So tired of the search! Please help me find the Truth

[IstinSkiat]

Hi Viven,
So during the weekend I was home, and I tried to really dig deep into meditation, the hands exercise and direct experience.

There seems to be two layers here. One is the usual everyday state of I being the persona with all of its wants, lacks, sense of having free will and so on. The other thing I see is actually unnameable, whatever I call it I made it into an object which it itself sees. Its hard to use language when I talk about it. The watcher is fine name for it, as long as we agree its not an existing object. It doesn't have wants, lacks, free will or whatever. It just sees all the wants, lacks of the person, just like it sees the room, the furniture...
When i do the hands exercise and look from the layer of the person, I can say that I choose which hand to raise next. Even if I try to do it randomly, I still feel like I choose it after all. When I look from this "watcher" position, I see hands moving just as I see the trees outside are moving. By them-self, or another way to put it "Life" is raising them. From this perspective actually everything perceivable is done by itself(or by life) with no benefit to anyone/anything.

So I am at a very strange place right now. I see that this investigation is not at all about the person. But the reason I started it frankly is to make the person have better life. And to find meaning in all this meaningless mess we call life.

I see this post turned out a bit messy, but frankly its messy in my mind right now, so I'll leave it like that and see what happens.

Ivan

[IstinSkiat]

I just wanted to add, that I think this "watcher" perspective is still in the realm of the person its like "I" looking at "I"
I see its not the real deal, but is at least helpful as an exercise? Because its the best I am capable of right now.

[IstinSkiat]

I was rereading all of our previous posts, from the begging of this thread. And I noticed something very alarming! All my answers are intellectual. You constantly try to make me answer from direct experience and i constantly steer away. It turns out its so hard for me to answer directly, like its the hardest thing and it should be the easiest, after all I just have to report without thinking. Why cant I do it?

[Vivien]

Hi Ivan,

I was rereading all of our previous posts, from the begging of this thread. And I noticed something very alarming! All my answers are intellectual. You constantly try to make me answer from direct experience and i constantly steer away. It turns out its so hard for me to answer directly, like its the hardest thing and it should be the easiest, after all I just have to report without thinking. Why cant I do it?

You are not alone with this. This is the case for almost anyone. I’m not sure if I shared my blogpost about how the self develops in babies. That’s explains it. Please read it, even if you’ve read it before.

https://fadingveiling.com/2020/11/09/fo ... xperience/

I just wanted to add, that I think this "watcher" perspective is still in the realm of the person its like "I" looking at "I"
I see its not the real deal, but is at least helpful as an exercise? Because its the best I am capable of right now.

Yes, the watcher is still personal, since it is believed that ‘it’s the best I am capable of right now.’ As if watching were your doing.

But that’s all right, we are just keep doing exercises about the belief in control and doership.

Here is an interesting exercise.

Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when you control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do you choose putting or not putting milk or sugar into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do you 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?

Please don't bulk reply.

Vivien

[IstinSkiat]

Hi Vivien,
I've read this blogpost before, but I did it again now. I thought I know perfectly the concept about how the baby has pure experience for some time and then develops ego. But nevertheless I saw some new things. Like previously I was fully aware conceptually that I wear pink glasses, but now I kind of feel wearing them, its strange to explain.

Another thing that caught my attention this time I read it was, that the goal is not to put the glasses off. And I try to put them off constantly. So I should only notice wearing them, not try to see "the reality" without them?

Now for the drink exercise.
So I stand up and go to the kitchen to pick a mug. So far I feel like I choose this, even though you suggested it. But I accepted it, if I didnt wanted to do it, I wouldn't.
Now I have to choose which mug to pick from 10 different mugs. I choose the one that I almost always choose, because I like it most and its the largest one and it's most comfortable to drink out of it. Again it feels all is my choice. I could have picked another mug, for example if my favourite one was not washed up.

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?

I check whether I feel sleepy or not. I don't, so I choose tea. Plus a thought comes up, that coffee makes me nervous , another thought comes that I don't like being nervous. So definitely tea.
I have two kind of teas. A memory pops up, that in the morning I drunk chamomile, so now I choose mint.
Who/What choose chamomile in the morning? I dont know, I just felt I want chamomile.

