realizing selflessness

[whoknows]

OK, you’ve given me a lot to work with (and I'm glad about that) . . .

The self as a “demand-pattern” or “contraction around preference” or “refusal of what is already happening” — interesting. Yes. Rolling those ideas around in my brain.

Say internally:

“This may never become the life I wanted.”

Then stop.

What happens?

Instant tears. Contraction in the throat, chest, and face. Maybe elsewhere too, but those are the most obvious places. Definite recoil. Body saying, “NO.” (I don’t often have such strong visceral reactions to things.)

****************

I wrote the above last night. Now continuing in the morning, after a night of insomnia, maybe or maybe not related to all of this. (I appreciate your compassion and am heartened by your use of the word “close.”)

Same reaction again this morning to “This may never become the life I wanted.”

What is being defended?

A life?

An identity?

A spiritual future?

A hope that “I” will finally be safe because reality becomes agreeable?

The latter seems most accurate.

Let that hope die for ten seconds.

Not dramatically. Not heroically.

Just don’t feed it.

What remains?

Same reaction: sobbing, clenching.
And: Sitting here in bed. Birds chirping outside. The sound of electricity. Tears running down my face. The feel of the material of my sweatshirt on my arms. The sounds of typing on my laptop. Blowing my nose. Wondering what you actually had in mind with “What remains?”

You catch it by slowing the moment of resistance down.

Try it now, with the sentence:

“This may never become the life I wanted.”

Then pause.

Don’t answer mentally. Watch the body.

Where is the hit?

My body seems to be wearing out its reaction to that sentence, at least for now. No instant sobbing this time. Most noticeably: tightness in throat. Said the sentence again. Brief urge to cry.

Now ask, very simply:

What is this contraction protecting?

Didn’t immediately scroll down to your proposed possible answers.

Here comes the sobbing again.

Maybe it feels like the contraction in the throat is keeping me from screaming or wailing? “Protecting” me from . . . embarrassing myself? really acknowledging the depth of the feelings?

More sobbing.

Now scrolling down to your possible answers, which go in a bit of different direction than I went. But yes, absolutely:

“I want awakening to save me.”

Even though I can say that I know that's not how it works.

(Not sure what “The text” refers to. Maybe the “text” of the thought-story?)

So the actual practice is:

So I guess I’m doing this right now with . . . what? “This may never become the life I wanted”? Or “I want awakening to save me”? Or back to “This is only a momentary reprieve”? Or with anything I notice I’m resisting?

I guess I’ll go with “This may never become the life I wanted.”
1. Notice resistance. Check.
2. Locate it in the body. Check.
3. Let the defended fantasy speak once. (Interesting.) “I want my life to completely suit me!” Or: “I want a complete end to suffering!”
4. See the bargain. (Interesting to think of it as bargaining.) Yep: “I will accept reality only when reality finally becomes acceptable to me.”
5. Drop back below the bargain. Stay with the sensation before the story finishes building the self around it. OK, back to the sensations.

Feel the unease.

Is the unease itself unbearable?

Or is the unbearable part the demand that it disappear?

That is the cut.

Hmm . . . I know that the “right” answer is that the unease itself is bearable, and the resistance to it is what’s unbearable, but I’m not feeling that distinction at the moment.

Oh, OK, good. One more round:

Now again, with no theory:

What is being defended right now, in this exact moment?

(To be continued . . . )

****************

(OK, relocated to the coffee shop where I sometimes work.)

So: What is being defended right now, in this exact moment?

Um . . . Hmm . . . Not sure whether the intention is for me to continue with, e.g., “This may never become the life I wanted,” but I think that’s what I’ll do. Might've lost some momentum, though.

So: This may never become the life I wanted.

What is being defended right now, in this exact moment?

And where is it felt in the body?

I feel again like I’m wearing out the reaction to that for the time being. But do still feel tightness in my throat and a hint of tears wanting to come.

Defending a fantasy that I can still somehow get my life to completely suit me. But I’m now saying that more as an idea I have accepted than from a felt sense.

