More Clarity Saught!

[Snowmoon44]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
A non conceptual, experiential granular look into what the term "I" or "Self" is actually referring to in direct experience (experience being defined as sensations of the 6 senses including thought as a sense)

What are you looking for at LU?
A guide who has already had this shift in identity and has experience working with people to support their own "looking" into the sense of whether or not there is a self. Ive already looked quite a bit. Get a bit stuck with seeing thoughts for what they are (i think!) Could do with more clarity. Dont seem to find obvious compulsive thoughts here, and have discovered in last year a more clearly an undifferentiated "meta" space, without fully seeing the significance of it, or feeling there has been a shift. Tendancy to self doubt, and sense of lack of clarity. Value subtlety and spaciousness/openness.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Holding the space, asking appropriate questions, pointing out blindspots, with the purpose of supporting the process of seeing there is no self. There is some pride here, but ive got to the space of seeing it as a view & being willing to let go of it.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Longterm buddhist background (over 35 years!) prepared to examine and give up ANY belief for the sake of "Truth", including "Buddhism" and "Ive been at this a long time". Follower of Angelo Dillulo for last couple years.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

Admin note for Snowmoon44: You can only see answers in your thread when you’re logged in. Please check your thread regularly while logged in, as email notifications don’t always work.

[poppyseed]

Hi Snowmoon44
(what do you want me to call you?)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Please confirm that you have read them
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.

What time zone are you in?
Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Hi Snowmoon44
(what do you want me to call you?)

Hi Rali! Thanks so much for responding. You can call me Padma.

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Please confirm that you have read them
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

Confirmed!

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.

Great!

What time zone are you in?

Greenwich meantime

Question - forgive my ignorance but is our conversation public here? I don't mind I dont think, but would be good to know the parameters.

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

Please make sure that you are subscribed to your topic. In the top left corner, next to "Post Reply" there is an icon that looks like a spanner. When you click on it there is a menu where you can select “subscribe topic’. Click on it once. If you want to be sure that you are subscribed just refresh the page and if you click again should show now “ unsubscribe topic”. Don’t click on it as it will unsubscribe you :).

Greenwich meantime

I'm GMT+2. Perfect :)

Question - forgive my ignorance but is our conversation public here? I don't mind I dont think, but would be good to know the parameters.

Yes, the threads are open to the public. They help people who are not ready to be guided or want to do it on their own. You don’t have to use your real name, if that will stop you from being honest with yourself and with me. Only honesty will make this work and please have in mind that there are no right and wrong answers, but what rings true at the moment

First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

3. What do you want not to happen?

4. What are you hoping for?

5. What is missing?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

I dont know! I imagine more confidence and freedom. Leverage to work with craving and aversion and beyond (referencing the 10 fetter model). But honestly im trying to notice and let go where possible of agendas. Whatever arises, i want to face into it, even if uncomfortable or difficult.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

I dont know. I looked a bit at my agendas this morning and recognised one about being able to benefit others, with a bit of self aggrandisement or gaining agenda on the side. I readjusted (and will keep looking out for it) so that its more “yes to this whatever the outcome”. Its more between “me” and the universe beyond this particular apparent situation.

3. What do you want not to happen?

Im afraid of both not seeing it, and probably also afraid of seeing it! More the former at the moment. Afraid there might be something particularly obtuse about me and “my” way of looking at things!

4. What are you hoping for?

Decisive seeing that “i” can be sure of.

5. What is missing?

Ha! Ha! It feels as if its all here, but where this system is choosing to identify or put weight on is misguided.

Thanks so much for taking this time :)

*Padma" is fine!

[poppyseed]

Hey
Thank you for your honesty! It can be challenging to become aware of what we really believe. The questions were a means to seeing what expectations you have, as everyone has some “idea” about awakening. There is so much information out there now with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel, that to have no expectations is almost impossible.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable, but ultimately, expectations are a hindrance. They cling to an idea of how it is supposed to go, which is not necessarily correct, and this is why I asked you to read the FAQ’s of what Liberation Unleashed is NOT. When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end. If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary. Is that OK with you?

Im afraid of both not seeing it, and probably also afraid of seeing it! More the former at the moment. Afraid there might be something particularly obtuse about me and “my” way of looking at things!