Do you choose putting or not putting milk or sugar into the tea (or coffee)?

I never use milk and sugar in my tea or coffee, so this opportunity wouldn't occur to me, if you hadn't ask. I choose to stick with what I'm used to - pure tea. Yes, I choose. I can't see it happen automatically. If I go into philosophy, I can see that this choice is based on another previous choice, which is based on previous, and so on to the beginning of time. But that's only philosophy.

I am pondering over how newborn makes its first choice. For example it has 2 new foods in front of it. It must choose one randomly, and the second time it reaches must be from memory. If it liked it the first time, it would reach for it again. If not - it would reach for the other one. Is that correct and is it even relevant to this investigation?

Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?

Like I said, a few thoughts appear and decision is born out of them. For me it looks like all is my doing.

Do you 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?

Well, I put water, tea and turn the heater on. The rest happens by itself.

Can a chooser be located?

like real location - No

[Vivien]

Hi Ivan,

Another thing that caught my attention this time I read it was, that the goal is not to put the glasses off. And I try to put them off constantly. So I should only notice wearing them, not try to see "the reality" without them?

Yes, exactly. Those glasses can be useful sometimes. It’s good to know that what I see is a truck, and if I cross the road it will hit me. But it’s not that useful when I think “When she said that, she hurt my feelings”.

So the conceptual overlay doesn’t have to go away, it’s enough to see it for what it is, just something ADDED, which is not inherent in experience/reality itself.

So we are learning to distinguish the ADDED MENTAL stuff, from what is actual. That’s all.

Now for the drink exercise.
So I stand up and go to the kitchen to pick a mug. So far I feel like I choose this, even though you suggested it. But I accepted it, if I didnt wanted to do it, I wouldn't.
Now I have to choose which mug to pick from 10 different mugs. I choose the one that I almost always choose, because I like it most and its the largest one and it's most comfortable to drink out of it. Again it feels all is my choice. I could have picked another mug, for example if my favourite one was not washed up.

OK. It feels like it’s your choice, because you focused on the conceptual interpretation, thoughts about the exercise, and not on reality/experience itself.

I am pondering over how newborn makes its first choice. For example it has 2 new foods in front of it. It must choose one randomly, and the second time it reaches must be from memory. If it liked it the first time, it would reach for it again. If not - it would reach for the other one. Is that correct and is it even relevant to this investigation?

No, it’s not relevant, it’s an intellectual reasoning. This is exactly what is creating the illusion. When you focus on the ADDED thought reasoning, instead of focusing on the underlying reality.

Look, this is not complicated at all. It seems to be complicated and difficult because you focus on your complicated thoughts, instead of the simplicity of experience. When you will have your first glimpse, you will be surprised how simple it is, and this simplicity has been present all along.

This simplicity is here now, right now. It never goes away. But you focus on your complicated thoughts. So you get confused and the task seems almost impossible. Well, yes, it’s impossible for the intellect…. Since the task is accomplished by turning away from the intellect.

Well, I put water, tea and turn the heater on.

But HOW do you put the water and tea to the heater?
How do you lift the arm to make that happen? HOW?

You see, you are quickly jumping over the simple part of it, just saying that I put the water on.
Don’t jump that over. Don’t listen to that thought. Question that thought.

Is it true that I put that water on?
Is it true that I lifted that hand? HOW?
HOW do you move your hand?

You might say, I just move it. But how? You see… this is the problem. You accept at face value what the thought says. If a thought says “I do it”, then it must be true. But is it?

If you are actually the one moving the hand and the arm, then it should be super easy for you to describe HOW you make a movement. So, how do you do it?

Like I said, a few thoughts appear and decision is born out of them. For me it looks like all is my doing.

OK… so essentially are saying that you are the thinker of thoughts, right?

Are you thinking thoughts?

Do you make thoughts happen? HOW?

Look at the simplicity. Look at the ACT of thinking thoughts. Not thoughts about thinking thoughts, but the ACT itself. Do you make that ACT? HOW? How do you create a thought out of nothing?

Make sure that you don’t go down the rabbit hole trying to figure this out intellectually. Rather, slow down…. Just breath…. Focus on thoughts… and NOTICE what do you DO EXACTLY for them to happen.

