Support in self inquiry to see through the illusion of self

[Tessmus]

Frustration is just here, as a vibrational sensation + many thoughts, like a strong "will" or "wanting."

No, there is nothing wrong with this moment except the idea that it should be different.

Describing what is directly here .... I really don't know how to report on it without expressing a thought... but ok, trying, what is directly here, right now... ok... colors, sound, sensations ... and the stupid thought "what reply does she want" ... I don't know.

[graceabounds]

Very good. More of the same today. Circling back.

Sit quietly and relax, take your time just looking at what is in front of you for a while. Observe how the mind is dividing and labelling every thing into objects and is embellishing them with stories about what they are.
Give it some time….
Then, stop watching the objects as labelled objects. Just look at the seeing itself. Observe the pure process of seeing. This is direct experience.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply color/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.
So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all direct experience) and report back tomorrow how you go.

[Tessmus]

Yes, I have done this exercise now during the days, not sure exactly what to report, but I can see that for example looking at a cup, there is only the image of the cup, or if holding it, there is only image + sensation, together labeled as cup in thought, beyond this, there is no "cup" as a separate entity. I notice, that for example, looking at a cup, then closing my eyes, I still have a very strong "feeling" or "idea" of there being a cup in front of me, but I can also see that the cup is only a though, although very strongly believed. The seen image, can be seen as labeled objects or more as just fields of colors, but the labelling of object in thought is always there overlayed, so not sure to what degree I really see the "raw" input, but there seems to be different levels here at least. Doing this quite a lot, the "Image" I see, seems to me to be rather flat or rather that something far away is not really further away than something close, like distance itself is just a "thought", or the depth of image is just a mental overlay, but it still feels more "experiential" than just a thought.

[graceabounds]

When the image disappears (eyes closed), is there anything left but a vivid idea? Is there any “thing-ness” apart from the current sensation and the arising of thought?

When you notice the mind overlaying, what is actually happening? Is the overlay “in the way,” or is that itself just another arising: another sensation, another thought?

Is there ever anything present except experience itself—the raw colors, shapes, and the automatic labelling?
Is there ever any independent, controlling “me” in the midst of this process?

Wherever you are sitting right now, look for an object to use. Don’t pick up the object or turn it around, only look at what can be seen without touching it or turning it.

Have one?
Now look at it and describe what you see. Give yourself a bit of time with it. Just look, nothing else.
Done?

Now describe the back side of the object.
How is it known what the back side looks like?
What tells what it looks like?
How can it be known that there is a back at all? That the object is 3D?
Can this be known in direct experience?
Can an object be known at all?

Doing this quite a lot, the "Image" I see, seems to me to be rather flat or rather that something far away is not really further away than something close, like distance itself is just a "thought", or the depth of image is just a mental overlay

Yes

Right now, in this moment, is there any actual separation between “you” and the “cup,” or is there just sensation, color, and the thought “cup”?

Lie on your back and relax. Have a look at the ceiling.
There is thought to be a distance between that what is thought to be known as ‘body’ and that what is labelled ‘ceiling’.

Close your eyes. Now focus on the space between body and ceiling. Take your time, breathe in and out and simply look. Keep the eyes shut.

What do you notice?
Is there a body? Is there a ceiling? Is there a distance?

[Tessmus]

When the image disappears, there is just a very vidi idea of the object, there is no thingness in itself. No object can be "known" in itself, just an image, or a thought etc about it, I have had this notion before as well, but I can see it.

Like with the backside of the object, it just an idea, I don't "know" what it looks like, I am guessing from previous memories, that is thought. In some way there isn't a back to the object at all, just ideas about it, and there is never anything 3D, it is just 2D image with overlay of some thought form of depth, but the depth still feels as a kind of experience, not only a thought.

The overlay of labels on the image is not really in the way, it is just there also, but it can feel in the way, when I "try" to only see the raw image.

