10,000Things

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali

So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

The description/explanation/label is not needed for things to happen. In DE, things are just here, now. Sensations and seeing just appear. Cause and effect happen only in thought.

How is that known? Can that "something" actually be found?

I said there was “something” controlling the hand flipping, but that is not correct, there is definitely nothing to be found that controls it. Turning just happens.

“The choice was simply there.”
Yes. But before thought explains it, what is actually found?

I don’t know. I notice a little feeling arise and then at the same time the hand spontaneously reaches for the thing associated with the feeling. That seems to be the wrong answer though.

Is there a choice at all or just a commentary over what is already happening?

Now when I try again with something else I see there is just movement. That seems cleaner. Still movement is a label.

What exactly is shifting? Can something that shifts be found?

There is no thing that shifts. Plus shift is a label. A different perspective. But that’s a label. Anything I can say about the thing that doesn’t exist is a label.

Or are there simply different thoughts, sensations and perceptions appearing than before?

Yes, different thoughts etc.

What exactly is changing?

Nothing has changed

What exactly remains unchanged?

I see no essential difference, all is unchanged.
There is no I that is seeing that.

Love K

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
Excellent. A lot of the earlier answers were about discovering what could not be found. Now I'm more interested in what is actually being seen.

Nothing has changed.

I see no essential difference, all is unchanged.

There is no I that is seeing that.

Good. Let's stop chasing labels for a moment. Look directly.
Can a separate entity—"self", "me", "I"—be found anywhere at all?
Not as a thought, a memory, a sensation, a feeling, or an idea.
Can one actually be found?
Take your time. If the answer is no, then look further:
Was there ever a separate entity? Or was there always just the assumption that there was?
You seem disappointed :). Don't look for a special state. Don't look for a shift. Don't look for confirmation. Just answer from what is actually being seen.

Something I notice is, that you may be becoming a little suspicious of language itself:

There is no thing that shifts. Plus shift is a label. A different perspective. But that’s a label. Anything I can say about the thing that doesn’t exist is a label.

That's understandable. You've seen very clearly that labels are not what they describe. But be careful not to swing to the opposite extreme. The issue was never that labels are wrong. The issue was taking labels to be actuality.
There is nothing wrong with saying: "breath", "walking", "body", "experience", "thought". These are useful labels. The question is simply whether the label and what is labelled are the same thing. You don't need to reject language. You don't need to correct every sentence. You don't need to replace everything with "just this." In ordinary communication, labels are completely fine and useful – icons on your desktop. What matters is whether there is confusion.
For example… Can we say "the sun rose"? Of course. Even though we know that isn't literally what happened.
Likewise…Can we say "I am walking"? Of course.
The interesting question isn't whether the sentence is allowed. The interesting question is whether a separate walker can actually be found. So relax a little around language. Use labels when they are useful. Just don't mistake them for what they point to. The investigation is not about becoming unable to speak. It is about seeing clearly.

One more thing I notice is that you sometimes seem more interested in giving the correct answer than in reporting what you actually find. That's completely normal. But for this investigation, honest observation is far more useful than a perfect answer. Using your own words to describe what is present is way more valuable than using the right non-dual lingo. Clarity can shine through no matter the lingo. For example, this caught my attention:

I notice a little feeling arise and then at the same time the hand spontaneously reaches for the thing associated with the feeling. That seems to be the wrong answer though.

Why is that the wrong answer? Did you observe something else? Or did you simply think it wasn't the answer I was looking for?
Remember, we're not trying to arrive at a particular conclusion. We're looking at what is happening. If a little feeling seems to arise and then the hand reaches, report exactly that. If there is confusion, report confusion. If there is uncertainty, report uncertainty. If there is a gap, report the gap. There is no prize for the most non-dual answer. It’s all about seeing what is real and what is not – that is where the change is, that is where the shift is - in perception.
So…Use ordinary words when they fit. What interests me is not whether a word is technically accurate. What interests me is what you actually observe. That's where the gold is.
Do you want to investigate other things together – like time, memories, others, intentions?
Where do you feel there is still a confusion?
This is entirely for your own benefit, there are no prizes at the finish line – in fact there is no finish line :)
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali

Can a separate entity—"self", "me", "I"—be found anywhere at all?
Not as a thought, a memory, a sensation, a feeling, or an idea.
Can one actually be found?

No, I do not find a separate self/entitiy.

Was there ever a separate entity? Or was there always just the assumption that there was?

I assumed there was a separate I. I used to think my body was I, then the sensations in it, then some area around my head where the thoughts seemed to arise. If I absolutely had to state a separate I now, I would say awareness, but I don’t know for sure.