Spend a whole day on this. The point is to slow down. When you catch yourself with a mental effort of trying to figure out a theory… then just stop….. slow down…. Watch like a hawk to see how a thought is born… and what is it that you’ve done for a thought to appear.

Vivien

[IstinSkiat]

Hi Vivien,
I haven't thanked you lately, so THANK YOU for what you are doing, its really appreciated!

So I intentionally delayed this answer, because I really tried to take this suggestions in, not just answer intellectually. There is no point using intellect here, I see that. But without intellect it seems like there is nothing to write about. Life just happens. Nevertheless i'll try.

I was pondering over the free will concept, and yes I can agree its the thoughts that says "I did that". If that thought is not believed, the action becomes just a happening, done by noone. Thats very strange, but its true.

I spent many hours locking at that whole "thing" - the I, Ivan, the doer. I can honesty say, that I see it. I mean when some storyline is going in my head and I feel like this story is for me, I step back and see that its not true. Its just a storyline. For noone. Ivan is a character, not something real and existing. And the body reacts to that. When I feel the story is real the body feels contracted, when I see the story as unreal the body relaxes. Intuitively this is taken for a sing this is true.

But there still exist some believe, that there is still something left, that watches all that. Still some kind of "me" Its just logical, and it looks like logic is still the king in this experience. And when that is also seen, It is seen that the king is also just a story, "the king is naked":), then there is nothing left, just sensations and stories made of thoughts. and peace. And then another story pops up - "Is that it? whats MY benefit then? and this is also seen as a story...and that cycle continues...


The story sometimes try introducing fear - If you are not the doer, who will look after your family, who will work, bla bla... Its a little harder to see this is also just a story. But its seen.

Its like a leap into the unknown. Mind wants a bungee rope, but there is no rope - you either jump without any guarantee, or cancel and live with the doer and all his struggles. And yes, I'm aware there is still a sense of doer in that choice. Its hard to write any story without a doer.

This post turned out a little messy, but the thought are messy right now. I'm not using "my thoughts" because its seen that this is not true. Seen from this new perspective nothing is mine. Even I'm not mine. That sounds like nonsense.

[Vivien]

Hi Ivan,

You are most welcome :)

You’ve done a really nice inquiry. This is the direction to go. Yes, there is confusion because what you’ve glimpsed and what you had believed in your whole life are in contrast. Either one is true.

Please spend a few more days, and really do the exercises I gave you. Please reply to those questions. Those can help a lot for both of us. Your seeing can deeper, and I can get a feedback on where you are in terms of those specifics those questions targets.

Vivien

[IstinSkiat]

Please spend a few more days, and really do the exercises I gave you. Please reply to those questions.

Hello Vivien! Hope you are doing great! Theese "few more days" turned into an year almost :) Sorry for that, but there was no significant change in perseption here, so it was pointless to waste your time.
Until now...I've just reread the whole topic again, especially your blue pointers and wow, maybe finally got what you are talking about! In direct experience there is no sign of any "me", only what is happening...
Can we please put this to a test? Can you please ask some questions?

[Vivien]

Hi Ivan,

Welcome back :)

Please look very carefully, one-by-one, with the following questions. Spend a several minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience, thoughts, sensations, feelings, everything.

Is there a thinker?

Is there a doer?
Is there a decider?

Is there a seer?

Is there a feeler?

Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?

Has there ever been an independent separate self?

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Please make sure that you don't reply to any of these questions from memory, but you look afresh.

Vivien

[IstinSkiat]

Is there a thinker?

Its nowhere to be found in direct experiance(DE)! Only cognition of thoughts. In thoughts there is still a concept of "I'm the thinker", but its doesn't sound so true anymore. And I can foresee your question - Doesn't sound true to whom? :) Its just another thought thinked by noone.

Is there a doer?
Is there a decider?

I try the exercise with the raising of left or right hand. In DE there is no decider or doer. I cannot foresee which hand will be raised until it starts raising. "I" in this sentance is referred to the one who is perceiving the DE. This "I" is not something or someone who can be described, "I" has no attributes, "I" just perceive the info from the senses. "I" has no preferences, "I" perceive the preferences. Insight pops up - in DE there is still preferences felt, but no urge to fulfill them.

Is there a seer?