I've noticed that my postscripts are what you’ve been most explicitly responding to. Not sure what to make of that. Wonder if I’ll have a P.S. today.

I am so very grateful to you, vince, for the time and care you're putting into this. (Watching your interview with Pernille, I realized I’d been writing your name incorrectly, with a capital V.)

Used up much of my morning work time again. One hour left for some work before lunch . . .

[whoknows]

P.S. I am continuing to do two meditation periods a day, of 20 to 25 minutes each, and I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about what I should or shouldn’t do with that time.

Just recently, I’ve often been practicing being alert to the next thought that arises and not grabbing onto thoughts. Another possibility is what’s called shikantaza (“just sitting”) in Zen — just sitting there with 360-degree awareness of experience. I’ve also done a good bit of self-inquiry, most recently in the style of Adyashanti and Angelo DiLullo, with the intention of realizing that the “I” doesn’t exist. Or maybe you have another suggestion.

I realize that this question is, at least in part, asking, “What should I DO so that ‘I’ can ‘attain’ the ‘awakeness’ that I persist in believing isn’t already here?” But I don’t think that’s all it is. My husband and I have gotten into this routine over the past six months, and it means a lot to him, so I’m gonna be sitting there still and silent twice a day anyway and wondered if you had any thoughts about what to do, or what to definitely not do, other than being still and silent.

[vinceschubert]

I will get to respond to your last post. it just hasn't happened yet..

I am continuing to do two meditation periods a day, of 20 to 25 minutes each, and I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about what I should or shouldn’t do with that time.

Just recently, I’ve often been practicing being alert to the next thought that arises and not grabbing onto thoughts. Another possibility is what’s called shikantaza (“just sitting”) in Zen — just sitting there with 360-degree awareness of experience. I’ve also done a good bit of self-inquiry, most recently in the style of Adyashanti and Angelo DiLullo, with the intention of realizing that the “I” doesn’t exist. Or maybe you have another suggestion.

I realize that this question is, at least in part, asking, “What should I DO so that ‘I’ can ‘attain’ the ‘awakeness’ that I persist in believing isn’t already here?” But I don’t think that’s all it is. My husband and I have gotten into this routine over the past six months, and it means a lot to him, so I’m gonna be sitting there still and silent twice a day anyway and wondered if you had any thoughts about what to do, or what to definitely not do, other than being still and silent.

Keep the two sits.

But don’t make them a project.

The main thing not to do: don’t sit in order to become awake, calm, spacious, nondual, no-self, or permanently peaceful. That turns sitting into the same old bargain: “I am not there yet; this practice will get me there.” The material is explicit: effort to wake up tends to strengthen the sense of being asleep, and “doing” feeds the delusion of control, choice, success, failure, and a separate self.

So here is what I’d suggest for the 20–25 minutes.

First few minutes: arrive in raw sensation.

Feel the body without naming it too much. Pressure. Warmth. Tingling. Tightness. Pulsing. Sound. Breath. Darkness behind eyelids. Let the words be secondary.

Don’t say, “I am aware of sensation.” That subtly makes awareness into a thing and puts you back in the head. Be vigilant with that: when “awareness” becomes an object, the body gets ignored. Return to; "sensory input is enough."

Middle of the sit: watch attention itself.

This is probably the sharpest practice for you right now.

Sit quietly and notice:

Can the next thought be chosen?
Can attention be held still?
Does attention move by command, or does it move by itself?
When attention goes to thought, sound, sensation, memory, planning — was there a controller?

This is directly in the exercises: sit quietly, watch focus, notice whether “you” move it or whether it moves by itself, and whether thinking controls attention.

That cuts deeper than trying to have 360-degree awareness.

Because even “360-degree awareness” can become a spiritual posture: “I am now the open field in which everything appears.”

Fine language. But check it.

Is there actually an I doing openness?

Is there a meditator maintaining the field?

Or are sounds, sensations, thoughts, urges, breath, pressure, and space simply happening?

Last few minutes: do nothing on purpose.

Not as a technique. Just stop improving the sit.

Let thought happen.

Let dullness happen.

Let unease happen.

Let impatience happen.