You say you're afraid of not seeing it. But what exactly is it you're afraid of not seeing?
Then you say you're also afraid of seeing it.
Look closely. This is where the illusion is born – when there is a split between something to be seen or nor not AND the seer that sees it or doesn’t.
Where is “you” in any of that?

Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression. In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening, we think, we do things and we need protection but when we examine this closely, we see it for what it is - just a mirage, an illusion. There is no doer and thinker. Things are just happening.
Let’s examine this carefully. Fear/resistance serves to protect the imaginary self from harm. In this case it protects “you” from changing and losing your “sharpness”. But let’s be clear here… why would the absence of something that has NEVER existed cause a change in existing stuff?
You probably believed in Santa when you were little. There was magic and joy, and love, and giving, and caring. When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?
Please sit and examine this carefully. Sit with this fear and allow it to be there. See what it is really protecting and if it is necessary. Please let me know what you find.

So now… If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

Do it a few times. Again the more you uncover, the better starting point we have. Whatever comes up is "right", it is exactly what needs to be seen right now. As usual, honesty will make this work

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Good morning!

You say you're afraid of not seeing it. But what exactly is it you're afraid of not seeing?
Then you say you're also afraid of seeing it.

What am I afraid of seeing or not seeing? Not seeing through the illusion of having a self. Or actually seeing through it.

Look closely. This is where the illusion is born – when there is a split between something to be seen or not AND the seer that sees it or doesn’t.
Where is “you” in any of that?

The idea is that there is something to be perceived/realised/seen through and a perceiver/realiser/seer of that. What is here right now however are sensations – of a “body”- and feelings (of slight anxiety) and thoughts. They are happening without anyone doing it. Can it therefore be true to say that there is something I’m afraid of seeing or not seeing. Where is the “I”? Seeing will happen or not, fear will happen or not. The “I” is an extra unnecessary idea.

Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression. In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening, we think, we do things and we need protection but when we examine this closely, we see it for what it is - just a mirage, an illusion. There is no doer and thinker. Things are just happening.

I like the way you put it , “Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression. In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening”.

Let’s examine this carefully. Fear/resistance serves to protect the imaginary self from harm. In this case it protects “you” from changing and losing your “sharpness”. But let’s be clear here… why would the absence of something that has NEVER existed cause a change in existing stuff?

No. Its all still here. Experience is here without “me” ( not clear what you mean by losing my “sharpness”?)

You probably believed in Santa when you were little. There was magic and joy, and love, and giving, and caring. When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?

I didnt believe in Santa as far as I can remember. I certainly felt magical feelings around some things. (Santa is quite culturally specific, but as it happens is part of my culture!)

Please sit and examine this carefully. Sit with this fear and allow it to be there. See what it is really protecting and if it is necessary. Please let me know what you find.

The fear/anxiety seems to be a restless sensation that isn’t really attached to anything. It doesn’t seem to be obviously protecting anything specific. It’s a holding or clenching in the body that I don’t seem to be doing. Its been there fairly continuously for the last few weeks. I’m letting it just be there and told it it can be there as long as it wants, doesn’t need to be different, and to express what it wants. Nothing clear yet! I sense it is the essential resistance to life that often leads me to reach for my phone and distract myself.

So now… If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer,

Is there a doer, for example someone typing these words? Typing is happening and thinking is happening, but “I” can’t locate a separate “one” who is doing it. The looking is happening in experience sort of looking into the “I” space experientially. But there is always doubt about whether its really being seen. The one who is typing can’t be found, but I’m not convinced that there has been a thorough realisation. If I think of a more physical action like getting up or walking it is easier to see that these actions happen but no “one or “person” is separate or behind it
Second look later on at this . If a thought arises “I’m going to get up and do something” that is just a thought. The body-mind may or may not respond to that thought. Doing might then happen but there isn’t someone inside directing the body and its movements.

No thinker

–

likewise there is a partial seeing that thoughts arise by themselves. Its slightly tricky to see in real time. Not sure why. Feels as if there aren’t that many thoughts, and some of them feel as if they come from a wiser place where others are just random. Feel this may be the key (in terms of where identification most happens) so will keep trying (or relaxing into it!)