There is nothing present anytime other than experience + thoughts/labels/ideas, but the thoughts can sometimes feel as something in itself, most especially for the perception of having a body, even if its just a bundle of sensations, I do experience it as a body being there, even if I also know its just mental modeling, thought I a way, but not really like a normal thought either. For example with the laying down, looking at the ceiling. Closing my eyes, the ceiling and the distance seems more clearly to be just an idea/thought, than the body itself, there is still a lot of sensations that I interpret as a body, I can see its only mental model/thoughts, but it still feels as a body-outline being there.

[graceabounds]

Excellent.

You see that the “back” of an object is just a thought, a memory, not something actually given in experience. The same is true, exactly, for the “body.”

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear and put them aside.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes. Now 'go to' the feeling/sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?
2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?
3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find?

Can an INHERENT FEELER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Without any analysis or explanation—
What is here?
Is there a “body”?
Is there a “you”?
Or just… this?

[Tessmus]

Putting my hand on a book, and closing eyes, at least after some time, there is only one thing, the sensation itself. Focusing on the sensation, in the sensation, so to say, there is only the sensation itself, no thing feeling another. But there is in parallel, always the mental overlay of "a hand on a book" and a body, even if I can see that all that can be found in the sensation, are various fields of sensations, the mental overlay is also always there. And even if I can see, that in the sensation there is only the sensation itself, not "feeler", there is still a sense of witness, like something is always the same, even if all content in experience is different.

[graceabounds]

Very good.

Put your hand on the book again, close your eyes, and stay at the level of pure sensation. Wait.

Then with full, ruthless honesty: where exactly is the sense of “witness” located? Not as a word or thought, but as a felt experience in this moment. Is it in the body? In the head? All around? Or is it a flavor, a mood, an ambiance in the field of experience? Find it as an actual “thing.”

Pause. Do not answer from what you know or believe. Look now.

If the mental overlay arises, don’t fight it. Just notice:
Does it arise in the sensation, or is it a second layer, like an echo after the direct experiencing?
Are they ever simultaneous? Or is there a flicker—a back-and-forth—between sensation and story?

Does the ‘witness’, this thing that is always the same, actually witness, or is it just another arising, another subtle flavor in experience?
Is it possible that the sense of “something always here” is just another feeling?
Look. Don’t analyze, just report what is undeniably present.

When the sense of “witness” arises, try to get behind it.
What is behind the witness? Is there anything at all? Or do you just hit a wall of nothing, blankness?

[Tessmus]

Looking, the witness is not a thing in itself, the witness is the witnessing itself.

Mental overlays arise, at first it feels a second layer, but perhaps it is actually more like flickering between pure sensation, and mental overlay, but very very quickly, or rather with very very subtle transition so its not really a "sharp" event when it changes. Trying to "focus" on the pure sensation here, becomes uncomfortable and frustrating, physically, same as with the mirror exercise.

Yes, it is possible that the sense of something always there, or always the same is just a feeling, its perhaps more just a conclusion, because content in experience change a lot most of the time, and yet it is like nothing changed, so it seems something is always the same no matter what changes, and this is perhaps what I think of as witness.

Trying to get behind it is not really possible, the witnessing is just the witnessing in itself, getting "behind" it would be no experience or something like this, not even blackness it feels like or like the witness what makes it possible to witness.

[graceabounds]

So witnessing as a verb, not a noun?

So, what’s left? Is there anything stable at all? Or is it just the habit of assuming that “something” must be behind experience?

Trying to “catch” something, brings discomfort and frustration because it is a seeking for a ground that isn’t there…

What moves the hand?
What thinks the thought?
What seeks for ground?
What tries to “get” this?

Is there anywhere a separate “you,” “witness,” or “center” anywhere at all, in any experience? Was there ever?