Let the thought “this is a bad meditation” happen.

Let the thought “maybe this is it” happen.

Then notice: both are just thought.

The useful attitude is discovery mode: not looking for anything, but waiting to see what shows up; recognition without opinion.

So: shikantaza is fine. Watching the next thought is fine. Self-inquiry is fine. But none of them should be used as a crowbar to pry open awakening.

Use them only to expose the mechanics of selfing.

When self-inquiry happens, don’t do it as:

“I will realize the I doesn’t exist.”

Do it as:

“This thought says ‘I.’ What is actually here?”

Sensation? Thought? Image? Pressure? Mood? Memory? Anticipation?

Below the self-concept, the text says, there is sensation; to add “self” or “no-self,” thought has to come in.

So my clean recommendation:

For now, make the sit a laboratory for seeing that no meditator can be found.

Not by repeating “there is no meditator.”

By watching:

Thoughts arise.
Attention moves.
Sounds appear.
Body sensations shift.
Breath happens.
Judgments come.
Intentions come.
Resistance comes.
Interest comes.

Where is the one running it?

And be especially alert for the subtle one:

“I am doing this well.”
“I am not doing this well.”
“This is helping.”
“This isn’t helping.”
“I need a better method.”

That is the meditator-self rebuilding itself out of evaluation.

So during the sit, whenever evaluation appears, silently note:

selfing

Then feel the body.

No analysis.

Just the contraction, the lean, the urge to get somewhere.

That is the workless work. Not producing awakening. Not attaining peace. Just catching the movement that imagines peace is somewhere else.

vince

[whoknows]

Thank you for the pointers for my sitting time.

A great thing about having meditation as simply part of my daily routine is that I don’t have to decide to sit, which means I don’t need a reason to sit, so it’s easier to avoid having it become a "project."

I like the suggestions for starting the sitting period (“arrive in raw sensation”) and ending it (“do nothing on purpose”). The middle part ("watch attention itself") felt a little vague, and attending to the questions under it felt kind of complicated. (I wrote out answers to those questions but decided you probably didn't need to read all that, but I saved it, in case it would be useful to share it.) So, for the "watch attention itself" part, would it work simply to do either shikantaza or watching the next thought arise and go with your "clean recommendation" to "make the sit a laboratory for seeing that no meditator can be found"?

(I also like the suggestion, whenever evaluation appears, to note "selfing" and then feel the body. But I might have to add that later. It feels like too many moving parts to keep track of right now.)

A minor confusion/curiosity: When you say, "The material is explicit," and "This is directly in the exercises," what material and exercises do you mean?

[vinceschubert]

watch attention itself

Watch attention by noticing where it goes, what pulls it, and that it doesn’t seem to originate from a place. It points to experiencing sound, thought, sensation, image — then moves.

Focus is different: it is narrow and intentional.
Watching attention is simply noticing its shifts.

So:

Focus = keeping attention on one thing.
Watching attention = noticing attention move by itself.

And two useful recognitions are:

Attention doesn’t come from a centre or a “someone” directing it.
Awareness doesn’t need a story or narrative in order for experience to be known.

So the question is not just:
Where did attention go?

But also:
Can there be knowing of the movement, without needing to explain it?

When you say, "The material is explicit," and "This is directly in the exercises," what material and exercises do you mean?

https://1ness.info/WhatIsEnlightenment.pdf

...how do we "watch attention itself"

A simple way in is:

You do not try to make attention into an object.
You notice where it goes, what pulls it, and that even the noticing is already happening.

“Watching attention itself” is a bit like trying to see your own eyes without a mirror. So instead of trying to grab attention directly, notice its movements.

For example:

A sound appears.
Attention goes there.

A thought appears.
Attention goes there.

A body sensation appears.
Attention goes there.

Then another thought comes.
Attention leaves and goes there.

So rather than asking, “What is attention?” ask:

What has attention moved to now?
What just pulled it?
Did “I” move it, or did it simply go?
Can the shift be noticed in real time?

A very gentle experiment:

Sit quietly for a minute and do almost nothing.

