Hey Lee,
That’s great to hear. When an emotion (which is simply label + sensation + thought) appears, break it down into AE so you get to see what is actually appearing. For example, let’s say that ‘frustration’ appears at work or wherever, have a look at what the AE is.
Let me know how you go.
I had a "live" one earlier. Frustration with work and then with my wife. I don't know why, but my interacting with my wife has become increasingly difficult. Simple communication turns into an argument. We have not had a great relationship for years, it seems more like contractual roommates. I prefer very much not to talk to her. I have been interested in looking into the reasons for this reaction, and how Deep Looking can help, but this is a difficult one ( just re-read this "but this is a difficult one" is a thought). I also do not talk to her regarding my spiritual practices or looking into what is real. She has stated that she is not interested in talking about it. This is a sticky situation it seems. The sensations and thoughts were going so fast, it was difficult to break down in the moment to see them as happenings.
It is difficult to break it down in the moment, but once the tsunami ebbs, you can always look at it then.
The label ‘frustration’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of frustration
The sensation labelled ‘frustration’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of frustration.
The image labelled as ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of a frustrated self.
The thought “I am frustrated with…….” Is the thought, the ensuing thoughts are the content. Thoughts about what frustration is and the reason for the frustration are AE of thought and not the AE of a frustrated person.
What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about frustration.
So label ‘frustration’ is known
Sensation labelled as ‘frustration’ is known’
Colour labelled as ‘me/I/body’ is known
Thoughts about ‘frustration’ are known
However, is ‘frustration’ actually known?
Here is another way of stripping the layers of story away, until all that remains is the bare bones ie actual experience. For every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains.
Let me know how you go.
After re-reading what I wrote above, are my assumptions about what "should be" or how she "should be" the problem?
Actually it is the belief in ‘doership’. That who you are is a separate independent entity who is in complete control of what you think, say, feel and do; therefore you have to see the other in the same light.
Usually in the relationship dance there is guilt and blame. In other words you blame yourself for whatever is/has gone wrong based on the above belief in being the ‘doer’. The other dynamic that plays out is that blame is cast at the other and that they have wronged you – which is based on the belief that they are the ‘doer’.
Without thought, how is it known that there was a gap? However, the purpose of the exercise was to become aware of how thought arises and subsides and when looking for the ‘gap’, that is how to look to see if you can find the ‘separate self’.
I don't know exactly what notices the 'gap' or stillness. Some people call it awareness for a lack of a better term. I was aware of the rising and subsidence of thought. The thoughts rise from nothing and fall into nothing. No separation.
There is still the idea that a thought is a ‘thing’ and is something that is called a thought and has some sort of substance other that experience itself. Experience SEEMS to be appearing as thought, but it is only a thought that points to thoughts and says they are a some ‘thing’.
Yes, the witness some refer to as awareness, however there is no separation, so for something to be aware of something else points to subject/object split.
Close your eyes. With eyes closed, there is the experience of AE of colour labelled 'black’. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘black’.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or is there just 'black’ to be found?
Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?
Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Okay….then open the eyes and look around.
Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
Is there anything that is witnessing colour?
Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
