realizing selflessness

[whoknows]

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

Say it slowly.

Where does it land?

Chest? Gut? Throat? Face?

Throat especially: choked up. And face squinching up, ready to cry.

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

Yep. All of that. Precisely. (A line I identified with 35 years ago, and still do, from a song by the Indigo Girls: “Please, God or someone, make it easier.”)

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”?

Right now: mostly tightness in throat and crying. No obvious thoughts.
(Crying is OK. Thoughts can be torture.)

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?

This makes me feel weary, makes me want to throw a tantrum, makes me want you to cast a magic spell to instantly vaporize all of my suffering (past, present, and future).

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

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

Yes. That’s what I want, or what I think I want.

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?

OK, yeah, that’s helpful.
Minding happens. Seeking happens. But is it “mine” or just sensations and stories? (In purple to easily find again.)
(Just looked again at the bit above that made me want to throw a tantrum. I think it says basically the same thing. Not sure what the difference is. Maybe this sounds less like a therapeutic project I need to do as a means to attain a happier future.)

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?

OK.
(But can’t you just cast that magic spell?)

[whoknows]

Just realized how perfect your faces/vase image is for what we’re doing here. The other image has been right here all along, not hidden in any way. Nothing needs to change except the slightest shift of perception — no, actually, in the interpretation of perception.

I always see the faces and need to make a slight effort to see the vase, but that’s because it’s always on a white background.

Can I change the background color of reality so that I can more easily see it the other way?

[vinceschubert]

Ha, this got me excited...

Can I change the background color of reality so that I can more easily see it the other way?

yes! that's what awakening is. We swap the background for the foreground.
...but don’t turn that into a doctrine.

“We swap the background for the foreground” is a good pointer.

Usually:

foreground: story, self, problem, future, interpretation
background: sensation, sound, color, breath, immediacy

Then the shift:

foreground: raw actuality
background: thought-story as commentary

But even “we swap” is not quite accurate.

The swap happens, or it doesn’t.

Seeing clarifies, or it doesn’t.

No little operator inside rearranges reality.

And this is important: awakening is not making the foreground beautiful. It is not replacing anxiety with serenity, or confusion with bliss, or ordinary life with some luminous spiritual filter.

It is seeing that the so-called problem was being constructed in the overlay.

“I am stuck here in this universe.”

Foregrounded as story, that feels like prison.

Seen as overlay, what is actually here?

Sensation. Thought. Mood. Sound. Breath. A sentence. A body-response. No actual prison found.

So yes:

awakening is the collapse of misplaced emphasis.

The real-time test:

Right now, is thought telling you what this is?

Or is this here before thought says anything about it?

much love

vince

[whoknows]

Ha, this got me excited...

:-)

I noticed your post moments before my husband and I joined our little community for evening prayer, which generally concludes with about 20 minutes of silence. As it happened, directly in front of me, just three feet away, was a vase (holding a big bouquet of white roses). So I was trying to see the vase (and all of the other physical sensations) as the “foreground” and the thought-stream as the “background.”

I couldn’t help thinking about what I do to enable the shift from seeing faces with a white background to a vase with a black background. I think it’s not just about where the eyes are focusing but about some subtle shift in the sense of what’s significant. And I wondered what the equivalent is for the shift from seeing thoughts with a background of sense perceptions to the other way around.

Anyhow, I played with that, trying to see the perception layer as slightly transparent and in front of the thought layer. Of course, the thought layer kept moving to the front and sometimes nearly obscuring the perception layer, but then that would be noticed (passive voice always appropriate for this aspect of meditation, even in conventional speech) and I’d swap them back (it felt like there was some doing for that part).

And this is important: awakening is not making the foreground beautiful. It is not replacing anxiety with serenity, or confusion with bliss, or ordinary life with some luminous spiritual filter.

It is seeing that the so-called problem was being constructed in the overlay.

Yes, this is clear.

Looking forward to playing with this some more.

So grateful for your guidance, vince!

[whoknows]

My image of sensation and thought as two layers, one in front of the other, wasn’t quite working for me tonight, and I started playing with an image of sensation and thought as both on a stage, with one or the other in the spotlight. Then I realized I didn’t need to make this into a practice. The idea is helpful, and playing around with it might’ve helped it to sink in, but that’s probably enough.

Something about this process that keeps striking me as odd is that even though a key thing is disidentifying from thoughts, the way this seems to happen is not so much through practice, as I’m used to with Zen and which makes some sense to me, but through words, ideas, insights — ones that are about experience, sure, but still, it seems like a surprising amount of communicating in words, rather than doing any kind of practice.