Then notice:

hearing is here
body sensations are here
thoughts are here

Now don’t choose anything on purpose.
Just watch what attention lands on next.

Maybe a sound.
Maybe an itch.
Maybe a thought.
Maybe the feeling of breathing.

Then ask:
Did I do that, or did attention just move?

That starts showing something important:
attention often moves by itself.

Then you can go a step further.

When attention lands on something, notice that there is also an awareness of that landing.

So:

attention on a thought
then noticing of attention on the thought

Then:

attention on a sensation
then noticing of attention on the sensation

This can reveal that attention is movable, changeable, unstable — while what knows the movement is not moving in the same way.

A few helpful distinctions:

Attention is narrow.
Awareness is not narrow.

Attention selects.
Awareness includes.

Attention moves around experience.
Awareness is simply the fact that experience is known.

So when people say “watch attention itself,” often what becomes clear is not attention as a thing, but:

its movements
its habits
its automatic nature
and the fact that these movements are themselves known

A few useful questions:

Where is attention now?
What pulled it?
Can attention be found apart from what it is attending to?
Does attention move on its own?
What knows that attention has moved?

And the key trap:

Don’t turn it into strain.

The moment you start trying really hard to “watch attention,” you usually just create more thoughts about attention.

Keep it light.
Almost playful.

Like watching a little bird hop from branch to branch.

Not:
“I must capture attention.”

More:
“Oh, there it goes.”

A very short version:

You watch attention by noticing what it lands on, what pulls it away, and that the whole movement is already being known.

vince

[whoknows]

I wrote a draft of a reply about trying “watching attention” and also some reflections prompted by the “Doing – not doing” section of your “What Is Enlightenment?” manual, but, ugh. Writing about this stuff gives me something to do other than consuming yet more spirituality videos or just sitting around being angsty and longing for a “future” where “I” “find” something that has supposedly been here along and which searching for keeps me from finding. But I’m tired of hearing myself talk about all this, especially when it seems that I want to sound insightful or clever.

And here comes the sobbing . . .

[whoknows]

I appreciated your clarification about “watching attention,” and I tried it during my afternoon sitting period (before my previous post), starting with “arriving in raw sensation” and ending with “doing nothing on purpose,” which was my favorite part. I have long been aware that my attention often flits around without being controlled in any way I’m conscious of, but it was intriguing to see if I could notice the shift of attention in real time. (I think I was only aware of it in retrospect.)

When it was time for my late-night sit, even “watching attention” seemed like too much effort, too much to DO, and I distilled a couple of things you'd said into “This is it. Nothing to do but watch, or not.” And that was my “practice.” It was just right.

(Please let me know if it's annoying or counterproductive if I post more than once before you post again, but I wanted to share this.)

[vinceschubert]

Post as much as appears. i will usually only pick 1 (or 2) points to respond to.
i would generally assume that what the latest post is about is the most active line of enquiry.

I appreciated your clarification about “watching attention,” and I tried it during my afternoon sitting period (before my previous post), starting with “arriving in raw sensation” and ending with “doing nothing on purpose,” which was my favorite part. I have long been aware that my attention often flits around without being controlled in any way I’m conscious of, but it was intriguing to see if I could notice the shift of attention in real time. (I think I was only aware of it in retrospect.)

Yes. The aim is not to purge pronouns compulsively. It is to make the wording less supportive of a hidden controller.

Do this; read your original passage. (to yourself or aloud) then repeat with Version 1 then yours again then Version 2 - rinse & repeat for all 4 versions.
Now, the exercise is to notice how the body (the organism) responds. Which one feels the most accurate?
(by "accurate" i mean the closest to what is actually experienced)

Version 1
Appreciation arose for the clarification about “watching attention,” and the instruction was tried during the afternoon sitting period, starting with “arriving in raw sensation” and ending with “doing nothing on purpose,” which was the most enjoyable part. There has long been awareness here that attention often flits around without any conscious control being apparent, but it was intriguing to see whether the shift of attention could be noticed in real time. It seemed that the shift was noticed only in retrospect.