No experiencer

–

again checking in direct experience its very clear that experience happens without someone making it happen or needing to be there. Still its possible to think of the self as a sort of reflective screen or receiver. Equally its all just here immediately. That really is what is happening before interpretation. I don’t know why the interpretation is seen as more valid than just this immediacy.

No decision maker.

This feels clearer. Thoughts just arise and a decision is made based on those which seem to be informed by previous thoughts and/or conditions. (I seem to have lost motivation for anything – any project – for the last couple of years – except this kind of investigation! There is a thought here that I’d like it to be different, but that is just a thought).

No witness,

-

that comes back to the “self as reflective screen”. Angelo Dillulo has said that “noticing is not an act”, which I find helpful. Noticing or witnessing happens without a witnesser. Just now in meditation I was checking out in experience :what does “personal” mean? Experiencing all the senses as simply arising impersonally ie without the involvement of a person. The experience is pleasant (experiencing the senses arising without a person) but the word “impersonal” – although effective in this context -also has slightly alienating and robotic connotations, which there is a slight aversion to, or disappointed feeling. I guess its all just words…but perhaps this is the thing that the fear is about. Losing the fantasy and all the agendas associated with it is disillusioning!

What comes up?

As often - slight befuddlement. Both doubt ( its around the capacity here to make this shift – there are even sometimes wonderings about whether the shift already happened earlier in life ) and confidence ( Im confident in something deeper working its way out here)

Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

I looked in experience while acting/ thinking /doing was happening to see if a self could be found. What is undisputably clear is that sensations all arise without a self being involved. The final frontier of seeing that with thought feels only partially seen. The same possibly with self as agent.

Confusion/a sense of not being clear is a big part of the experience. A sense of something that is just not being “got”. Feels like a dog chasing its own tail! Something staring me in the face that is very simple but feels incredibly difficult to get down to actually seeing. I’m often catching myself typing that its me that is looking for whether I’m there or not! Partly that is due to language, but also a buy-in to that language.

(Interestingly, while in a zoom meeting earlier I noticed a lack of the usual identification with my image on the screen. Usually there is a sense of it being “me”, but it just seemed like it was a picture only, just like all the other pictures. I’ve had more “empty” experiences like this recently. But this is a digression, as this process is NOT about experiences!)

Do it a few times. Again the more you uncover, the better starting point we have. Whatever comes up is "right", it is exactly what needs to be seen right now. As usual, honesty will make this work

My feeling is that I get this on one level, but there is a lack of complete conviction or decisive seeing. Even there I’ve put “I” get this. Is that just conventional language or do I still think I am one who can get something? It still feels as if the “I” who could get this, and is even invested in being someone who could get this, is still believed in. Maybe the question is “who” gets it? (Or doesn’t?). Now I feel really confused! (or should I say “confusion is here!)
Thank you Rali!

Addendum - thought i'd sent it but says "invalid". Something has happened since I wrote the above. I've realised that I was putting the area of thought into a separate and slightly scary bubble, especially the "I and "me" thought. Seeing its just as natural as everything else. A relief - but need to sit with it XX

[Snowmoon44]

Hi Rali - just checking in again in case you thought i wanted to sit longer with the last point I made. I'm good to carry on dialogue, when convenient to you.

Just following on from the previous insight with a small "i", a further development has just occurred in meditation. Really feeling the direct sensations evoked by the thought "I", it was seen that the identity was quite arbritrarily associated with that thought, and that when I bought attention to other sensations, they were exactly the same eg identity - or location you could say - can be equally felt wherever awareness happens to land (or felt more broadly if awareness is spacious and open). It was the adventitious nature of what "I" might refer to which was noticeable. You could say that identity (I) could potentially be anywhere, and isnt a personal entity. Also fascinated by what the word "exist" even means! Again - need to keep checking in with this! But happy to continue dialogue when you are ready X

:) Padma

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

The forum was down yesterday and I couldn’t post a reply. It happens from time to time when bots attack us :)

Thank you for your thorough and honest reply. It gives me an idea where to point. But before we go there I want to make sure that we speak the same “language”, so please bear with me…

Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something. If I asked you to tell me what is behind your back right now, you could answer by doing one of two things: by thinking and remembering, or by turning your head around and actually looking back and describing what you see. If I ask you to look for your phone or keys, you would quite naturally, take a look and locate them. That’s how to look.
Looking is finding out what is true in experience. It is a nonverbal action of focusing attention on a target. Thinking is verbal—it is naming experience. Both work together as one mechanism. If you can’t see for yourself, you cannot describe it in your own words (but you can attempt to describe it using someone else’s words, from memory).

