Hi Jeff, let's call soon. I'll text you on whatsapp tomorrow, gotta get it set up and it's 1 am my time now.
Great!
Looking forward to it!
ME: "OK, what do you think I meant by 'don’t suppress anything?' "
I think you meant 2 things: don't hide anything that I think is important just because I think you want it different, but ALSO don't keep writing in narrative just because I like it better just because. Narrative when narrative necessary, follow instructions otherwise. I won't hide or be untruthful or less open, but I won't abuse my keyboard capabilities or your eyes.
Nope! What I mean is something like this:
You are talking on the phone. Meanwhile, you are wearing a watch that makes a very faint, but still audible and kinesthetically perceptable (you can feel it on your wrist) ticking sound and feeling (you can feel it on your wrist).
You don’t mind the sound or the feeling, so it’s just fine that this continues to happen while you are talking on the phone. You aren’t bothered by it. It’s always happening, so you are used to it, and when things are a bit quiet the sound and feeling stands out enough for your attention to register it. Other times you don’t think about it or notice it.
Or like you are sitting on the couch, also on the phone, and (unless you really abhor or are allergic to cats), it’s quite nice to hear / feel s/he purring while sitting on your lap (even more sensation).
There is no reason - or even a thought - of “suppressing” the sound and feeling of either the watch or the cat. Neither are a problem for the main order of business, the phone conversation. They are just scenery, in a way.
So, it’s not necessary to “suppress” anything that comes up, just because it isn’t relevant. You simply let it be there, and allow the “space” that you are be sophisticated enough to “hold” more than one phenomenon at a time without reacting to it in any way, whether through "suppression" or aggrandizement / accentuation. It would, for example, be ludicrous to put a big heavy blanket over the kitty or shoo it away just because it was purring while you were on the phone - again, assuming you don’t abhor cats etc.
Please let me know what you get from this explanation.
ME "What is “word spill”, and what would motivate you to “spill” words?"
More word spill in my use of the word "word spill." I'm trying to get out of this question because it's beyond irrelevant for me. Dodging you by spitting out anything. if you look back at the flow to this point, I said I cut corners on formatting. It was purely to save my quality of life in not spending so much time writing responses. No drill was harmed. No insight was lost in that particular singular exchange. Please take my word for it. The ONLY interesting thing I'm willing to talk about on this particular question, is that it's weird I felt compelled to tell you that I had cut corners. There's a subtle need to be a good boy/ rule follower. I almost wonder if this exchange can be so sour because my attempts to be kind/obedient are not enough and I take it issue with it
Let’s let this lay there for now.
ME: "OK, please explain it."
My understanding is that the I likes to take on different roles which swap violently quickly and often contradict. I looked back at my previous paragraphs where the title "I" went from the thinker, to the one who has thoughts, to being a victim of thoughts, to being the watcher, to being a haver of feeling, to doing feeling, all in the same breath. Each time, there was a new I kinda blending into the sentence structure. The implications of this? I don't yet really know.
OK.
There is only one “I”, which doesn’t even exist, ultimately. It’s a stage. Let it be for now.
ME: "Please tell me in simple terms (not to suppress you, but just so I can most easily follow / understand what you are talking about”) what you understand by each of the illustrations I am making (you don’t have to comment on all 3 at once, the work I am giving you below is really more important, so get to all of them by the end of the week, but I would like to know if you got what I was trying to communicate)."
The umbrella story. I honestly don't get the point you were trying to make with this one. I tried guessing what it meant, but I think I just need you to explain it to me directly.
Let’s let it be a koan for now. Thx for the update.
The fire story. I think I get this one. I am focusing on all the wrong things. Instead of just getting out of the fire (by directly looking at the suffering?), I am distracted by all the stories I tell myself or tell you—stories about me, about you, and about this whole LU process. You're telling me that overthinking is what actually keeps me stuck in the fire. I honestly don't know how to just stop thinking and get out yet, but I am open to not talking and just listening to your guidance.
It’s not just overthinking. It’s about the attention you pay to thinking. It’s just thinking.
We’re working on this. Thinking is just like smelling (etc). Let’s get smelling (etc) sorted.
The chair story. I think I get this one. Our minds are constantly making up fake worlds and stories about the past, the future, or things that aren't real. We get so lost in these thoughts that we completely ignore what is actually happening right in front of us—like the simple, direct, physical experience of sitting in a chair right now.
Well put.
Please let me know if you understand this distinction, and describe it in your own words.
AND
Please re read the instructions, notice any variance between what I asked you to do from the way you responded, and give it another shot.
AND
Please do not take offense at the nature of the conversation taking this turn. It’s not a punishment, or a “downgrade”. We cannot get anywhere if we are continually mincing words, simple is usually better for most things, and this is just fundamental.
First, absolutely no problem going back to the basics. Simple is good.
I need to pause, because I am finding it impossible to do the exercise as instructed—at least not without hashing out my understanding first. I want to be clear that I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, complex, or play semantic games; the friction I am hitting feels fundamental to the experience itself.
I know you aren't. You are doing it fine! You did it, so it’s not impossible. Keep at it.
Please re-read the instructions, notice any variance between what I asked you to do from the way you responded, and give it another shot.
Continue with Smelling.
In my last post, I mentioned that trying to neatly separate everything into categories was getting confusing. I am realizing this is because I cannot actually detect a pure, independent 'capacity' of smelling in my direct experience. Logically and biologically, I understand the premise that the capacity is 'always on.' But in actual practice, I only register that smelling is happening when a smell is actually perceived. If there is no scent present, trying to locate or rest in the 'capacity' immediately collapses into one of two things: it either becomes a conceptual thought about the act of smelling, or I simply feel the tactile, physical sensation of air moving through my nose.
That’s ok. Just use the objects of smelling (smells) to show you that smelling is happening.
If you suddenly stop smelling ANYTHING for a few weeks then call the doctor! ;>)
Otherwise, there will be things to smell, and sometimes you won’t be able to detect anything in particular to smell.
In either case, unless what I just warned you about ;>) happens, don’t worry about it.
It seems that the capacity to smell and the smell itself co-create each other; any boundary between them is entirely conceptual. In reality, there is only the singular, unified happening of 'smelling-smells.' There is no raw isolated 'smelling' and no isolated 'smells' waiting to be smelled, as far as I'm aware.
This perhaps falls into the category of of insight, speculation, and thinking about those things. We're just working on distinguishing the senses now. We can have a separate category for all that so you can collect them and reevaluate your discoveries / assumptions / beliefs / illusions / later from the perspective of certainty, which nobody but you can provide about anything, and which will naturally emerge if you continue to engage with this process as sincerely as you are doing, and maybe even if you don’t! ;>)
The same issue arises when I try to step back and just catch the bare 'knowingness' or 'awareness' of the experience. I might feel like I can rest there for a few seconds, but my mind immediately grabs that 'knowingness' and turns it into just another object I am looking at. It becomes increasingly clear that there is no ultimate subject sitting apart from the objects of experience. It only appears that way until you look closely. It is exactly like an eye trying to turn around and look at itself: the moment you think you have finally caught the eye, you are really just looking at a reflection or a mental image, not the actual, living seeing itself.
Ditto “....insight, speculation, and thinking”
Because 'capacity' and 'objects' seem to be nothing more than concepts the mind uses to slice up one seamless experience, I am left with a genuine question. In direct experience, what exactly is the 'capacity of smelling' that isn't just a thought, a physical body sensation, or another subtle object of the mind?
If you smell something, you have the capacity to smell things. That capacity is called the capacity - or the sense - of smell.
Keep going, you are doing GREAT!
Back to work!
J :>)