In DE in front of my eyes there are shapes and forms. All is cognised without any effort and without someone doing it.

Is there a feeler?

No! There are feelings in the body. There is still some "burning" in the chest or tummy. In DE this "burning" is just another feeling, it doesnt bring any suffering to anyone, like it used to.

Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

No, no and no! If no thought concepts are used there is only sounds, tastes and smells.

Is there an experiencER?

Direct Experience is the combination of all above, so must be NO. One more insight: there is nothing else but DE.

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

There is! Its this "I" that is discribed above. But its not happening TO it. If I stretch a little I can say its similar to video-camera without a tape in it. But definitely there is something and the closest word to it is "I"

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?

Definitely NOT! More like experience is contained in I, or all is one and the same. To be absolutely accurate - In pure DE there is no I even. Its an assumption that if there is experience, there must be someone or something to experience it. But is DE there is only just whats happening.

Has there ever been an independent separate self?

Only as a concept made out of thoughts. In reality there never was a separate anything from anything.

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

So this is where more guidance is needed. Let me tell you a little story:
The evening that I got what you really meant by DE there was definitely some shift. It wasnt like it was expected. It wasnt BOOM. All was the same, but very different. The big difference was no suffering was experienced anymore. But this shift was not experienced to be like FINAL. It was more like these 2D illustrations that you can see different pictures if you change your focus of attention. I mean it was felt that I can see DE and there is no ME there, but if I focus on the thoughts like I normally do, the story of ME is still there and its still believable.
So I spent the evening focusing on DE and the feelings were very pleasant, even though the were basically the same, they didn't change, but the perception of them was much nicer. The overall mood was much higher than normal. When I went to bed the feeling in the chest got stronger and it spread across all of the body, but there was no negative response to it, if so it was even nice. At some point I must have fallen asleep.
In the morning I woke up and the usual feeling in the chest woke up with me almost immediately, but unexpectedly it still wasn't experienced as unwanted. The mood was still higher than normal. Then I hugged my wife and experienced almost ecstatic bliss, just from a hug. A few hours latter I was at my job sight and carried away in work, I was feeling pretty normal, no more bliss or acceptance of whatever. In the evening I started trying to get myself In "DE Mode" and off course it was a complete failure, anxiety grew bigger and bigger.
Today is all normal again, I act as a ME all of the time, except when I was answering your questions. Then the shift to DE happened, but now its gone already. As you can sense I'm in full story mode again. And to answer your last question - YES, the seeking continues :(

So what the heck is happening?

[Vivien]

Thank you for your replies.

We need to look at your expectations.

Do you expect that seeing no self would mean that there is no more sense of self present?

Does the sense of self needs to be gone?
Or is it enough to see for what it is? A mirage only, but not a reality?

Also, is there an expectation here that seeing no self means a state of happiness or peace, or at least the lack of negative emotions?

So, really look at your expectation.... what do you expect to happen?
What is it that you think or believe about seeing there being no separate self?

How would that be like?
How would that feel like?
What are the characteristics of it?

V

[IstinSkiat]

Thank you for your replies.

Actually thank you!

Do you expect that seeing no self would mean that there is no more sense of self present?

Well to be fair even when direct looking there is some sense of self, some "observer" just to name it somehow.

Does the sense of self needs to be gone?
Or is it enough to see for what it is? A mirage only, but not a reality?

Good point. When the shift happened there was no thoughts about self or noself. It was just being here with all there is. If I searched for slef it was found and containd only in thoughts, but it was clearly seen they are just an experience, no thought was taken as something solid, just for what it is - a thought, like writing on water. The moment it appears it's already gone.

Also, is there an expectation here that seeing no self means a state of happiness or peace, or at least the lack of negative emotions?

About that...the Direct Experience wasn't what was previously expected. Even though I had many expectations made of many stories I've heard through the years of seeking, seeing reality as it is was something brand new as an experience.
It was the very same experience like before the shift, but with noone to resist it. So suffering wasn't there. All that the "me" is suffering from was present, but noone to suffer it, so it wasn't a problem anymore. It was just what is. So the experience was basically the same, but it was perceived as a much more happy state. By whom I don't know.
So now it feels confusing - I want to get to that "state" again, but I fully acknowledge that the thing that "gets" me there is just not wanting to "get" anything. Just be here with all there is is enough. And its not even a state, its what is. Its more correctly to say when I'm not directly looking I'm in a state, though imaginary, or distorted.