[vinceschubert]

Something about this process that keeps striking me as odd is that even though a key thing is disidentifying from thoughts, the way this seems to happen is not so much through practice, as I’m used to with Zen and which makes some sense to me, but through words, ideas, insights — ones that are about experience, sure, but still, it seems like a surprising amount of communicating in words, rather than doing any kind of practice.

Yes. It is odd.

And the oddness is important.

Because the words are not doing what ordinary teaching-words do.

Ordinary teaching says:

Understand this idea.
Practice it repeatedly.
Eventually become different.

This inquiry uses words more like a mirror, a trapdoor, or a finger poking a bruise.

The words are not meant to become beliefs. They are meant to expose the exact place where belief is operating.

So when the words say:

“Can a meditator be found?”

That is not philosophy.

It sends attention to the assumed location of the meditator: head, eyes, face-space, thought-stream, body sensations. Then looking happens. Nothing called meditator is found.

That is not merely an idea.

That is a failed search in actual experience.

And when the words say:
“This is it. Nothing to do but watch, or not.”
Again, not doctrine. It interrupts the project-making machinery. It exposes the seeker as a movement of thought trying to improve this moment. The material keeps making this distinction: reading and words are conceptual unless they drive attention into actual bodily response and direct experiencing.

So yes, there is a surprising amount of language.

But the language is being used to undermine the authority of language.

That’s the weird part.

A thought says:

“I need awakening.”

Then another sentence points:

What is actually here?
And suddenly “I need awakening” is seen as words, tension, longing, image, future-story — not truth.
That seeing may happen in one second.

Practice can make the organism quieter, steadier, more available.
Fine. Sitting is useful. Zen is useful. Shikantaza is useful.
But no amount of practice can make a self disappear, because no self is there to begin with.
What practice often does is refine the seeker.
This inquiry catches the seeker in the act.

So don’t oppose practice and words.
The real distinction is:
words believed versus words used to look.

When words are believed, more story.
When words trigger direct looking, less trance.

Right now, test it.
Read this sentence:

“I am the one who has to disidentify from thoughts.”

Now stop.
What is actually here?

Some words.
Maybe pressure.
Maybe facial tension.
Maybe a sense of effort.
Maybe thought-image of a future awakened K.
Maybe irritation.
Maybe interest.

Where is the one who must disidentify?
That is the whole thing.

Not a practice replacing Zen.

A direct interruption of the imagined practitioner.

vince

[whoknows]

Thank you for that.

So when the words say:

“Can a meditator be found?”

That is not philosophy.

It sends attention to the assumed location of the meditator: head, eyes, face-space, thought-stream, body sensations. Then looking happens. Nothing called meditator is found.

That is not merely an idea.

That is a failed search in actual experience.

I never expected the words to be philosophy or doctrine or mere concepts or ideas. I get that they’re directing me to look at actual experience. But I do seem to keep thinking that they’re pointers that I should use repeatedly. That’s what I meant by “practice,” e.g., trying to turn the foreground/background insight into a “practice.” Even though you said, “The swap happens, or it doesn’t. Seeing clarifies, or it doesn’t. No little operator inside rearranges reality,” I felt like I was DOing the foreground/background swap, though it usually swapped back on its own rather quickly, and I thought it might be useful to keep trying to do it. And I speculated that what you actually meant was that one can’t, through willpower make the swap a more stable thing (if we’re talking from the perspective where willpower makes any sense).

But in any case, I eventually concluded that I actually shouldn’t try to make it into a practice — that is, try to do it deliberately and repeatedly.

So, what about that?

When you offer pointers and insights, should I ever be deliberately using them repeatedly? Or do I just use them the one time and figure that some sort of insight or tiny brain rewiring has happened? And perhaps the pointer will sometimes spontaneously come to mind in appropriate circumstances? Something like that?

And yet, somehow, when I intentionally and repeatedly bring to mind the formulation “This is it. Nothing to do but watch, or not,” during my meditation time or at other times, that doesn’t prompt me to think, “Maybe I shouldn’t be trying to make this into a practice.” I guess that feels like kind of an un-practice. It’s obvious to me that it’s “not doctrine.” The important thing, as you said, is that “It interrupts the project-making machinery,” but somehow without feeling like a project to interrupt project-making.

What practice often does is refine the seeker.
This inquiry catches the seeker in the act.

Yes. This makes sense. (I suppose koan “practice” is probably also intended to be disruptive of the “seeker,” or of something. But it seems so willful and effortful . . . Whatever. I don’t need to figure that out.)

So don’t oppose practice and words.
The real distinction is:
words believed versus words used to look.

But again, the issue for me right now seems to be "words used to look right then" vs. "words used deliberately and repeatedly to look." Thoughts on that?

