Unraveling

[davjak]

One is seeing. The other one is a reflection, thinking. Do this pointer at least 5 times. Also do it for hearing and sensing/touch. For hearing, it's best to use a sound that you can turn off and then remember the sound.

I see I've been failing to distinguish DE from thought, and I've been operating from acquired learning and not recognizing the thought loop. To know the color of my socks, there must be seeing, not reference to memory, i.e. thought. I feels like DE echoes or continues to reverberate in memory, and I've retreated into the reverberations to blunt and avoid DE.

When there is contact with the bed, what is there in direct experience? Can you describe it? When the bed is felt, is the body feeling the bed? Just describe what is true for you.

The body is not feeling the bed, as body and bed are labels. I feel clear on this. When I actually go into and don't avoid DE to remain in familiar mental abstraction, there is only seeing, hearing, etc. Contact with a bed is sensation. It can be described as pressure, heaviness, rough or smooth, but these are labeling sensation.

Look at for example a sensation, is there the sensation and the awareness of it? If so, where is the border between the two?

I don't see a border.

An intense focus on the tendency to go into thinking has been coming up lately. When sitting with it it's not long before attention turns to the I am in which it is occurring. I don't see any border, but this feels like the limit of what I can say.

[Bluejay]

Contact with a bed is sensation. It can be described as pressure, heaviness, rough or smooth, but these are labeling sensation.

And when in contact with the bed, can you feel two sensations (bed and body)?

I see I've been failing to distinguish DE from thought, and I've been operating from acquired learning and not recognizing the thought loop. To know the color of my socks, there must be seeing, not reference to memory, i.e. thought. I feels like DE echoes or continues to reverberate in memory, and I've retreated into the reverberations to blunt and avoid DE.

Exactly. Great that you're seeing this.

I don't see a border.

An intense focus on the tendency to go into thinking has been coming up lately. When sitting with it it's not long before attention turns to the I am in which it is occurring. I don't see any border, but this feels like the limit of what I can say.

When noticing a sensation, is there a thought image showing the sensation and the awareness/watching of it?

What creates the seeming border or 'twoness'?

[davjak]

And when in contact with the bed, can you feel two sensations (bed and body)?

No, it's just one sensation, like all other sensations.

When noticing a sensation, is there a thought image showing the sensation and the awareness/watching of it?

Yes! It's memory, like the echo of the original experience.

What creates the seeming border or 'twoness'?

It must be the same presumption of self/other, inside/outside, subject and experienced objects, the root sense of separation of a me in a world out there.

[Bluejay]

It must be the same presumption of self/other, inside/outside, subject and experienced objects, the root sense of separation of a me in a world out there.

You're going into thinking here. There's no need for 'must be' which is a guess.

With that said, let's look at decisions. And try to be aware of your tendency to go into thinking instead of direct experience.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

Here's what’s needed - a chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.

2. Count to 5.

3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:

Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the 'choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to 'choose’?

Enjoy! :)

[davjak]

Experiment - Finding the function of choice

OK. This is where I would have sworn every which way I saw no chooser. But during the periods of intense focus on going into thinking, I could identify a leaning into the process and a sense of responsibility to stick with it, work at it. I saw the absurdity of this, but it doesn't uproot the tendency.

I will do the exercise and report back.

[davjak]

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

There was no choice recognized. The perceived qualities come forth without any hand in their arising.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

No, no choice or choosing was/is recognized.

Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

I can't even say I made a choice. There were thoughts such as the qualities and wondering what would happen. When 5 was reached there was even some surprise at how the hand darted to one of the drinks. It was clear there is no process for determining a choice. Even if there were thought's such as which one should I choose, (which there weren't) the actual outcome is unpredictable.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the 'choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to 'choose’?

It's clear that a feeling cannot choose. I see this exercise could be nothing but a retread. But this would only be if it stays entirely at the mental level. Yesterday when I recognized the feeling I should work harder at catching the tendency to go off into thinking, and the recognition of seeing the delusion came, I laughed at the absurdity. It was another instance of feeling like waking from a delusional mind state. Later I thought this laughing is indication of true recognizing, rather than intellectual understanding, and it's how the fixations come undone.

Why don't exercises like this flip a switch in the same way? The only answer I see is there is no reason, and what happens happens. Often I see quotes or advice that say something like, "It's out of your hands. All you can do is ..." Is would usually be followed by words like cooperate, not get in the way, let go, etc. Here's an example:

"But in our daily life ... we can’t muscle ourselves awake through sheer willpower nor can anyone else wake us up. What we can do is pay attention to what we’re calling problems and notice that the act of labelling things “problems” can be the alarm that could wake us up from the dream."