Version 2 —
There was appreciation for the clarification about “watching attention.” During the afternoon sitting period, the sequence unfolded as: arriving in raw sensation, watching attention, and ending with doing nothing on purpose. That last part was especially enjoyed. It has long been noticed that attention often flits around with no controller found, no conscious command detected. What was intriguing was whether the shift of attention itself could be caught as it happened. So far, it seemed to be known only after the fact.

Version 3 —
Appreciation happened in response to the clarification about “watching attention.” In the afternoon sitting period, there was starting with raw sensation and ending with doing nothing on purpose. Enjoyment especially arose with the “doing nothing” part. Attention has long been seen to move around without any findable controller. During the sit, there was curiosity about whether attention-shifting could be noticed in real time. What showed up was mostly retrospective noticing: the shift had already happened, then thought reported it.

Version 4 —
Clarification was appreciated. Sitting happened. Raw sensation was noticed. “Doing nothing on purpose” happened and was liked. Attention moved. No controller of attention was found. Curiosity arose: can the movement of attention be caught as it occurs? Looking happened. What was found: attention had already shifted, then thought said something about it.

[whoknows]

The aim is not to purge pronouns compulsively. It is to make the wording less supportive of a hidden controller.

notice how the body (the organism) responds. Which one feels the most accurate?
(by "accurate" i mean the closest to what is actually experienced)

An extra challenge for me in doing this exercise: One of my jobs is editing, and I started to react with aversion to all this “bad writing” — to the awkwardness and the overuse of the passive voice. And these days, my brain notes the frequent use in nonduality circles of “here” rather than phrases involving personal pronouns. Perhaps that does actually feel more accurate post-awakening, but it currently strikes my brain as an affectation and ripe for parody.

Anyhow, I followed the instructions, attempting to set the editor aside. And I was surprised that version 4 bothered me significantly less than the other versions, but I wondered if this was just because I like concise writing, so that might still be mainly the editor’s reaction.

So now I’m going to do a fresh read of the original version and version 4 (it doesn’t seem worth comparing version 4 with 1, 2, and 3, but maybe I’m missing something?), hoping that maybe the editor, having had its say, will quiet down so that I can better attend to the point of the exercise.

OK, somewhat to “my” surprise, version 4 feels better than the original somehow. “I” am still considering whether “I” would say that it feels more “accurate.”

Before I continue: I’ve made a point of not providing unnecessary identifying details in LU posts because it seems weird that these conversations are public and permanent. But for some purposes, calling me “whoknows” or nothing doesn’t work very well, so we can call me “K.”

So I thought, while rereading version 4, of how sometimes, in trying to recognize that the “self” is an illusion, I imagine that the organism known as K is a sort of remote exploration device, like a Mars rover, and that the actual consciousness is not in K but elsewhere, like up in the mother ship in orbit. If the consciousness has immersive, virtual-reality-type access to the data coming from K, it could easily feel located in K (which might be useful sometimes), but the consciousness could also readily pull itself out of that view.

Now, where was I going with that? . . . Oh, right, so it seems more “accurate,” at least sometimes, to talk about K in the third person, like K’s sensations and thoughts are just objects of awareness, just a drama unfolding that can be watched — [a late addition to this sentence:] but can’t be controlled.

An experiment: What if I revise the original version to replace first-person pronouns with “K” or “her” (and perhaps make some other revisions that aren’t too objectionable to the editor)? The result:

K appreciated vince’s clarification about “watching attention” and tried it during her afternoon sitting period (before her previous post), starting with “arriving in raw sensation” and ending with “doing nothing on purpose,” which was her favorite part. . . .

Nope. Experiment aborted. That still seems to connect all of this experiencing too much to a specific “person,” even if it’s “her” rather than “me.”

Something else that occurred to me while doing this exercise: I’ve noticed that in LU posts, I often skip the “I” at the start of sentences. But the “I” is definitely implied, so I’m not sure this contributes much to making the wording “less supportive of a hidden controller.” It might merely be less apt to trigger the duality sensers/censors. (There I am, feeling clever.)