“I am the one who has to disidentify from thoughts.”
. . . . .
Where is the one who must disidentify?
That is the whole thing.

Yes. Right. Will give that further consideration later. (Now, must get some work done.)

[whoknows]

Right now, test it.
Read this sentence:

“I am the one who has to disidentify from thoughts.”

Now stop.
What is actually here?

Some words.
Maybe pressure.
Maybe facial tension.
Maybe a sense of effort.
Maybe thought-image of a future awakened K.
Maybe irritation.
Maybe interest.

Where is the one who must disidentify?
That is the whole thing.

Not a practice replacing Zen.

A direct interruption of the imagined practitioner.

I did return to this, and, of course, what was found in actual experience didn’t include an “I.”

But all the times I’ve looked for an “I” and not found one don’t seem to have interrupted the imagined practitioner.

[whoknows]

Thought of this a few days ago, and can't believe I'd never thought of it before: that passing a koan is less like passing a test than like passing a kidney stone.

That's how I'm feeling this morning.

I understand that a kidney stone can take a couple weeks to a couple months to pass, that it can be extremely painful, and that sometimes medical intervention is required.

This one has been lodged in here for forty years. The initial treatment didn't work. Wish I'd sought a second opinion sooner.

[whoknows]

P.S. (Sorry for flood of messages.) Did some crying, started reviewing our thread for applicable pointers, wrote the previous post, and was served up an apt Angelo DiLullo video, which I've only just started watching. But wanted to go ahead and report that that the pain has lessened somewhat. Still hoping intervention will be successful and speedy. Really glad it's covered by insurance.

[vinceschubert]

But all the times I’ve looked for an “I” and not found one don’t seem to have interrupted the imagined practitioner.

We need to examine what is meant by "interrupted the imagined practitioner"
Give me a paragraph on how you see it.

Sorry for flood of messages.

flood all you like..

This one has been lodged in here for forty years.

i was an active (read obsessive) seeker for 45yrs.

vince

[whoknows]

But all the times I’ve looked for an “I” and not found one don’t seem to have interrupted the imagined practitioner.

We need to examine what is meant by "interrupted the imagined practitioner"
Give me a paragraph on how you see it.

Of course, I borrowed the phrase from you ("A direct interruption of the imagined practitioner"), but how do I see it? Well, I'm understanding the "imagined practitioner" as one manifestation of the "imagined self," which is the imagined thinker, perceiver, senser, doer, chooser — the nonexistence of which I am hoping to grok very soon. (Yes, there I go, putting that in the future as a goal to be attained, although apparently, "future" and "attaining" will be seen as illusory along with "I.") And the "interrupting" part — I guess I was vaguely imagining that as a sort of poking at the imagined self, at the thoughts that create the illusion, in ways that might help to expose it as fictional, to make its illusory nature more apparent, to weaken or shatter the delusion.

i was an active (read obsessive) seeker for 45yrs.

My sincere sympathy to Vince.

[whoknows]

This afternoon, I’m not sure why, I started rereading a couple of the kensho accounts in The Three Pillars of Zen (one of the first Zen books I read, which was very formative). Heading into my afternoon meditation time, I wondered whether there was any way to bring some of the intensity and focus and determination of a Japanese sesshin into my practice without its being counter to the spirit of whatever it is I’m doing these days to realize no-self.

Anyhow, during my meditation time (25 minutes and then, after moving to a comfier place to sit, another 25 minutes), I was trying to really stick with perceiving that “this is it.” I've noticed that this pointer has various sorts of resonance for me. It has a sense of “samsara is nirvana,” i.e., that the liberation I’m longing for is simply this, right here now, whatever is happening. It also encourages me to attend carefully to this — to notice precise physical sensations.

Having watched I don’t know how many Angelo DiLullo videos in the past several months, some of them repeatedly, I ended up imagining my pointers or reminders to myself in his voice. My mind was generating a sort of personalized guided meditation by Angelo, like he was sitting there with me saying things like, “Is there a ‘you’ hearing the rain, or is there just hearing?” “Don’t grab onto thoughts.” “Is there a separate seer or just seeing?” “Just let go of thoughts.” “What you’ve been looking for is right here.” “Just let go.” One time, I heard the pointer “This is it” with a different meaning, as, “Almost there.”

None of that felt particularly effortful or even overly goal-oriented. It was nice.

[vinceschubert]

if you were a jigsaw puzzle, how many pieces are left to slip into place? (first thing that comes to mind)

[whoknows]

Three?
What I pictured was a few pieces in the top-left corner and maybe one in the top-right corner of the puzzle.

Just now finished late-night sitting period. Much like afternoon periods. One of the main pointers/reminders was “Stay here.”