[Tessmus]

Yes, the "witness" behind the mechanism of witnessing cannot be accessed in witnessing and so it must be a conclusion really, based on habit: that for something to be seen there must be a seer and a seer can never see itself. If witness could be witnessed, then there must have been another "larger" witness outside the witness, or something like that, so the fact that witness can not be witnessed, is an indication, that it is all there is (in experience). But I can also see that this is just an idea outside of experience.

When putting it on the spot, there is nothing stable at all, it is just an idea or habit of there being something stable behind experience.

What moves, thinks, seeks etc ... I don't know, it just happens then, by itself maybe, or perhaps some "drive" or direction behind it all that cannot be accessed or experienced, and this can only be speculation.

But it seems to me that there is a separate me in some sense, no real "entity" or anything like that (I have seen that it can not be found), but as a thought-form, and this is still something, it is not nothing. So why treat it as non-existing, or not real? After all, thoughts are also experienced so the thought in themselves do exist, even if they can never "prove" anything outside of themselves. But the same is true for all experience, right? An image labeled cup, can never prove the existence of a cup as something in itself. And the thought-form of "me" is in some sense more stable and enduring than many other fleeting experiences. I think this is where I get stuck now.

I have a question (and perhaps if you think its contraproductive for this process to give it a reply, don't) but do you ever "feel" like a separate self, even if upon investigation it can not be pinpointed other than a thought-form?

[graceabounds]

Excellent.
Let’s go all in. :)

You see that “witness” is just a habit or a conclusion, not a real thing, only a reflex of mind unable to tolerate utter instability.

When putting it on the spot, there is nothing stable at all, it is just an idea or habit of there being something stable behind experience.

Yes. You see that the “separate me” is also just a thought-form, more stable than most, but still just a piece of passing content,
… no different from any other thought, image, or sensation.

What moves, thinks, seeks etc ... I don't know, it just happens then, by itself maybe, or perhaps some "drive" or direction behind it all that cannot be accessed or experienced, and this can only be speculation.

Yes. Ultimately Unknowable…. how does it feel to see this?

And the thought-form of "me" is in some sense more stable and enduring than many other fleeting experiences. I think this is where I get stuck now.

Perfect. Now, do not try to get rid of this “me” thought-form.
Let it be here, as it is.

See: the thought “I am here” is simply another experience, arising and passing—sometimes frequently, sometimes not. It does not have to go away for the illusion of separation to be seen through! It just needs to be recognized for what it is… JUST a thought. No different in status from the thought “the cup exists” or “the color blue.”

Thoughts exist as experience. Yet what they describe is always one step removed, always story. They never prove or disprove anything beyond themselves, as you see.

do you ever "feel" like a separate self, even if upon investigation it can not be pinpointed other than a thought-form?

There were dreams after crossing that were experienced from the perspective of a separate self. And some fear or confusion upon waking, then a looking, then clear seeing again.

Thoughts arise. Fewer than there were. That doesn’t end. But clearly not owned. When there is a ‘stickiness’ somewhere in experience, it is an invitation to look for the underlying thought running in the background at the level of belief. When looked at directly, it is seen through.


So, looking again, is that feeling of me ever more than a passing experience?
Does feeling “I am me” prove that there is a real, separate me?
Or is it always ALWAYS just another arising, with no ownership, no substance beyond itself?

The trap is not the arising of the “me” thought/feeling.
The trap is taking it to point to something more than itself. See that all experience is like this:
Image of cup ≠ the actual cup
Thought of “me” ≠ actual separate self

There is no need to deny the arising of “me” thoughts, stories, feelings. Let them come and go as they do.
But what is lost if “me” is seen as only a story, as a natural part of the play of thought?

[Tessmus]

That everything is Ultimately Unknowable, doesn't feel anything, it feels normal, I think I have "known" or believed this for a quite long time, maybe even as long as I can remember. If there isn't some "deeper level" of seeing this that I have not yet seen?

