Confusion - Which approach to pursue?

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Attention was automatically and constantly getting dragged away

Are you sure about this? What if attention is just another illusion? Let’s look at this a bit deeper.

First, take another look at the idea that there is a someone who is focusing attention. So here we are not just simply looking at if you have a control over attention or not, but we go a step forward, if there is an I at all that could direct or focus attention.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Is there anything moving attention, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er?

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, sounds.
Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?

Is there someone observing the movement of attention?

And now try to find THE attention itself. Not just the idea of it, but the ACTUAL attention.
Where is it exactly? What is it like?

Is there really an attention that is jumping from one object to another, from a thought to a sensation, then to a sound, etc?

Are there REALLY two things there, an attention + the attended object (thought/sensation/sound)?
Or rather there is ONLY thought, then there is ONLY sensation, then there is ONLY sound?

V: MY awareness? What is it that HAS an awareness? Where is the I that is having an awareness? Where is the owner?

R: I can't find an I, but this vehicle of 'Reece' seems to have a unique experience when compared to others. Like if I see somebody eat an apple, I can only see the apple - I can't actually experience the taste of the apple like they can. Or only I can observe the thoughts that seemingly spring from the mind of Reece. I guess this can give the impression that there are different awarenesses so to speak.

This is a story about a separate self/I. Have you actually LOOKED for the owner?

It’s important that you look with each questions and really investigate if the story you believe about it can stand up to scrutiny.

So here is the question again.

MY awareness? What is it that HAS an awareness? Where is the I that is having an awareness? Where is the owner?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

Is there anything moving attention, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er?

I can't find a mover of attention, there is only a moving of attention. A stream of noticing different things.

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, sounds.
Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?

Is there someone observing the movement of attention?

There is nothing controlling attention. It moves on its own accord, whether that is on to sounds, sensations or thoughts - there is a strong tendency to drift into thought more so than other perceptions/sensations when sitting still, and less tendency to drift into thought when the body is being more active (sport, exercise etc.)

I can't find anybody observing attention; there is observing but no observer.

Kind of hard to describe, but it feels different when it is seen that I have been lost in thought.

When being lost in thought, it feels like there has been an unconscious/automatic identification with thought - its not even seen that there is a fixation on thought. But once it is noticed that attention has been exclusively focused on thought, this illusion is seen through. Thought ceases momentarily as it seen that thought is just thought, it's not actually what I am.

I think previously I would identify myself with this state of being. When lost in thought, I believed I had 'forgotten myself', and when I wasn't lost in thought, I believed I was experiencing the 'authentic' me. But I'm starting to see that I'm not any state, I don't control when I'm lost in thought or not lost in thought. It is also experienced and observed. Everything is appearing but nobody is there, and there is nobody controlling anything.

There is nothing to do, but also nothing to not do, and the mind can't grasp that, it just leaves it flummoxed and unsure where to turn next.

This seeing through the illusion of being lost in thought must happen 100s of times each day, usually only for brief moments at a time. Writing this has also uncovered another expectation of 'realisation of no self' that I think I have. The expectation that there would be a dropping away of ever being lost in thought when realised.

Where is it exactly? What is it like?

Is there really an attention that is jumping from one object to another, from a thought to a sensation, then to a sound, etc?

Are there REALLY two things there, an attention + the attended object (thought/sensation/sound)?
Or rather there is ONLY thought, then there is ONLY sensation, then there is ONLY sound?

Attention as an object can't be found. There is nothing there. Similar to looking for the self, there is just a silence/stillnes with nothing to find.

I can only experience the sensations and perceptions in awareness (thought, colour, sound, vibration etc.) That is all that can be objectively observed.

MY awareness? What is it that HAS an awareness? Where is the I that is having an awareness? Where is the owner?

There is nobody to find. No owner. There is just awareness.

Sorry, rambled on a bit there. Hopefully made sense haha.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

You did a really nice investigation :)

I can't find anybody observing attention; there is observing but no observer.

Yes, nice catch.

When being lost in thought, it feels like there has been an unconscious/automatic identification with thought - its not even seen that there is a fixation on thought.

Yes, it’s definitely how it seems. It seems that there could be automatic identification with a thought.

But, is there really someone or something identifying with thoughts?

Is there something standing apart from thoughts and sometimes identifies with them, some other times not?

Look for the one that could identify… what is that? Where is that? Is there a ‘that’ at all?