Why is that the wrong answer? Did you observe something else? Or did you simply think it wasn't the answer I was looking for?

No it wasn't that...I find that I often don’t know how to say what I’m experiencing. I feel the experience, but experience can be so subtle (and even when it’s not) I cannot always find satisfactorily accurate words. It’s like there is a disconnect somewhere.

Do you want to investigate other things together – like time, memories, others, intentions?
Where do you feel there is still a confusion?

Distance. Time. Sound. Really anything I’m asked to look deeply at might be helpful, but especially distance.

Love K

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine
Thank you. This feels very straightforward and honest. What stands out most is not the answer itself, but the way it was answered.

No, I do not find a separate self/entity.

If I absolutely had to state a separate I now, I would say awareness, but I don't know for sure.

Excellent. "I don't know for sure" is far more interesting than certainty. That sounds like looking rather than concluding.
You say no separate self can be found. Is there any doubt about that? If there is, what exactly is doubted?
What is missing before it is obvious that there never was a separate self?
Is awareness actually being found? Or is awareness a name given to the fact that experiencing is happening?
Also, thank you for clarifying this:

I often don't know how to say what I'm experiencing.

That makes complete sense. The aim was never to find perfect words. Words are crude tools. What interests me is not whether the description is perfectly accurate, but whether it comes from observation.

Now let's investigate distance. Let's look at this picture.


Before reading further, spend a minute simply looking. Now ignore all object labels and colour labels. Don't call anything tree, sky, grass, field, blue, green, yellow. Just look.
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour - a seamless appearance that thought divides into colours?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?
Now look at distance. One tree appears farther away than another.
How is that known? Can distance itself be seen? Can "far away" be found anywhere in the image? Or are there only colours, shades, contrasts and shapes? Without referring to memory or learned knowledge, can depth be found?
Or does thought interpret certain patterns as depth and distance? Just this:



Most importantly...
Is there a picture being looked at by someone?
Or is there simply seeing? If you have to draw an invisible line of seeing starting at the picture, where does the line end? What is there on each ends of the line?
Report only what is found. Not what should be found.
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali

You say no separate self can be found. Is there any doubt about that? If there is, what exactly is doubted?

As I look now I see and believe that there is no separate self. I don’t see one, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something further to realize about that. It’s more a matter of seeing as I grow older that I know very little. But I’m sitting more with no self these last few days and it feels like its always been home.

What is missing before it is obvious that there never was a separate self?

I’m not sure I understand this question but I want to answer that there was nothing missing. There was something added. Yet that something was nothing.

Is awareness actually being found? Or is awareness a name given to the fact that experiencing is happening?

Yes that’s it! I love that and it’s right! Experiencing is happening, there is no awareness seeing it happen and it’s happening for no one. Thank you.

Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour - a seamless appearance that thought divides into colours?

I can see it as simply flowing colors that I have general and rather pathetic labels for.

Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?

The gap is color, not gap.

Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

I don’t see a dividing line per se, but I see distinct color changes. What am I missing here?

One tree appears farther away than another. How is that known?

My tree image looks like one is not further away. But looking outside I see two trees, one is larger and more defined, so mind thinks that means closer.

Can distance itself be seen? Can "far away" be found anywhere in the image? Or are there only colours, shades, contrasts and shapes?

No. Distance and far away are labels that I cannot see. There are only shapes and colors. This is easier to see in the 2D tree image than when looking out my window at the supposedly 3D landscape.

Without referring to memory or learned knowledge, can depth be found?
Or does thought interpret certain patterns as depth and distance? Just this:

I can see on and off how there’s no depth when looking out the window now. But mind jumps in when I move my head and parts of the landscape appear to move behind another. I notice this a lot when I’m driving through the canyons…it looks like flat pieces of landscape are shifting in front of and behind other flat pieces of landscape.

Is there a picture being looked at by someone?

I don’t see any one seeing, only seeing.

If you have to draw an invisible line of seeing starting at the picture, where does the line end? What is there on each ends of the line?

There is only openness, an imaginary line would go through emptiness. There is nothing on my end. On the image end it feels like the line could end anywhere on the image but it could be infinity away. That end is confusing.The line is only a dot that is both my end and the images end but it ends up feeling like one dot.

Thank you for doing this with me.

Love K

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
This is lovely. A few things stood out.

As I look now I see and believe that there is no separate self.

Good. But then:

I don't see one, but that doesn't mean there isn't something further to realize.

Let's look very carefully.
What exactly would realize something further?
If there is no self, no thinker, no chooser, no observer, no owner … Then what is awaiting further realization? Can it be found?
Not as an idea, or a future possibility. Can it be found now?