But then it's an attempted pointing. and there is always some paradox to be accepted in using language. What we are doing right now, something is happening. But if we stay true, we don't say anything more. I see 'my' delusion in retrospect. Sometimes it unwinds something, sometimes the ignorance persists. It just is what it is, right? Any sense of frustration or should or shouldn't is just more delusion.

[Bluejay]

Yesterday when I recognized the feeling I should work harder at catching the tendency to go off into thinking, and the recognition of seeing the delusion came, I laughed at the absurdity. It was another instance of feeling like waking from a delusional mind state. Later I thought this laughing is indication of true recognizing, rather than intellectual understanding, and it's how the fixations come undone.

The feeling that you should work harder is also just a thought arising to no inherent self, right?

But then it's an attempted pointing. and there is always some paradox to be accepted in using language. What we are doing right now, something is happening. But if we stay true, we don't say anything more. I see 'my' delusion in retrospect. Sometimes it unwinds something, sometimes the ignorance persists. It just is what it is, right? Any sense of frustration or should or shouldn't is just more delusion.

Exactly. It's a pointing using language, and language is dualistic. There are no patterns to awakening. There's no thing that is predictably going to wake anyone up.

Yes, any should/shouldn't is just fighting what is happening and usually has already happened, so why do it? It's an illusion keeping the illusion of self alive, because there's an illusion that there is control.

I can't even say I made a choice. There were thoughts such as the qualities and wondering what would happen. When 5 was reached there was even some surprise at how the hand darted to one of the drinks. It was clear there is no process for determining a choice. Even if there were thought's such as which one should I choose, (which there weren't) the actual outcome is unpredictable.

Now look in everyday life. What do you decide?

Do you choose what to feel or not feel? Do you even choose to resist a feeling or not?

Do you choose what the 'eyes' see and what visual information is taken in and then might trigger a thought or feeling?

Did you choose to start this path of awakening and inquiry? Can you stop walking this path?

[davjak]

The feeling that you should work harder is also just a thought arising to no inherent self, right?

Yes, that is what was seen.

Exactly. It's a pointing using language, and language is dualistic. There are no patterns to awakening. There's no thing that is predictably going to wake anyone up.

Yes, any should/shouldn't is just fighting what is happening and usually has already happened, so why do it? It's an illusion keeping the illusion of self alive, because there's an illusion that there is control.

Now look in everyday life. What do you decide?

I don't decide anything.

Do you choose what to feel or not feel? Do you even choose to resist a feeling or not?

No, feelings are simply a feature in what is arising. Resistance to what is happening is an illusion and evidence of a sense of separation, a belief in existing as an autonomous agent.

Did you choose to start this path of awakening and inquiry? Can you stop walking this path?

No, I've recognized this many times. The flame came alive without explanation or expectation. Now, the head is in the tiger's mouth. There isn't anyone or anything that is separate from experience to exert any degree of influence or control. There is no apartness. There's no brakes to step on. It's all unspeakable mystery that can only be glimpsed when ego is seen through. I realize ego is a label, and it's replaceable with the word delusion.

[Bluejay]

No, feelings are simply a feature in what is arising. Resistance to what is happening is an illusion and evidence of a sense of separation, a belief in existing as an autonomous agent.

Here it is good to point out that while resistance is happening to no one, it is conditioning in the body, you could say, and is dealt with in the emotional work that comes after seeing through the self illusion.

No, I've recognized this many times. The flame came alive without explanation or expectation. Now, the head is in the tiger's mouth. There isn't anyone or anything that is separate from experience to exert any degree of influence or control. There is no apartness. There's no brakes to step on. It's all unspeakable mystery that can only be glimpsed when ego is seen through. I realize ego is a label, and it's replaceable with the word delusion.

Yup. So what is ego in direct experience without any label?

Here's the next pointer focusing on responsibility. You may notice thoughts about 'this is clear already', but let those thoughts pass, and keep looking in DE, letting this sink deeper.

Imagine for a moment a scene, one of a little mountain stream which is tumbling down a hillside gully, not far from its source. It has been raining and so the level is quite high.

Consider in your mind's eye, if you can, how it flows to the right over a little rock (where, had the level been lower, it would probably have gone around the rock), then the flow goes to the left over a tree bow, and then slows a little in a broader place, before splashing over a small cascade into a pool, and so on down the mountain side.

Does it choose any of its directions? Is it even really a separate entity different from the water deposited in it, the rocks, the depressions in the ground and so on?

Is it even the same entity moment by moment, or more the product of weather conditions and water, like an ever-changing pattern?