I think previously I would identify myself with this state of being. When lost in thought, I believed I had 'forgotten myself', and when I wasn't lost in thought, I believed I was experiencing the 'authentic' me. But I'm starting to see that I'm not any state, I don't control when I'm lost in thought or not lost in thought. It is also experienced and observed. Everything is appearing but nobody is there, and there is nobody controlling anything.

OK… so there are sometimes states of ‘being lost in a thought’, and sometimes ‘being out of a thought’. But let’s look at more closely what is actually happening.

Is it possible that ‘being lost in a thought’ is nothing else but zooming in fully into the content of a thought, without noticing that it’s just a thought and not reality?

And when there is ‘not being lost in a thought’ is just simply a zoom out, where the thoughtness of that thought is seen, alongside other things in experience, like sensations, sounds, colors, etc.?

Is there any difference between a seeming identification with a thought, and zooming in a thought?

This seeing through the illusion of being lost in thought must happen 100s of times each day, usually only for brief moments at a time. Writing this has also uncovered another expectation of 'realisation of no self' that I think I have. The expectation that there would be a dropping away of ever being lost in thought when realised.

This definitely won’t stop. Why would it? There has never ever been a self/I, and zooming into thoughts have happened all along. So by recognizing that there is no real self/I being lost in a thought, why should the phenomenon of zooming in change?

Attention as an object can't be found. There is nothing there. Similar to looking for the self, there is just a silence/stillnes with nothing to find.

Yes. And this is important. Our perception is full of illusions, seeming things :) both of them just mirages in a desert.

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

But, is there really someone or something identifying with thoughts?

Is there something standing apart from thoughts and sometimes identifies with them, some other times not?

Look for the one that could identify… what is that? Where is that? Is there a ‘that’ at all?

No, I can't find anything that is actually identifying with thought.

There is the conditioned belief/thought that 'I' am the body/mind, but when actually looking for the self in DE it is seen that the body/mind are observable sensations/perceptions in awareness. There is nobody to find.

There was a moment today when I sat down to do this self-enquiry, and there was a clear noticing that there is no 'I' separate from experience, all there is IS experience. No separation. Thoughts soon jumped in after this though, trying to interpret and understand this insight, which then led to an enquiry into the one who these thoughts are appearing to.

When there are decisions to make in daily life, instead of believing I'm making the choice, I've started looking to see who is the one that believes they are making the choice; which just leads to that stillness where there is nothing to find and no focusing in on any object in particular. In that space, life continues to happen on its own without anyone having to do anything.

It's as if self-enquiry takes the false 'I' out of the picture so to speak, leaving life to simply happen and be experienced. Should the mind be focused on this looking for the 'I', abiding in this still space as consistently as possible?

...Although writing this just now I realised that the answer to this question would be to look for the one who is asking the question :)

Is it possible that ‘being lost in a thought’ is nothing else but zooming in fully into the content of a thought, without noticing that it’s just a thought and not reality?

And when there is ‘not being lost in a thought’ is just simply a zoom out, where the thoughtness of that thought is seen, alongside other things in experience, like sensations, sounds, colors, etc.?

Is there any difference between a seeming identification with a thought, and zooming in a thought?

Yeah, zooming out and in would be an accurate description. Zooming in is like the content of thought is reality, and this can reinforce the feeling of there being a 'thinker'.

Zooming out on the other hand is when the thought is simply seen as just another object that is appearing in awareness, the content isn't important. When thoughts are seen as just thoughtness, they also have a tendency to stop.

This definitely won’t stop. Why would it? There has never ever been a self/I, and zooming into thoughts have happened all along. So by recognizing that there is no real self/I being lost in a thought, why should the phenomenon of zooming in change?

Zooming in is useful for many situations, whether that's to solve a puzzle, figure out how to build some furniture, work out a math equation etc.

But zooming in on thought is often because there is the root thought/belief that the thought is about a 'me' or controlled by a 'me'. This can lead to further rumination and more thought such as resisting, desiring, accepting, rejecting, judging etc. Thought breeds more thought and this goes on until there is a noticing that 'I' am not thought. I am nowhere to be found.

This 'zooming in' happened much more when I was younger, when there was the unquestioned belief that thoughts were 'me'.

Since first stumbling across non-duality teachings however, the tendency to zoom in on thought has lessened significantly over time. When it is noticed that there is no 'me', then the act of zooming in on thoughts about a 'me' doesn't really make sense, and so zooming in naturally doesn't happen as much since it's usually seen as an object of thoughtness quite early on.