It feels like it's always been home.

That is very interesting. Not because "home" is a special state. But because it suggests that nothing new has been acquired. Rather, something unnecessary may be relaxing.
However… Home to what? Can anything be found that arrived home? Or is "home" simply a way of describing the absence of seeking?
Look carefully. Is there still a seeker waiting for something? Or is that seeker itself another thought appearing?

There was something added. Yet that something was nothing.

Beautiful. Please don't try to improve that answer. Just notice how naturally it appeared.

I don't see a dividing line per se, but I see distinct color changes. What am I missing here?

Nothing. You are not missing anything. The point is not that colour differences disappear – colour is dynamic like a lava lamp. The point is that an actual boundary may be difficult or impossible to find. There can be an apparent transition. There can be contrast. There can be different shades.
But where exactly is the line? Can a precise border be found? Or does thought create a conceptual edge from a gradual transition? Just look. No need to force any conclusion.

There is only openness.

There is nothing on my end.

Look carefully at that.
Where is that end? Can it actually be found? Or is that just a manner of speaking?
Apart from colours, sounds, sensations and thoughts, where is the “openness” found?
Is emptiness actually being found, or is it another explanatory when no boundary can be found?

The line is only a dot that is both my end and the image's end.

Very interesting. What happens if even the line is removed?
Without imagining a line between seer and seen: Is there a seer here and a seen there?
Or is there simply seeing? Don't answer quickly. Just look.
Notice that "The line is only a dot that is both my end and the image's end" is more like direct looking, whereas "There is only openness" sounds more like interpretation.
Again, nothing wrong with the language used, just probing for assumptions :)

Experiencing is happening, there is no awareness seeing it happen and it's happening for no one.

Read that slowly. Right now, does anything in your direct experience contradict that?
Or is that exactly what is being found?
Not what should be found. What is actually being found. Enjoy looking.
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali

What exactly would realize something further? What is awaiting further realization? Can it be found? Can it be found now?

No, you’re right, nothing more can be found. There is no something-more.

Home to what? Can anything be found that arrived home? Or is "home" simply a way of describing the absence of seeking?

There is nothing to arrive home. Home in this case means what always was. Truth. No seeking. But there is no one who has arrived there.

Look carefully. Is there still a seeker waiting for something? Or is that seeker itself another thought appearing?

I thought I felt a seeker for a second, but then it was clear that seeker is only a thought and it dropped away. Only habit.

But where exactly is the line? Can a precise border be found? Or does thought create a conceptual edge from a gradual transition? Just look. No need to force any conclusion.

Here I see mostly gradual transitions. Some apparent firm lines but that can’t be proven. When my eyes stop efforting and relax, there are no hard lines and borders at all. I wonder if all things are created by thought and efforting. I just realized that the painting I am doing doesn’t look real/right because I have put in too many firm lines.

Where is that end? Can it actually be found? Or is that just a manner of speaking?

There is no end found. I was looking for an end because you said to, but then there was no space through which a two ended line could be, thus the dot. No space between experiencing and the experienced.

Apart from colours, sounds, sensations and thoughts, where is the “openness” found? Is emptiness actually being found, or is it another explanatory when no boundary can be found?

Apart from all that there is nothing, only that. I see openness is a label my mind made up for the experience of experiencing experience directly. Same with emptiness.

What happens if even the line is removed?
Without imagining a line between seer and seen: Is there a seer here and a seen there?

Or is there simply seeing? Don't answer quickly. Just look.
Looking at the house in the distance without the line, there is simply (no one) seeing the house. Only seeing is happening.

“Experiencing is happening, there is no awareness seeing it happen and it's happening for no one.” Right now, does anything in your direct experience contradict that?
Or is that exactly what is being found?

It’s more like experience is experiencing experience, still not a someone. It’s only experience. I’m listening to my laundry and all is sound. Then I look at the sky and all is sky, as if sky is experiencing itself.

Thank you
LK

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
Very nice. A lot of the seeking energy seems to have relaxed. What stands out is how often the search ends with:

There is no such thing to be found.

Now something subtle...

It’s more like experience is experiencing experience.

Is that actually being found? Can experience be found as a thing that experiences?
Or is "experience" becoming another explanatory word?
For example:
When looking at the sky, is there sky, experience, experience experiencing sky? Or is there simply seeing?
Likewise with sound. When listening to the laundry, is there sound, experience, experience hearing sound? Or is there simply sound?
Don't try to answer correctly. Just look.
Is there even “experiencing” or just whatever is happening (seeing_hearing_...) with no separation? Language could be quite misleading (illusionary), isn’t it?