1. Can you find anywhere where 'you' autonomously intervene into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg; what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch, and describe to me what happens. There are environmental factors, there are color preferences (but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?), practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose (eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look cool for a certain person) etc.

Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life?

Can you find someone somewhere?

3. Can anything be found for which 'you' are responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

Enjoy :)

[davjak]

I will have to do this tonight.
I wanted to report on a few things, though. Back when I had to laugh at the absurdity of the thought to commit more attention to noticing the movement into thinking, it struck me that thought identification and the sense of doership are basically the same thing. This morning there was a clear instance of disidentification with thought. Later, at work came a clear and distinct seeing non-involvement with what was occurring. Both these episodes occasioned a comparison to my previous experience, and I see there is a very definite difference. Today was the experience, while previously it was thoughts of disidentification and non-doing. I felt the urge to cry at the possibility of being free of this sense of self. Later there were thoughts of repeating these experiences, followed by Doh!

[davjak]

Yup. So what is ego in direct experience without any label?

Nonexistent

1. Can you find anywhere where 'you' autonomously intervene into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

No. To intervene 'I' must be here, be apart from and possess capability to act. This is seen, but not as clearly as this morning. Thoughts coincide with responding here. Does that cloud this experience? What I see is that it doesn't necessarily, but there was something different about the whiff of non-doership that came this morning and uncertainty about what that difference is. It was clearer and more distinct and non-usual. Now, not so much as that. It appears thought has to happen to respond to questions, even when there is no sense of a 'me' doing it. But then I see, this is comparing one experience to another.

This brings to mind an insight that came. I see there there doesn't have to be an a-ha experience to this question and answer. I see now, there is a cumulative effect and an impact that comes in through the back door, so to speak.

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg; what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch, and describe to me what happens. There are environmental factors, there are color preferences (but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?), practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose (eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look cool for a certain person) etc.

Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life?

Preferences arise in the same way fabric was dyed blue and made into shirt that appeared in the store, so a blue shirt is what was purchased, and a blue shirt gets worn to work in the same way a grey shirt went to work the day before. They just happen to be what arises. No 'one' has preferences.

Can you find someone somewhere?

The looker is not even here to look, so the looked for will never be found.

3. Can anything be found for which 'you' are responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

The responsible agent is just a thought and nothing more. This is more clear now than before.

[Bluejay]

This brings to mind an insight that came. I see there there doesn't have to be an a-ha experience to this question and answer. I see now, there is a cumulative effect and an impact that comes in through the back door, so to speak.

It can happen gradually, and go almost unnoticed.

The responsible agent is just a thought and nothing more. This is more clear now than before.

If there is no one to be responsible, does this mean you never take responsibility for anything again?

[davjak]

Taking responsibility can happen, like any other event in the drama, but there would be no individual doing that.

[Bluejay]

Yup, exactly.

Let's take a look at time then:

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if it started at all) far in the past and advances to the future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and moving into the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began? How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Look at a thought about the past or the future, where is 'time' in that?

Is there actual experience of ‘time’ or just thoughts about ‘time’?

Take your time with each question. Enjoy!

[davjak]

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

There isn't any direct experience of this.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No, that would be conceptual.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

No, it could only be construed as such by referencing a memory of an event, so it requires mental process to see duration.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It doesn't move.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began? How long does the ‘now’ last?

There's no point where now begins; it's always now.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
It doesn't start or end. This is thinking but it reminds me of an exercise from Indian Mind Only School that goes something like: If there is duration, then it's possible to take a segment and find its beginning, middle and end. Then it would be possible to take say, the beginning and divide it into beginning, middle and end, ad infinitum. I don't recall the philosophy says from there, but I don't reason anything past this. (I get that we're not looking to reason here.) If it were done with matter one comes to matter, then particles, then parts of particles. It just leads to conceptualization terminating in mystery. Maybe that's the point, to bring the mind/reason to a stop.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

It never does. Past is always nothing but thought, and DE doesn't find something called past.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

A concept.

Look at a thought about the past or the future, where is 'time' in that?

It's not there. There would only be thoughts, perhaps smell, feelings,images (this is another interesting question. I was recently looking at what we call images in imagination. It's really a bizarre thing. It's not sight. It's more like vibrating potential, like a visual white noise the brain uses thought to interpret as something seen in DE.)

Is there actual experience of ‘time’ or just thoughts about ‘time’?

There's just thoughts of time. It feels like these questions are answerable, but there is also a thought hovering, wondering about 'eternal now'. But, I guess this would be the mind looking for special, mystical experience, when it is already DE, when the concepts are all dropped and there is no seeking for something else heard about in spiritual/philosophical talk.