Now that I think about it, the passive voice is similar: It gets rid of the first-person pronouns but still clearly implies a subject or doer, just an unspecified one. (There I am, feeling insightful.) So, e.g., the phrasing “the instruction was tried during the afternoon sitting period” (version 1) — that is, it “was tried” by someone — maybe isn’t much of an improvement, no-self-wise, over “I tried it during my afternoon sitting period” (original version). The other three versions don’t have such a clear implication of a “someone”: “During the afternoon sitting period, the sequence unfolded as” (V2); “In the afternoon sitting period, there was” (V3); and “Sitting happened” (V4).

Examining another sentence:
Original: I think I was only aware of it in retrospect. [It’s all happening to an “I.”]
V1: It seemed that the shift was noticed [by someone] only in retrospect.
V2: So far, it seemed to be known [by someone] only after the fact.
V3: What showed up was mostly retrospective noticing: the shift had already happened, then thought reported it. [No someone.]
V4: What was found: attention had already shifted, then thought said something about it. [No someone.]

On further inspection, it turns out that V3 uses the passive voice the least. Instead, it uses “happened,” “there was,” “arose,” and “What showed up was.”

Now I’ll reread the original version and V3 . . .

The original version, with all of that “I” and “my,” induces a feeling of constriction, confinement, and self-consciousness, compared with V3 (to which the editor still objects), which feels more spacious and free.

Oh, wait, but the question was which one feels most “accurate.” Hmm. Re-rereading . . .

Although this is presumably the “wrong” answer, the original feels more “accurate.” Oh, but that’s maybe more of a judgment of the mind than a feeling. The mind judges the original to be more accurate because it clearly specifies the organism connected with all of these experiences. I’m not sure feeling “more spacious and free,” nice as it is, necessarily means “more accurate.” (My previous LU guide definitely does connect feelings like constriction and heaviness with lies and connects feelings like lightness with truth, and while there is clearly something to this, I was never entirely buying it.)

So I'm still not sure how I'd answer the question of which one feels most “accurate.”

[whoknows]

P.S. Rereading my previous post, I realized that while I did “notice how the body (the organism) responds” to reading different versions, I lost track of the precise question about which version “feels the most accurate,” meaning “the closest to what is actually experienced.” So, trying this exercise one more time . . .

OK. I suppose the most important observation is that all the “I” language in the original version feels a little . . . extra? artificial? imposed? — in addition to arousing the feelings of constriction, confinement, and self-consciousness mentioned earlier. I find myself wondering if I would’ve felt the same way a month ago or a year ago and wondering whether I’m just developing an allergy to “I” language from all the no-self and nonduality stuff I’ve been immersed in or whether my reaction actually has something to with a slightly clearer perception of reality.

I didn't come to any conclusion about which of the revised versions feels most accurate. The only musing I'll share about that is that I noticed that version 4 leaves out details that are included in the other versions, and my brain initially judged that this means it’s less accurate. But then I wondered if that’s really true. I mean, the original version’s “I appreciated your clarification about ‘watching attention,’” does include more information than version 4’s “Clarification was appreciated,” but does that information directly relate to “what was actually experienced”? I’m not sure.

[vinceschubert]

Hi K, This is the useful bit:

The original feels more accurate to the mind because it gives a complete conventional account.

But that isn’t the same as being closest to actual experiencing.

The mind says: “The original is more accurate because it specifies the organism connected with the experience.”

Good. But look closer.

That “organism connected with the experience” is already an interpretation. Useful, practical, communicative — yes. But in the moment of appreciation, sitting, noticing, attention shifting, was K actually found as the owner? Or was there appreciation, sitting, noticing, attention moving, then thought assigning it to K afterward?

So don’t ask which version is better writing. (on that... have you appreciated that language evolves from those words that get added to the dictionary every year, and those words are chosen because they get significant usage. The masses create language & its rules. ...and you want to identify as someone that is a stickler for those rules)

Don’t ask which version is more socially normal.

Ask only this:

What does the word “I” add to the actual experience?

Take the sentence:

“I appreciated your clarification.”

In actual experience, what is there?

A thought about the clarification.
Maybe warmth.
Maybe agreement.
Maybe interest.
Maybe a body response.
Maybe a memory-image of reading.