There is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.



Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe? While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, colour(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

YES!

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

Yes - clear!

Ah - thanks Rali.

I have a clear idea of what you are talking about. Only non conceptual direct looking in the senses.

However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

So looking at this and feeling into it: No there is not anything here that is an apple. "Apple" is just a label. In sight there is shape and colour. There is recognition. There is thought. The thought says "its an apple".

In the same way, self is a label. What arises when looking for it are sensations (in the face, a contraction, mental image flashes up of a partial face, and the thought "i").

This morning "I" looked to how the I thought and feelings appeared - a collection of subtle sensations. Being in experience, "I" noticed that everything could be here experientially without the "I" thought. It wasnt necessary.

I'd already seen this with the other senses. It was the fear bubble around the thought sense - and not recognising it - that evoked confusion (or vice versa)

Did you see my further replies on the forum? It seems to be back now but not super easy to read as (appropriately enough) its gone transparent! (prob ok if copied and pasted!)

Love and thanks

Padma

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

I have a clear idea of what you are talking about. Its only non conceptual direct looking in the senses here!

Yes! Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.
Once you play with this and write some examples move further…

So looking at this and feeling into it: No there is not anything here that is an apple. Apple is just a label. In sight there is shape and colour. There is recognition. There is thought. The thought says "its an apple".

In the same way, self is a label. What arises when looking for it are sensations (in the face, a contraction, mental image flashes up of a partial face, and the thought "i").

Yes, “apple” is a thought/label that points to sensations, taste, smell, and colour, but there is no an actual apple as an “object”. “Object” is another general label/thought that points to just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste). Clear?

However… You say there is recognition. Look very carefully:
What exactly is recognizing? Where does the knowing “this is an apple” arise from?
Strip it down:
You see shape, colour, there is sensation (touch) and taste or smell. (Are there even shapes or just nuances in colour giving the illusion of shapes?)
Then thought arrives. “It’s an apple.” But where is the mechanism of recognition?
Is it a thing? A process? A someone?
Check this in real time:
If the thought didn’t arise, would you “know” it’s an apple?
So what is recognition, actually?

Being in experience, 'I' noticed that everything could be here experientially just as much without the 'I' thought. It wasn't necessary.

Pause here. You’re chasing your tail.
What noticed that?? You put I in ‘’ but what notices if it’s not the ‘I’?
Right now, go into raw seeing, raw hearing, raw sensation.
Let the thought “I” arise if it wants—but don’t touch it. Don’t follow it.
Notice: does anything stop? Is experience missing anything when "I" isn’t grasped?
What is noticing made of?

You say:

Typing is happening and thinking is happening, but ‘I’ can’t locate a separate ‘one’ who is doing it.

There is doubt whether it's really being seen.

I still feel as if the ‘I’ is being believed in.

I’m not convinced there has been a thorough realization.

My feeling is that I get this on one level…

WHO/what is not convinced? WHO gets it on one level?
Where exactly is this "I" that’s evaluating the clarity?
Where is the one who is confused?
Go right now into the bodily sensation of confusion. No thought. Drop the commentary. Drop “I’m confused.”
Just feel: where is it? What shape? Texture? Does the sensation contain any confusion or that is added by thought – a label stuck post-factum?
You keep trying to judge the seeing. But here's the punchline:
There is no "you" who ever saw or ever will.
Seeing happens. The one who “gets it” is the just next illusion...
Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Thanks! There was a little eddy of feeling in response to your email, which is around some pride-like pattern – that was interesting and revealing! Something like “stop asking these impertinent questions” ha ha 😊There was a looking into “who reacted”? Nothing except sensations there! More on this later.

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.
Once you play with this and write some examples move further…

OK – have done! See some of the list at the bottom. Honestly, as above, there was a slight reaction to doing the exercise. Perhaps because direct experience/tuning into actual experience has already been a revelatory area of exploration these last years. This felt a bit mechanical. Soz - just more selfing doing its thing!.