Would this tendency to 'zoom in' on thoughts revolving around a 'me' not continue to lessen as the old conditioning of identifying with body/mind gradually weakens?

I guess similar to my earlier question, I need to look for the one who wants 'zooming in' to happen less, haha.

Cheers!

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

It's as if self-enquiry takes the false 'I' out of the picture so to speak, leaving life to simply happen and be experienced. Should the mind be focused on this looking for the 'I', abiding in this still space as consistently as possible?

Yes, for the first part of the questions (looking for the I), and no to the second part (abiding in this still space).

What is it that abides in a still space?

Isn’t this just another belief in an I? A story that an Reece can do, to abide in a still space as consistently as possible?

Is this a belief in control?

Also a belief in separation? There is something other than stillness… since there is something that could abide in that?

And abide intentionally?

So what is this thing that could do that with intention?

...Although writing this just now I realised that the answer to this question would be to look for the one who is asking the question :)

Bingo! :)

Would this tendency to 'zoom in' on thoughts revolving around a 'me' not continue to lessen as the old conditioning of identifying with body/mind gradually weakens?

Does it matter? Matter to whom?

Is a thought bothered by it? Or a sensation is bothered by it?

I guess similar to my earlier question, I need to look for the one who wants 'zooming in' to happen less, haha.

Exactly :)

So who has a problem with zooming into a thought?

Is there someone outside of thoughts zooming in?

Is zooming in happen TO someone/something?

Is there someone / something experiencing zooming in and out?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

What is it that abides in a still space?

Isn’t this just another belief in an I? A story that an Reece can do, to abide in a still space as consistently as possible?

Is this a belief in control?

Also a belief in separation? There is something other than stillness… since there is something that could abide in that?

And abide intentionally?

So what is this thing that could do that with intention?

Yeah, I see what you mean. Trying to abide in the stillness implies there is somebody that can move in and out of that space.

It also implies separation. When there is no entity separate from experience that can be found.

Does it matter? Matter to whom?

Is a thought bothered by it? Or a sensation is bothered by it?

Believing this matters is just another thought that is taken as true. Further thoughts revolving around a 'me'. I should look for the one who believes this matters.

So who has a problem with zooming into a thought?

Is there someone outside of thoughts zooming in?

Is zooming in happen TO someone/something?

Is there someone / something experiencing zooming in and out?

Yeah, I'm starting to see how these questions and expectations I have are just reinforcing the belief that there is a separate self.

The 'I' feels that the questions and expectations are so important, but under investigation it is seen that there is no 'I', there are just thoughts about questions, thoughts about expectations, and thoughts about importance. Thought on top of thought.

There is nobody thinking these thoughts and there is nobody for the thoughts to stick to, this is just another thought also.

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Yeah, I'm starting to see how these questions and expectations I have are just reinforcing the belief that there is a separate self.

Yes, but it’s important not to brush aside of these questions, but to look with each of them for the one asking the question and wanting something for itself.

Only looking and seeing can undo any beliefs.

Previously you wrote:

Zooming out on the other hand is when the thought is simply seen as just another object that is appearing in awareness,

HOW do you know that object, like thoughts and sensations appear IN awareness?
Is this something observable, or is this something you’ve heard somewhere?

Is there an independent awareness waiting somewhere in the background to thing appear IN it?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

Sorry, having a busy day today so won't be able to write a substantial reply to your previous post.

I'll be sure to send a proper response tomorrow :)

Thanks!

Reece

[Vivien]

Yes, thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

HOW do you know that object, like thoughts and sensations appear IN awareness?
Is this something observable, or is this something you’ve heard somewhere?

Objects such as thoughts and sensations are known since they are observable. Awareness on the other hand is not observable, it's just a label to describe the space in which everything appears.

But yeah, awareness can't actually be seen, it's just another created concept, simply a word that I have heard used by other people.

Is there an independent awareness waiting somewhere in the background to thing appear IN it?

No, all that can be observed are objects, an actual awareness lurking in the background can't be found in DE. There isn't any kind of backdrop that can be seen beyond objects.

Thanks,

Reece

[DeLaRiva]

Further Update:
Self-enquiry has been happening a lot recently; whenever a thought/question appears I just look for the one who the thoughts are appearing to.

Some thoughts regarding free will and being the doer were popping up this afternoon, when the noticing came that these are simply just words with no actual basis in DE. The thoughtness of the thought was seen as just an object without buying into the content.