Now find the I that appreciated.

Not the organism. Not the name K. Not the life history. Not the forum poster. Those are descriptions.

Find the owner of the appreciation.

Is it there?

This is why version 3 may have felt spacious and free. Not because spaciousness means truth, but because less ownership was being manufactured by the sentence structure.

“The shift had already happened, then thought reported it.”

That is clean. That is close.

Attention shifted.

Then thought said: “I noticed attention shift.”

That second part is the added layer.

Also, yes: replacing I with K doesn’t solve anything. It can simply move ownership into the third person:

“K appreciated…”
“K tried…”
“K noticed…”

Same structure. Different costume.

And your editor reaction is not a problem. That too is selfing material:

“Bad writing.”
“Affectation.”
“Ripe for parody.”
“There I am, feeling clever.”

Good. See the little pleasure in being the one who sees through the awkward spiritual language? That is also an identity forming. Not wrong. Just visible.

So the answer to Vince’s question may be something like this:

“The original feels more conventionally accurate because it identifies the organism involved, but experientially it also feels extra — imposed, constricting, self-conscious. Version 3 seems closest to what was actually noticed: attention shifted, and afterward thought reported it. Version 4 is also close, but perhaps leaves out too much detail. The main discovery is that the ‘I’ language appears to add an ownership layer that is not found in the immediate experience.”

That’s enough.

Don’t try to get the perfect answer.

The point of the exercise has already worked: the ownership layer has been detected.

Now look in real time today:

“I am typing.”

What is actual?

Hands moving.
Words appearing.
Thoughts forming.
Screen seen.
Sensations.
Intention maybe appearing.
Correction happening.
Evaluation happening.

Where is the typer?

much love

vince

[whoknows]

That “organism connected with the experience” is already an interpretation. Useful, practical, communicative — yes. But in the moment of appreciation, sitting, noticing, attention shifting, was K actually found as the owner? Or was there appreciation, sitting, noticing, attention moving, then thought assigning it to K afterward?

No K was found. No K has ever been found. There were only the experiences, with no experiencer found or needed. Thought assigns all of that afterward to the conventional fiction known as K.

The masses create language & its rules. ...and you want to identify as someone that is a stickler for those rules)

I do not identify as a stickler for these rules or with the role of editor, and I certainly wouldn’t want to. But because K earns money as an editor and as a teacher, her brain is used to attending to these rules, and it’s hard to turn that off, even when it’s problematic, as in the case of doing that exercise. That’s why I was distancing myself from that brain activity by calling it “the editor.”

What does the word “I” add to the actual experience?

Nothing.

Find the owner of the appreciation.

Is it there?

No such thing can be found, so we might as well say it’s not there.

And your editor reaction is not a problem. That too is selfing material:

“Bad writing.”
“Affectation.”
“Ripe for parody.”
“There I am, feeling clever.”

Good. See the little pleasure in being the one who sees through the awkward spiritual language? That is also an identity forming. Not wrong. Just visible.

I'm puzzling over how the “editor reaction” is both “not a problem” and also “selfing material” and “an identity forming.” How are selfing and identity-formation not a problem, at least in terms of awakening or liberation?

“ . . . The main discovery is that the ‘I’ language appears to add an ownership layer that is not found in the immediate experience.”

I hadn't thought of it as “an ownership layer,” but, yes, that works.

Now look in real time today:

“I am typing.”

. . . . .

Where is the typer?

No typer can be found. Typing is happening.

[whoknows]

The pointer/reminder used again tonight for meditation time was, “This is it. Nothing to do but watch, or not.” And once again, it felt just right. Occasionally thrown in there: an inquiry about whether a meditator could be found. Of course, the answer is no, but the inquiry directs attention to the usual location of the fictional self/observer/doer — in the head, especially behind the eyes — where all that can ever be found are various bodily sensations and a bunch of thoughts (which are generally imagined as located in the head and in front of the face).

A pleasing thought afterward: This “practice” can be used anytime, even in the midst of everyday activities.

