Hi Stan
That was beautiful. Let’s go straight to the core.
I inquire into things daily, looking for that which will click. I feel like I am pretty close, but that might me an illusion
Yes. The feeling of being close
is the illusion. That’s what keeps the hamster wheel turning. It’s not distance, but
that sense of almost.
What if you’re not far? What if there’s just nothing to shift into?
I get "that" feeling, clarity comes. But I don't follow through, and the next day the same inquiry is useless… So I default to the search of the initial shift.
There are a lot of
expectations here. Expectations are the biggest obstacle to seeing reality as it is. You think the shift will
lock in, that it will
stick, that something will
happen. But what if… those “
glimpses” are it. The clarity is already here. The only thing that comes back is the story that says it wasn’t enough. There is no “initial shift” waiting for you -
only the belief that this can’t be it.
I really liked this at first. But the practice quickly stopped making sense. It's hard to focus on attention, probably because it's not a thing. It's a word, a concept, and I don't really understand…
If anyone moves attention, then I can't find this agent.
Exactly. There’s no thing called
attention. What we call “
attention” is just
thought naming things into existence – labelling, highlighting, isolating from the whole, providing meaning, announcing “
now this matters.”
But the experience appears
before the label and
it’s just thought slicing up seamless experience.
A sound appears, colour, but those are
already labels, already interpreted. Even the so-called “DE” — sound, colour, sensation, …, the “
sense gates” - isn’t separate from the thought that says “
this is direct.”
It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax (
this) may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is this - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away. It’s one movement - no “attention,” no “experience,” no “you.” There is just
this, before it splits.
Look for yourself...
What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?
The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene.
Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?
Let the naming just be there, unnoticed. And just have a fresh look…
What’s left, without slicing it into parts?
Also notice…“You” can’t control “attention” because you are not the thinker of thoughts (
or are you??), you are not the labeller –
it’s all self-organised, happening on its own.
And if there is no attention but just this and the conditioned descriptions of the "shapes" that it's taking, then what else could possibly be there? Everything else is redundant.
"look for the barrier. Where there is barrier, there are sides, which means Me. Study the barrier and study when there is not barrier, like with sounds. There is more of a barrier with thoughts and body sensations, right?
what's on this side of the barrier? how does that barrier work?"
That’s a good pointer, Stan. When there’s no barrier, there’s just…
this.
But where there is division/barrier — subject/object, thought/feeler, seer/seen — there’s still identity hanging on. This is not a problem, just a place to look.
Try for example with seeing.
If an image is seen inside or outside, where exactly is the border where
the image crosses over from being outside to being inside of you? What does the border consist of? Be specific – sensation, colour, sound, taste, smell? Is there a see-er and the seen, or simply seeing or the seen? We go deeper with this if it's needed...
I really have no idea what I need to do, and what is this all about. I thought this is about seeing through the false self, but I've lost the way, so to say, looking for the true self.
Yes. That’s the trap. Looking for the
real self is still the
self playing hide and seek. You never had one.
There’s nothing to replace. No new “you” will be found on the other side of this.
There is
ONLY this: sensation, colour, sound, taste, smell, thought. And nothing else… no
seems like or
feels like So... What do you see, smell, taste, hear, feel that is also there? Whatever can't be smelled, tasted, seen, heard, felt, is an
assumption, an empty thought.
I hesistate writing here because you seem to be quite "radical" in your approach (going for the 8th fetter, right?), and LU is, generally speaking, not for chatting. I keep returning to the systems and teachings I am familiar with. but they all talk about shifting identity, one way or another.
There is nothing radical about LU - it’s a simple looking what is here and what is not. There are no steps (fetters) – whatever presents right now you look at it. If it’s “awareness” – you have a fresh look. If it’s a “barrier” – you have a fresh look. It’s really that simple. That’s why we ask people in the beginning to leave ALL teachings and learned stuff at the door. That lead you nowhere otherwise you wouldn’t be here, still looking. The only thing that helps is to look for yourself, not somebody else’s story, which creates unrealistic expectations that prevent you to see reality as it is – simple.
You don’t need a breakthrough. You need to stop waiting for one.
Here’s your only question for now — sit with it freshly:
What is missing, right now, that would make this complete?
Don’t just answer from teachings and expectations.
Look!
Love
Rali
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”
― Alan Alda
"The moment I am aware that I am aware I am not aware. Awareness means the observer is not"
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