Yes, “apple” is a thought/label that points to sensations, taste, smell, and colour, but there is no an actual apple as an “object”. “Object” is another general label/thought that points to just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste). Clear?

Yes

However… You say there is recognition. Look very carefully:
What exactly is recognizing? Where does the knowing “this is an apple” arise from?
Strip it down:
You see shape, colour, there is sensation (touch) and taste or smell. (Are there even shapes or just nuances in colour giving the illusion of shapes?)
Then thought arrives. “It’s an apple.” But where is the mechanism of recognition?
Is it a thing? A process? A someone?

Recognition seems to be part of the thought as it arises. It seems to kind of rise up and cling to what is seen making it into something. You could call it a process. Before recognition there is just colour/s and apparent edges.

Check this in real time:
If the thought didn’t arise, would you “know” it’s an apple?

No

So what is recognition, actually?

A thought added to experience

Being in experience, 'I' noticed that everything could be here experientially just as much without the 'I' thought. It wasn't necessary.
Pause here. You’re chasing your tail.
What noticed that?? You put I in ‘’ but what notices if it’s not the ‘I’?

Not the “I”. All of the senses including body senses – the sense of having a body and sensations associated with “selfing” – the idea of a self (such as a thick sensation in the face and a contraction in the heart) – are simply experienced/ happening without anyone being there to interfere with it. But this is known (not necessarily by “I”). Not sure how to communicate this without saying “I”. But you are right, there is some idea of“I” here that is still apparently claiming it after the fact.

Right now, go into raw seeing, raw hearing, raw sensation.
Let the thought “I” arise if it wants—but don’t touch it. Don’t follow it.
Notice: does anything stop? Is experience missing anything when "I" isn’t grasped?
What is noticing made of?

Yes - this is exactly what is seen. Noticing is not an act that anyone does. Experience isn’t missing anything without the “I” thought.

What is noticing made of?

Lets see. Noticing isn’t made of anything. Its just here. And unlocatable but absolutely present. You could say that the senses/sensing is made of noticing. Everything is noticing. There isn’t anything else.

You say:
Typing is happening and thinking is happening, but ‘I’ can’t locate a separate ‘one’ who is doing it.
There is doubt whether it's really being seen.
I still feel as if the ‘I’ is being believed in.
I’m not convinced there has been a thorough realization.
My feeling is that I get this on one level…
WHO/what is not convinced? WHO gets it on one level?

Aha - Good point :) What is meant here by the word “I” when a phrase like “ I am not convinced” is used?. Is it just a conventional way of speaking? Or is there really a belief that there is an “I” or “self” here that can see something? What would that “I” be if so? Looking at that there isn’t anything to be found experientially (in the 6 senses) that could see something or not see it. I’ve just clocked as per previous answer that noticing happens without a noticer. And that can be seen (noticed!) right now. So this is a matter of noticing that there is no self (without the need for a noticer. Its just about clear seeing [without a seer], rather than some sort of “self” like a book or recorder that gets written on).

Where exactly is this "I" that’s evaluating the clarity?

Oops – nowhere. This is starting to bite!

Where is the one who is confused?
Go right now into the bodily sensation of confusion. No thought. Drop the commentary. Drop “I’m confused.”
Just feel: where is it? What shape? Texture? Does the sensation contain any confusion or that is added by thought – a label stuck post-factum?

Where is it? Chest area radiating upwards towards head. Also could be diffused over the whole upper torso with no definable edge. Moving into the arms and hands. Now around the head. Quite a pleasant sensation/vibration when tuned into without the narrative. If I then bring to mind the phrase “I’m confused” – slight frustration and mild panic arises (post factum as you say!)

(But do “I” bring it to mind? Considering going back to retype the sentence but then its not very honest…This language business is tricky!)

You keep trying to judge the seeing. But here's the punchline:
There is no "you" who ever saw or ever will.

Oh yes…ha ha. Spot on.
This really struck home and hit on some feelings. The sort of feelings when someone breaks up with you:). Disillusionment!

Seeing happens. The one who “gets it” is the just next illusion...