The feeling "I am me" doesnt prove anything "real", other than the thought itself, but then nothing "real" can be proven beyond the experience. All that can be known is experience, and it can only be known as it is. At least in an ultimate sense.

I can see that the feeling "I am me" can't point to something else, but I still feel as "I am me."

If me is seen only as a story, nothing is lost. But then I can't really imagine what not feeling as "I am me" would be like, except for that brief moment panicking in the car :) But I don't know what it would feel like to have it prolonged, and to be ale to sit with it and investigate it.

[graceabounds]

Yes, let’s deconstruct that moment in the car, now that some time has passed. That was/is the gate…

Here is what I read of now…

Yesterday, while driving my car from work, I got the sensation that there is really no car moving through space at all, but just an image of the road getting larger, and an image of two hands on a wheel, for a very short moment, "I" wasn't there, all that is is just what can be seen

Direct experience, there is no one here is seen directly.
Can this be un-seen? Un-known?

Panic dwelled up, and a burning in the head,

Very common report, everything reorienting, recalibrating in light of this direct seeing.

but then after few seconds, my reasoning kicked in saying "you can not panic know, you are driving a car and you have a family to take car of",

Thought!
Was it YOU thinking that? Or did it just arise, unowned, and mash some panic buttons?

so the panic wore of, however leaving an uneasy feeling for the rest of the day. In the evening, I felt like I was getting sick and a bit feverish

Thought and direct experience are in conflict, yet the body is clear what is True: I is a lie.

Watching my kids play, the thought was that there is just an image, and some sounds, no "kids" really there, and hugging my kids, there is really only just a physical sensation, just a few pressure points on what I imagine to be my arm.

This was another moment of direct experience.

Looking now, at apparent others, what can truly be known? What is actually here? Can kids be ‘yours’? If there is no one here can there be anyone there?

And so it struck me that what I am trying to deconstruct with these exercises is not just the "self" but basically everything, all objects, all other people, movement and space itself.

Yes, you believed you were deconstructing “the self” but what you’re poking at is the very fabric of experience. The “self” was just the first knot, here you’re pulling at the whole tapestry.

And yet, looking now, at apparent here and apparent there… does nothing exist, or does EVERYTHING exist?
One thing, one movement? No center.

Then I was already "on the other side", inside some kind of metal construction pressing down on me with the weight of the whole world, and I looked out on a vast desert like landscape, and the pain/sorrow/pressure was there, but it was at the same time a kind of peace and relief

Something was working reorient in dreamspace, to process and reconcile these experiences.

I now think I know what the fear is protecting, if trying to put words to it, it is protecting freedom (at least it think it is), it is protecting the view (illusion) of being a free agent moving around in an open three-dimensional world. An illusion, but a spacious illusion with freedom.

Very astute. It all comes down to the illusion of the freedom of choice and control.
What is the perspective on this now?
Is there still someone here doing the doing?
Is freedom the illusion of choice or the seeing through the illusion of being the doer?

But then I can't really imagine what not feeling as "I am me" would be like, except for that brief moment panicking in the car :) But I don't know what it would feel like to have it prolonged, and to be ale to sit with it and investigate it.

It all is/was seen through in a moment. Since then there has been a lot of investigation but a bit less sitting with it.

Ready to dive back in?

:)

[Tessmus]

What is the perspective on this now?
Is there still someone here doing the doing?
Is freedom the illusion of choice or the seeing through the illusion of being the doer?

The perspective on this is that I feel free anyway, no matter what is "actually the case". I don't feel afraid of not being in control. I can see that there is freedom in not being in control, or that any choice "I" make, couldn't have been any other way. However, to some degree at least, there is still the feeling of someone here doing the doing, especially when I don't "focus" on it or actively investigate it, and just go on with my daily business. But at the same time I feel more fine with not being in control, but I am still not sure to what degree this "seeing" has really become a seeing versus just a belief. I feel somewhere in between here...

Anyway, yes, I am very ready to dive back in :)