realizing selflessness

[whoknows]

Taking the self-important thoughts seriously is not “the self.”

More accurate:

Taking the self-important thoughts seriously is selfing happening.

Yep. I get that. It’s more of a verb than a noun. Almost corrected that when I wrote it.

Something is wrong now, and something must be done to get out of it.

That is the practitioner-self rebuilding itself out of distress.

I understand this but often forget it and am not yet fully grokking it. You’re welcome to keep reminding me and pointing at this in different ways.

“Ugh, another thing to do.”

That is hot selfing. Right there.

What is it made of?

Oppression.
Deadline-thoughts.
Life-admin thoughts.
Resistance.
Tiredness.
Tight face.
Pressure.
A demand that reality stop requiring things.

Where is the one oppressed by life?

Look there.

Not as a formal practice. Not as a new duty. Just one clean glance.

OK, yeah. When I notice hot selfing, look at what it's made of, and look for the one who's supposedly suffering. I appreciate your last line: not a duty, not a practice, just one clean glance.

And thank you for confirming my sense that I maybe don't need to focus so much anymore on the supposed perceiver of sensations:

Go where the me still feels alive:

thinking — thinker?
attention shifts — shifter?
action begins — doer?
resistance appears — resistor?
task gets done — chooser?
grumpiness appears — owner?

And with the awe: be careful. Awe is beautiful, but “What is consciousness? Why does anything exist?” can become another magnificent rabbit hole. Let's be blunt about this: howand why questions tend to pull attention into endless story.

Yep, I totally get this. I don’t expect to find answers to such questions. I expect them to remain awe-some mysteries. And as far as I can tell, they don’t have much of anything to do with awakening.

But can the doer be found?

This is where the college free-will freakout can finally be met, not as philosophy, but as direct experience. The fear was probably not about free will. It was about the imagined self losing its throne.

I suppose that’s correct, since I can’t imagine what else would be freaky about figuring out that free will makes no sense. Well, actually, I suppose it’s freaky to come to a conclusion counter to what nearly all of humanity believes, implicitly or explicitly. Yeah, there’s that too.

Good.

Let the throne be inspected.

No king.

Only ruling-thoughts.

Inspection under way. I hope that having spent four decades feeling tortured by awareness of duhkha will make this inspection less scary than it might otherwise be.

Random observation:
I was just thinking about two aspects of my attitude toward spiritual practice that are in tension:
On the one hand, I have a hard time believing that any of these insights will make a difference in my life if I don’t turn them into practices — i.e., something done regularly, repeatedly, and intentionally. (Perhaps that comes from doing intensive Buddhist practice during the formative time of my early twenties, and/or perhaps it’s just an ordinary human way of thinking.)
On the other hand, if anyone, including me, suggests that I engage in a practice, I’m apt to react with weariness and resistance and a worry that I’m being told that everything isn’t already okay exactly as it is.
On the third hand, or maybe it's back on the first hand, I contentedly do two sitting periods a day, doing various sorts of inquiry and meditation.

[whoknows]

thinking — thinker?
attention shifts — shifter?
action begins — doer?
resistance appears — resistor?
task gets done — chooser?
grumpiness appears — owner?

Late-night sit:

An odd and pleasant side effect of inquiring mainly about whether there’s a thinker, doer, etc., rather than a perceiver, is that when I’m sitting and thoughts arise that carry attention away from the immediate physical sensations, that’s welcome because it’s an opportunity to inquire about a thinker.

Tonight, there was an awful lot of “Note-taking is happening; is there a note-taker?” and more generally “Mental verbalizing is happening; is there a verbalizer?”

[whoknows]

A few questions after the Zoom meeting:

- I think you were suggesting that there’s not much point anymore in my inquiring even whether there’s a thinker or doer or chooser (much less a perceiver), since I am entirely confident I won’t find one?

- I did notice that it seems helpful for me to be noting that everything is “happening” (labeling that verbally in my head), as opposed to there being a “me” who’s making stuff happen. So maybe I’ll stick with noting “_____ing is happening,” even if I drop the follow-up inquiry, “Is there a _____er?” Does that make sense?