Yes

This morning the identification with a sort of knower/ seer/ cleverclogs/ claimer of knowing was looked at more precisely. Of course just a sensation and a thought. The the judger of that – which is also connected with the knower – popped up. Now there is a row of little thought-feeling hooks. There is a real buy in to all that, because even as the typing is occurring there is a claiming of having seen something…turtles all the way down…

Thanks (for slapping a metaphorical “me” round the head with a metaphorical wet fish! 😊😊)

Padma
p.s. who is this “you” you keep referring to? 😊😊

Excerpt (actually its a great excercise - intend to continue!)

Chewing chocolate,simply =taste (tasting)
Typing,simply = touch (touching)
Typing words, simply =thought (thinking)
Touching knees,simply =touch (touching)
Looking out of the window, simply =sight (seeing)
Pausing, simply = sensing (being – which sense is this?? Objectless sensing there is no one here, and there is nothing being focused on).
Hearing a car, simply =sounds (hearing)
Hand to mouth, simply =touch (touching)
Feeling feet on ground, simply = touch (touching)
Hearing birds, simply =sounds (listening)
Walking, simply =touch (touching)
Carrying on the exercise to myself, simply =noticing (thinking, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching)

[Snowmoon44]

Not even a hook. Just a momentary thought and a sensation arising in the moment. Memory thoughts arising in the moment about that happening before ie thought "there is a tendancy" or "pattern" here

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

Everything you wrote—raw, honest—is what waking up looks like when it's not hijacked by some grand idea of "breakthrough." It’s messy, it’s beautiful, it’s ordinary, it’s disillusioning. It’s just this.

Honestly, as above, there was a slight reaction to doing the exercise. Perhaps because direct experience/tuning into actual experience has already been a revelatory area of exploration these last years. This felt a bit mechanical. Soz - just more selfing doing its thing!

Yeah, the mind/thought hates stuff that “already knows” – it’s beneath them. But this is not an exercise – this is reality in motion. There is nothing familiar about it – familiarity is only in thoughts, talking about past experiences, skills, revelations, etc. The more “you do it” (it's happening) the more it becomes a habit of dropping the story and staying with the raw “unprocessed” experience

Lets see. Noticing isn’t made of anything. Its just here. And unlocatable but absolutely present. You could say that the senses/sensing is made of noticing. Everything is noticing. There isn’t anything else.

Ok let’s explore this further as this comes very close to awareness and this is where last piece of identity usually dwells. You even say noticing is not an act, but then immediately make it the one who is doing or is everything.

So look carefully! Are there noticing AND experience? Is noticing like a torch that lights up certain parts in the dark?
There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought, also happening). But where exactly is the noticing? Can you touch it, see it, smell it? Can you find any edge to this “noticing”?
Is it an object?
Is it a process?
Is it made of anything?
Can it be located?
Can it stop?
Or is it an abstraction, an assumption?
Is there anything more than what IS + thought that says “this is being noticed”? Yeah it’s not the usual illusory story, but is it much different?

Don’t forget that even the senses are labels (DE labels).
Close your eyes and allow a thought or thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

Now open your eyes and notice colours. Do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?
Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience. Any meaning is added by thought, which splits this into parts and then relationships among them. Thought (its presence) is also this, but the distortion/illusion is created by its content

So… If there is always just this, what is there to be noticed?
What you're calling “noticing” isn’t a thing. It’s not an observer. It’s not a background. It’s not some subtle faculty.
It’s just the undeniable fact that THIS is happening.
If there is no boundary, no origin, no content—then how is it different from just life happening?
And why call that "noticing" at all?
Watch closely—are you using the word “noticing” to avoid the intimacy of experience being absolutely without a center?

Where is it? Chest area radiating upwards towards head. Also could be diffused over the whole upper torso with no definable edge. Moving into the arms and hands. Now around the head. Quite a pleasant sensation/vibration when tuned into without the narrative. If I then bring to mind the phrase “I’m confused” – slight frustration and mild panic arises (post factum as you say!)