As if sky is experiencing itself.

Good. Notice the words "as if." That is honest. Something appears to be suggested there.
But can it actually be found? Can a sky that experiences itself be located?
Or is there simply seeing?

One more thing...

I wonder if all things are created by thought and efforting.

How is that known?
Look carefully. Can thought itself be found creating colours? Creating sounds? Creating sensations? Or is thought itself just another appearance?
There is no need to conclude that things are created by thought. Nor that they are not.
Just look. What is actually being found?
Again and again your strongest answers seem to arise when the explanations stop. Stay close to that.
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali,

Is that actually being found? Can experience be found as a thing that experiences?
Or is "experience" becoming another explanatory word?
Nothing is found, experience just “is”. Experience is an explanatory word. I may be separating that day to day still. I will look more frequently.

When looking at the sky, is there sky, experience, experience experiencing sky? Or is there simply seeing?

There is a vibrant and alive all-encompassing seeing.

Likewise with sound. When listening to the laundry, is there sound, experience, experience hearing sound? Or is there simply sound?

Simply sound.

I

s there even “experiencing” or just whatever is happening (seeing_hearing_...) with no separation? Language could be quite misleading (illusionary), isn’t it?

Yes, the “no separation” is what I was getting at with the experience experiencing.

But can it actually be found? Can a sky that experiences itself be located?
Or is there simply seeing?

Simply seeing, no separation.

“I wonder if all things are created by thought and efforting” How is that known?
Can thought itself be found creating colours? Creating sounds? Creating sensations? Or is thought itself just another appearance?

No, I can’t directly see thought creating form. I thought before about common thoughts possibly drawing experiences in, but can’t find that happening now.

There is no need to conclude that things are created by thought. Nor that they are not.
Just look. What is actually being found?

Only sound, seeing, sensation.

LK

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
Very nice. What I notice is that every time a concept is examined closely, it tends to dissolve into a practical description rather than an actual thing – awareness, emptiness, openness, experience. Each time you look, the thing itself cannot be found. What remains interesting is not the words anymore - we've seen "things" are empty of inherent existence, just icons on your desktop - but what life is like when the separate self is not being assumed.
So I'd like to ask something very simple. Over the last few days, observe…
How has ordinary life been affected by seeing that no separate self can be found?
Not what you think should happen. What has actually changed? Or has anything changed at all?
For example in decision making, relationships, strong emotions (fear, anger, guilt, frustration …), responsibility, …
Describe what you have actually noticed. Not theories. Not philosophy. Just daily life. If no change, that’s fine. If any of these are problematic, or there is a confusion, we can explore them together.

Let's look at time. There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant 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 advancing to the future. Let's check these assumptions with direct looking:

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?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
Can you experience directly 30 sec ago? Right now, where is yesterday?

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.
Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.
Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?
Take your time with this :) Don't answer philosophically. Look.
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali,

How has ordinary life been affected by seeing that no separate self can be found?

There is a subtle difference in being that I can’t really describe. Looking at things different sometimes. An increased openness and more awe and groundedness/grounlessness. Feeling a part of things. Last night I woke at 3AM and got stressed about sleep, saw the mind stuff as mind stuff and it flipped to DE. A Zen book I am on reading for the 4th time feels richer.

But is it just thought telling me that something is different? Things are as they are. I woke up wondering about cause and effect. In DE is there no cause and effect? I can’t see any.

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

No. If there was it would be only thought.

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

No. Feels like only one moment.

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

No, it’s all now.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

The present moment doesn’t move.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No, there’s only this moment, no beginning, no end.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

It’s always only now.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

There is no start or end of now.

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

Now doesn’t become the past or the future, it’s always only now.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Nothing, only memory. No substance.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

No actual experience of time. I see thoughts about things that aren’t happening now, but no proof they happened.

Can you experience directly 30 sec ago?

No. Sometimes mind tries to.

Right now, where is yesterday?

No yesterday exists.

What is memory exactly?

A thought about an imagined past sometimes associated with an emotion.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Nothing solid. Emptiness.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Now

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

They are both without substance and happening now. Maybe nothing. Different supposed content?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

We can’t know.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Emptiness

WHEN does the future thought appear?

Now

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

Same answer as for the past.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

We don’t know, can’t know.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

Escape into a supposed past vs trying to affect a supposed future? But neither can happen. Their essence is the same.

If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

No difference because there is only now.

LK

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
This is another very strong report.

No. Feels like only one moment.

No actual experience of time.

Memory appears now.

Future thought appears now.

Those are observations. These...