So, really look at your expectation.... what do you expect to happen?
What is it that you think or believe about seeing there being no separate self?

May be I have an expectation the shift to be permanent, not to be dependant on my focus of attention.
And I have an expectation a whole new world to be revealed, a word of truth and what-is-ness, a world without rejection to anything felt, only a sense of preference. Now I've seen and lived directly that world I want it permanent.

What are the characteristics of it?

No seeking, no rejection of what is, just being here now, without the pink glasses of believing in thouths and emotions (but it doesn't mean no thoughts and emotions), absolutely present and content.
I was expecting it to be very bland and boring, but it turned out to be blissful somehow...its hard to give it justice with words.

[Vivien]

So now it feels confusing - I want to get to that "state" again,

But what if seeing no self is not a state? You had a nice state, a nice experience, but seeing it in a daily life is not a different state to be in. It's very ordinary. Nothing special.

All that the "me" is suffering from was present, but noone to suffer it, so it wasn't a problem anymore.

Yes, but suffering sooner or later comes back, for sure.

When there is any form of suffering (or any form of discontent), it’s not just because there is a belief in a self. Suffering happens when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added narrative.

The personality stays almost completely intact when the self is seen through (at least at the beginning). All the conditionings from childhood, all the traumas, all the gathered emotional pains won’t dissolve in an instant just because the self is seen through. These most likely will stay, however, they are much more accessible and easier to work with after seeing through the illusion. This is just the first step, just the beginning, and not the end. But it is the beginning of the falling away of conditionings, which can last until the end of the organism.

And I have an expectation a whole new world to be revealed, a word of truth and what-is-ness, a world without rejection to anything felt, only a sense of preference. Now I've seen and lived directly that world I want it permanent.

Well, yes... and who wants that?

Where is the wanter?

What you are talking about is the complete lack of conditioning. But seeing no self will not make the conditionings go away. This particular body-mind is conditioned by certain life experiences to feel and believe certain things, to react the way it does.... all the emotional pain stored in the system will not go away just by seeing this. For that, a different kind of inquiry is needed... like The Work of Byron Katie, or the Kiloby Inquiries... which directly targets our emotional traumas that show up as a sense of self... as self referrential thoughts, judgements, resistance, fears, hurts... etc.

No seeking, no rejection of what is, just being here now, without the pink glasses of believing in thouths and emotions (but it doesn't mean no thoughts and emotions), absolutely present and content.
I was expecting it to be very bland and boring, but it turned out to be blissful somehow...its hard to give it justice with words.

Again, you are expecting that all the conditinings from your mind be erased. But that's not how it is. Your brain and nervous system will not magically reorganize itself in an instant to be like a new born baby with a blank slate.

And it's not even blissful. What is a blissful is a temporary state, a temporary experience.

Happiness or peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about seeing that emotions don’t belong to anything. They are free floating without being tied to or anchored to anything.

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual. Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.

Consider this.

[IstinSkiat]

seeing it in a daily life is not a different state to be in. It's very ordinary. Nothing special.

So what is this whole forum all about then!? Like having a big forum just to tell people the sky is blue. And people sign up an you tell them - go ouside and see if the sky is blue. And peole do it, and yes it is blue. So what?
For you to be here, voluntarily giving your free time for this it must be at least a little special!? And you guided me very well, so I saw the truth, I managd to directly look and experienced how peculiar it is...like you've never been underwater and someone takes you scuba diving in the Caribbean...and then he tells you its nothing special!? No way, I've seen how special it is with my own experience...
And then again...whos that I that saw this? What a mindfuck!!! So frustrating!!!

Suffering happens when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added narrative.

But Vivien, It was experienced here how all the conditioning can play out however it wants, but there was noone to suffer it! Suffering is optional,it is present only if the belief is there is a sufferer. All else, like self-pity, guilt, shame, pain, whatever...it still ocurs, it wasn't erased, I dont want it erased, but it was seen that self is only illusion , so all those experiences were leading to thin air! They werent felt personsl. And now they are leading back to me! Why the illusion is believed in, even when it was seen its futile!?