of Ed" is here. The past and future story, the story about how he thinks things should be in this moment.

Yes, there is this constant argument with what is and trying to turn it into what it should be as "I" sees it. But once it's seen as just thought, about stories, happening to no-one the power of the illusion is GONE :)

This body does not not feel like my own, for sure. It is becoming more and more apparent that I am not in control.

This is truly heart warming, such a loosening of the hold of self has occurred for you.

I feel closer to the awareness that surrounds the senses than I do the body.

Is it possible that the body appears inside this awareness? Check and see. Relax and soften the awareness until everything is just appearing in it, the light, the shapes, the sounds, the feeling of sitting or lying down, the internal feelings inside the body. Let it all become loose such that your attention is not on one thing. Now check for the body. How does it appear to this awareness?

"Can you define an inside and outside to this body?"

My first response would be the boundaries of the skin. Perhaps the visual boundaries of the skin ? Something tells me that there is more to it than that, but I can't piece it together.

Fabulous looking Ed!! When you do any of the sensory exercises with touch, hearing and sight, is there a boundary between inside and outside apart from what you know when you refer to memory or thought?

Can you feel skin when you are touching, or is it just the sense of touch?
Can you hear a boundary when you listen to sounds?
When you are looking, are you aware that you have eyes, or is it just seeing? What about a head, do you have a head? What about the back of a head?

Spend some time playing with the space of awareness and these questions and then share what comes up specifically in regards to the body.

Great going, look forward to your answers

Warmest regards

[Edward Q]

Hi Bodhi,

"Is it possible that the body appears inside this awareness?"

Yes. This body appears inside of this awareness. It is still a new feeling for me and seems like I only notice this to be true when I am in the present moment and not a lot of activity is present.

"Can you feel skin when you are touching, or is it just the sense of touch?"

I can see that there is only a sense of touch.

When I close my eyes and press my hands together, I forget about the body. I feel heat and pressure, all as one.

When I move quickly, it seems the mind designates locations to the pressure and heat and sometimes creates a mental image of the event.

"Can you hear a boundary when you listen to sound?"

I do not experience boundaries when I experience sound.

"When you are looking, are you aware that you have eyes, or is it just seeing?"

When I look, it is from the perspective of the eyes. Am I aware I have eyes ?
There is a sensation from the eyes, but now that I look closely, it is just sensation and the mind labels/places in on the eyes.
There is still a feeling that the images that come are in relation from that point of view. I can understand how this would create an "I" sense, but it seems like such a natural thing to happen. Is this pointing to a different way of looking ? Can you really change something that seems so automatic ? If so, how ? Maybe I am a bit off track here ?

"What about a head, do you have a head? What about the back of a head?"

I can locate a head and back of the head on this body, but both are not noticed in my direct experience.

-Ed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b0dhi]

Hi Ed

Excellent, well done! Your observations are really on point.

So to direct experience, the body is not really there as an object, there is no separation between body and environment. To the thoughts it is definitely there as a conceptual reference point.

There is still a feeling that the images that come are in relation from that point of view. I can understand how this would create an "I" sense, but it seems like such a natural thing to happen. Is this pointing to a different way of looking ? Can you really change something that seems so automatic ? If so, how ? Maybe I am a bit off track here ?

Completely correct - you cannot see something called eyes directly, however sight has a particular porthole. Only when the eyes are open though :)

Great work Ed.

Can you describe to me how you are feeling now after what you have uncovered since our conversation started? What do you feel is left to uncover?

My warmest regards