The concept of not having control or free will as an individual can't be grasped by the mind, it just causes more issues when the mind tries to grasp this intellectually. In DE though, free-will isn't seen as 'true' or 'not-true', it doesn't even exist. It's just a thought and nothing more, there is no actual substance there.

Hope that makes sense, it proves quite difficult to verbalise this stuff haha.

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Objects such as thoughts and sensations are known since they are observable. Awareness on the other hand is not observable, it's just a label to describe the space in which everything appears.

OK. So you replaced the word ‘awareness’ with ‘space’.
But HOW do you know that things appear in a space?
HOW do you know that things appear in anything at all?

No, all that can be observed are objects, an actual awareness lurking in the background can't be found in DE. There isn't any kind of backdrop that can be seen beyond objects.

Exactly. So is there a space at all that everything appears in?

Hope that makes sense, it proves quite difficult to verbalise this stuff haha.

Yes, it makes sense :)

Some thoughts regarding free will and being the doer were popping up this afternoon, when the noticing came that these are simply just words with no actual basis in DE.

Let’s dig a bit deeper here, since it’s important to see this clearly.

What do you do in order to be?

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?

What do you do for thoughts to be?

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

Please investigate each questions thoroughly many times throughout the day.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

But HOW do you know that things appear in a space?
HOW do you know that things appear in anything at all?

In observable experience there is no backdrop that things appear in, all that can be observed are the things that are appearing.

So is there a space at all that everything appears in?

There is no space to be found.

What do you do in order to be?

Nothing, everything works on its own.

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?

These are all effortless functions, nothing has to be done by a 'me' for them to occur. These tools pick up sensations and perceptions that automatically appear and can be observed. There is no 'I' choosing what sensations and perceptions appear.

What do you do for thoughts to be?

Nothing, they just simply appear. When there is 'zooming in' on thoughts (as mentioned previously), it can seem that there is a 'me' engaging with and managing thoughts. But in DE all thoughts are just popping up as they please with nobody thinking them into existence.

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?

Everything is happening automatically. There can only be an observing of what is already occurring and appearing. There can be an assumption that there is a 'me' navigating through the world and manually doing things, but in reality this is nothing more than a thought.

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

Everything just seems to be happening. When walking or running outside in nature, I sometimes just observe my body going through the movements, automatically knowing where to step and navigate the terrain. The same can be said with conversation too, when fully engaged in a discussion with somebody, talking just seems to happen spontaneously.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

when walking or running outside in nature, I sometimes just observe my body going through the movements, automatically knowing where to step and navigate the terrain.

Please go for a walk or a run, and just observe the body as it moves.
And when you observe it, turn your attention to the observer.

Where is the observer? What is it exactly that is observing the body? Is there an actual observer in reality?

Please dig really deep with this. Spend a lots of time during the day looking for an observer.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

Where is the observer? What is it exactly that is observing the body? Is there an actual observer in reality?

Please dig really deep with this. Spend a lots of time during the day looking for an observer.
Let me know what you find.

Ok, so I'll try to recall the step by step process of looking for the observer.

- Sitting/walking/moving around the house or outside
- Observing the body move on its own
- Look for the observer
- Attention sometimes automatically goes towards the brain/behind the eyes area
- Feel that this is just a vibration/sensation that 'I' am aware of
- Focus is taken off this vibration/sensation
- Looking for the 'I' but nothing can be found
- Whatever can be observed can't be 'me' since it is observable, focus now has moved away from objects and is on nothing specifically
- There is still an observing happening, despite focus retracting from objects and despite an 'I' not doing anything
- Thoughts can arrive and get zoomed in on, but get interrupted very quickly and return to self-enquiry, with focus taken off all objects
- Rinse and repeat

This is what self-enquiry seems to entail when practiced. No 'I' can be found, only sensations and perceptions can be found. Rather than finding an 'I', it feels more like focus is just taken off of all observable objects and this is how far it can go. Discerning what is not 'me' until there is nothing left to discern.

As soon as zooming in on thought has happened and there has been this recognition, the zooming in on thoughts stop and focus goes back to looking for the 'I', with there not being a focusing on anything in particular, I guess you could maybe say that it is a retracting of focus.

I know that we've previously mentioned that attention/focus can't be observed as an actual thing, but I just have no other way of describing this, haha. I guess I use these words in the same context as an automatic 'zooming in' and out like we have discussed previously.

Even when there isn't a focusing in on anything observable, there is still a perceiving and happening of life, but no perceiver can be found.

Cheers,

Reece