Do you want to explore body parts and their location, or you just providing these – head, chest area, etc. – as labels? Is the sensation moving through the body or sensation just IS? Do you see how labels/concepts are built on top of each other, ending with a title of “I’m confused”?

p.s. who is this “you” you keep referring to? 😊😊

Hehe, you think you caught me :)) There is no me and no you, only one stream of thoughts “talking” to another. And again thought labelling this as “one” and “another” - mine and Rali's. But where is the interpretation of “another” (Rali's) happening? Outside of “you”? OR it’s all happening right now, right here?
In DE ( your favourite cup of coffee example) there is colour (labelled "my reply"), interpretation of that colour/thought and further thought of "mine" vs "her's"... What makes one thought "mine" and the other "yours"?
So you tell me – who is this you, you think I’m referring to? :)
Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Thanks Rali
Ive had the phrase “there is no you who ever saw or ever will” written on a piece of paper on my keyboard since you sent it, just as a reality check!
I found myself slightly nervous to open this email in case more fish were on the way 😊

the mind/thought hates stuff that “already knows” – it’s beneath them. But this is not an exercise – this is reality in motion. There is nothing familiar about it – familiarity is only in thoughts,

Ah yes

“Lets see. Noticing isn’t made of anything. Its just here. And unlocatable but absolutely present. You could say that the senses/sensing is made of noticing. Everything is noticing. There isn’t anything else.” Ok let’s explore this further as this comes very close to awareness and this is where last piece of identity usually dwells. You even say noticing is not an act, but then immediately make it the one who is doing or is everything.

So look carefully! Are there noticing AND experience?

Checking in experience right now: no- not separate. All that is here or is ever here right now is experience.

Is noticing like a torch that lights up certain parts in the dark?

Lets see: There can be a sense of breath or focus, but actually size doesn’t mean anything, and the sensation seems to be the only thing present with no inside or outside or location. Only one thing happening.

There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought, also happening). But where exactly is the noticing? Can you touch it, see it, smell it? Can you find any edge to this “noticing”?

No!

Is it an object?

No

Is it a process?

No

Is it made of anything?

No

Can it be located?

No

Can it stop?

no!

Or is it an abstraction, an assumption?

No – what’s immediately apparent is just here

Is there anything more than what IS + thought that says “this is being noticed”?

No. Right now no thought about…. Just this. Nothing else is here.

Yeah it’s not the usual illusory story, but is it much different?

There is no doing, or need to do, because its already here and happening. In thought there is the idea of past and future, and an imagined dimensionality. (Just looked over the edge and saw the implication to relationships if no selves. Just glimpses. Feelings of insecurity and slight fear). Thoughts only arise in this moment, so any sense of history or layering is just in thought.

Close your eyes and allow a thought or thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds.

Ok – the first thought is that “this is slippery”. “I can never seem to watch thoughts in real time”.
Something is hiding here. There is fear around seeing it. Staying with it. The last non examined belief in a separate self feels like its probably here in some sort of idea of a mental bubble. (doesn’t feel as if self identification is in awareness as how can there be something separate from what is happening. The knowing it is happening isn’t different from the happening. And that knowing has no location. Ok that gives me a clue. The assumption or confusion was because thoughts are seen in a different (conceptual) category as if they are outside this process (of knowing outside mental knowing). Thoughts are just sensations arising. Lets look.

With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound. Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

No there isn’t a boundary to be found anywhere. Both had a vibrational nature arising out of the sillness/ nothing/ nowhere. Body sensations too (in fact both thoughts and sounds felt closer to body sensations at first). Sounds are more vivid/tangible than thoughts.

Now open your eyes and notice colours. Do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

This was a little more tricky. Still the shimmering vibratory nature and blinking/shifting. I couldn't find an actual boundary in experience.

So… If there is always just this, what is there to be noticed?

Just this.

What you're calling “noticing” isn’t a thing. It’s not an observer. It’s not a background. It’s not some subtle faculty.
It’s just the undeniable fact that THIS is happening.
If there is no boundary, no origin, no content—then how is it different from just life happening?
And why call that "noticing" at all?

No need

In DE ( your favourite cup of coffee example) there is colour (labelled "my reply"), interpretation of that colour/thought and further thought of "mine" vs "her's"... What makes one thought "mine" and the other "yours"?

Nothing

So you tell me – who is this you, you think I’m referring to? :)

Actually it now seems clear that self (me or I or you) is simply a thought – an extra on top of experience. All that is ever here is just whatever is happening (right now), whether there is a self thought on top of it or not. Self referencing and thoughts are just part of this that is happening or not happening.

Thanks!