This post was written in such a way as to avoid “the ownership layer” (while also avoiding excessive objections from the editor). This would be tiresome to do all the time, but the experiment was entertaining.

[whoknows]

Now look in real time today:

“I am typing.”

. . . . .

Where is the typer?

Realized I didn’t actually LOOK when I answered this question before, just answered from knowledge based on past experience — i.e., thought.

Looking now:
Bodily sensations (finger tapping phone screen). Thoughts (“Was going to write, ‘middle finger,’ but hesitated to write that phrase,” and “Usually do this on computer”). Seeing (phone screen and finger and phone held in hand resting on crossed legs in jeans — but all of that is, more simply and directly, just seeing shapes and colors, and mind labels objects and adds depth perception). More sensations. More thoughts. Etc.

Thought sequence:
Inquiring where I would imagine the “typer.”
Finger?
Yeah, kind of.
Would’ve thought the mind would’ve answered no to that. Actually typed, “No,” and then realized that wasn’t the answer arising, and corrected it.
(Noticing that leaving off the “I” at the beginning of sentences maybe actually does reduce the sense of the self/perceiver/thinker/doer, despite what I said in an earlier post.)
OK, so where is the initiator of typing imagined?
Having a hard time finding anyplace where I imagine that to be.
A little confused by that.
Realize that this could be a good sign. Or maybe nothing.
OK, then, where is the seer imagined?
Behind the eyes (as usual).
But that’s not the typer, just the seer.
One more time: Where is the typer?
Tip of middle finger. Or: no sense of one.
Hmm.

[vinceschubert]

Hi K, this from this mornings zoom meeting; The live point is not awakening. It is this:

“I feel stuck here in this universe.”

And then the clearer version:

“Can’t I please have a different attitude toward it?”

That is the whole knot. Not hidden. Not subtle. Right there.

The self is not saying, “Give me a yacht.”

It is saying:

“Fine, I accept that life is messy, painful, unstable, ordinary, and uncontrollable — but can I at least become the kind of person who is okay with that?”

That is still bargaining.

That is still trying to stand apart from what is happening and negotiate a better internal position.

So look at the sentence:

“Can’t I please have a different attitude?”

Say it slowly.

Where does it land?

Chest? Gut? Throat? Face?

Do not answer with philosophy. Feel the organism making the request.

There may be pleading in it. Exhaustion. Irritation. Desperation. A childlike “please, just make this easier.”

Good. Stay there.

Now remove the future.

Not:

“Will I one day be okay with life?”

Only:

What is here now?

A future-image?
A dread sensation?
A thought-story?
A body contraction?
A wish for relief?
A thought saying “same old thing”?

That is it.

The future has no weight except the weight given to it by sensation plus thought-story. The conversation exposed this nicely: the biggest emotion was not in what had already happened, but in imagined future experience. And once that is seen, the fear becomes less profound and more like garden variety fear and anxiety.

So the useful pointer is:

This is not suffering from the future.
This is present sensation plus a story about the future.

Again:

Present sensation.
Future story.
Ownership layer.
Resistance.

That’s the tangle of pickup sticks.

Not a problem to solve.

A mess to become fascinated by.

Not “How do I get these sticks neatly aligned?”

Rather:

What is this exact tangle doing?
How does it hold itself together?
What thought feeds it?
What sensation keeps it believable?
Where does “I” get inserted?

And be sharp here: “I want liberation from suffering” may currently mean:

“I want liberation from being an organism that minds what happens.”

But minding happens.

Resistance happens.

Dread happens.

Seeking happens.

Wanting liberation happens.

Can any of that be found as yours?

Or is it just another pattern unfolding?

A clean practice:

When future dread appears, say:

“This has not happened.”

Then immediately:

“What is happening?”

Not “Why am I like this?”
Not “How do I change my attitude?”
Not “When will seeking end?”

Only:

What is the actual experience right now?

And the answer must be concrete:

tightness, heat, pressure, image, words, restlessness, breath, sound, thought.

That’s all.

No universe.
No future.
No one stuck in it.
No one needing a different attitude.

Just this tangle, seen.

vince