No yesterday exists.

But neither can happen.

… sound a little more like conclusions than observations. Because strictly speaking, what can be observed is: “Yesterday cannot be found”, which is slightly different from “Yesterday does not exist.” Right?

Let's investigate "others."
When another person is seen, what is actually present?
Before the labels – person/ man/ woman/ friend/ stranger - what is found? What is the difference between “stranger” and “friend” in DE?
Can an "other" actually be found? Or is "other" a label added by thought?
Now look more closely…
When talking to someone, can a boundary be found between "you" and "them"?
Where exactly is that dividing line? Can it be located? Or is it assumed?
When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just feeling? Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin? Go and touch an actual other, it can be very trippy :)
You have looked for a self here and could not find one.
Can a self be found over there? Is there an “I” in others? Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Not as a body/ a face/ behaviour – an actual self?
Can one actually be found? Or is it inferred?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

When looking for the “I” in ”others” you can’t really see that they don’t have an “I” – it’s a deduction. Well, you can, but thought is fast to deduct, so watch for that. What we can actually do ... Similarly to apples:
Taste labelled ‘person’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘person’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘person’ is known (when a person is touched)
Smell labelled ‘person’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘person’ is known
However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?
When a thought says "That person is conscious”, how is that known? Can it be found directly? Or is it a story thought tells about appearances? What is actually being observed?
Just look. Report only what is found.
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali,

When another person is seen, what is actually present?

I see a body, or color/shapes.

Before the labels – person/ man/ woman/ friend/ stranger - what is found? What is the difference between “stranger” and “friend” in DE?

Just body. Stranger and friend are no different in DE.

Can an "other" actually be found? Or is "other" a label added by thought?

I see no other, only body with no separation.

When talking to someone, can a boundary be found between "you" and "them"?

No.

Where exactly is that dividing line? Can it be located? Or is it assumed?

I don’t see a dividing line or any space.

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just feeling? Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin?

I don’t have another here, but if I touch my own arm it is just one sensation without border.
Okay, I just went and touched my dog, it was trippy. Sensation extended into dog, no apparent edges.

Can a self be found over there?

I only see a body.

Is there an “I” in others? Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Not as a body/ a face/ behaviour – an actual self? Can one actually be found? Or is it inferred?

I don’t experience an I in my dog, but something feels uncomfortable.

Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

I don’t see space where dog exists, and no difference between here and there.

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

Person is a label, its color and shapes. “Person” is not actually found.

When a thought says "That person is conscious”, how is that known? Can it be found directly? Or is it a story thought tells about appearances? What is actually being observed?

Conscious is not found directly, it is only a thought overlay. I can see dog/shapes moving, but that doesn’t mean consciousness is animating it, it is only assumed.

LK

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine,
Very interesting. This stood out immediately:

I don't experience an I in my dog, but something feels uncomfortable.

Great! Let's look there - not at the dog and the philosophy around it - at the discomfort.
What exactly is uncomfortable? Strip the label…
Can the discomfort be found? Where is it? What is it made of?
Is it anything more than sensations plus thoughts?
And what thought appears alongside it?
Take your time. No need to force anything. This is a very good time to explore “uncomfortable” emotions (sensations+thoughts)

I only see a body.

Is that different from what was found with your own body?
When you investigated “your body” what was found was: colours, sensations, thoughts about body. Now with the dog you find: colours, sensations (e.g. movement), thoughts about dog.
What is the essential difference? Can one be found?

Consciousness is inferred.

Good. Notice that this applies equally in both directions. Just as no self was found "here," was consciousness found "there"?
Or does thought infer both?
Again, don't answer philosophically. Just look.
The discomfort may be pointing to something interesting.
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Dear Rali,

I sat with this for the last 24 hours and it’s softening.

What exactly is uncomfortable?

Looking at her and not finding her “self”

Can the discomfort be found?

Not really, it’s like an itch I can’t scratch, no substance to it

Where is it? What is it made of?

Around the vicinity of her head, only my thought-feeling though

Is it anything more than sensations plus thoughts?

No

And what thought appears alongside it?

That I am in some way dependent upon her having a self

Is that different from what was found with your own body?

No different, except the itchy yearning. With me I didn’t have that, nor with other humans.

What is the essential difference? Can one be found?

No essential difference is found. It’s this I keep sitting with and which is softening the disappointment. There is nothing to be disappointed about.

Just as no self was found "here," was consciousness found "there"?
Or does thought infer both?

No consciousness found there, it still feels a little strange but softening.

Thank you for working on this with me.
I have an art deadline in a couple of days so I might be slow to respond until then.

Love K