- Also, I think you were suggesting that simply noticing when “hot selfing” is happening is enough, and maybe I don’t need to make a point of examining what it’s “made of” or looking for the "self" who's suffering?

[vinceschubert]

I was just thinking about two aspects of my attitude toward spiritual practice that are in tension:
On the one hand, I have a hard time believing that any of these insights will make a difference in my life if I don’t turn them into practices — i.e., something done regularly, repeatedly, and intentionally. (Perhaps that comes from doing intensive Buddhist practice during the formative time of my early twenties, and/or perhaps it’s just an ordinary human way of thinking.)
On the other hand, if anyone, including me, suggests that I engage in a practice, I’m apt to react with weariness and resistance and a worry that I’m being told that everything isn’t already okay exactly as it is.
On the third hand, or maybe it's back on the first hand, I contentedly do two sitting periods a day, doing various sorts of inquiry and meditation.

Yes. This is exactly the tension to see.

One side says:

“Unless this becomes a regular practice, nothing will change.”

The other side says:

“If I’m being told to practice, then apparently this isn’t already okay.”

Both are selfing when believed.

The first makes practice into a ladder:

I am here.
Awakening is there.
Practice will get me there.

The second makes “already okay” into a defense:

Don’t ask anything of me.
Don’t make this into work.
Don’t imply I’m deficient.

And then the third hand is the most honest one:

Sitting is happening twice a day, and it’s fine.

So don’t solve the tension conceptually. See both movements as they arise.

When the thought says:

“I need to turn this into practice so it changes my life,”

look for the one whose life is supposed to be changed.

When the thought says:

“Ugh, don’t give me another practice,”

look for the one being burdened.

Practice is not the problem.

Anti-practice is not the solution.

The issue is the hidden bargain: “This should do something for me.”

So keep the sitting periods, but frame them like this:

Not a ladder. A laboratory.

Not:

“I sit so I can wake up.”

More accurate:

“Sitting happens, and selfing becomes easier to see.”

That’s all.

And if intentionality appears — fine. Intention appears. If repetition appears — fine. Repetition appears. If resistance appears — fine. Resistance appears.

No contradiction.

The mistake is thinking “already okay” means nothing happens.

Everything already being okay does not mean the organism stops brushing teeth, meeting deadlines, sitting with her husband, doing inquiry, drinking water, or noticing selfing. It means those things don’t have to be recruited into the fantasy of fixing a defective self.

So tonight’s sit can be very simple:

Practice is happening.
Resistance to practice is happening.
Hope that practice will help is happening.
Fear of being burdened is happening.
No practitioner found.

And if the sit becomes pleasant, fine.

If it becomes tedious, fine.

If nothing is learned, fine.

If something clarifies, fine.

The point is not to become a good practitioner.

The point is to catch the practitioner being imagined.

A few questions after the Zoom meeting:

- I think you were suggesting that there’s not much point anymore in my inquiring even whether there’s a thinker or doer or chooser (much less a perceiver), since I am entirely confident I won’t find one?

- I did notice that it seems helpful for me to be noting that everything is “happening” (labeling that verbally in my head), as opposed to there being a “me” who’s making stuff happen. So maybe I’ll stick with noting “_____ing is happening,” even if I drop the follow-up inquiry, “Is there a _____er?” Does that make sense?

- Also, I think you were suggesting that simply noticing when “hot selfing” is happening is enough, and maybe I don’t need to make a point of examining what it’s “made of” or looking for the "self" who's suffering?

Yes to all three, with one refinement.

1. Yes, mostly drop the formal “Is there a thinker/doer/chooser?” inquiry.

Not because it’s wrong, but because it may now be too predictable. If the answer is already known in advance, the inquiry can become a ritual.

Thinking is happening — thinker?
No thinker found.

Fine. True. But if it has gone flat, don’t keep milking it.

Only use that inquiry when there is heat — when a thought, action, choice, or reaction feels strongly mine.

For example:

“I really need to get this right.”
“I chose badly.”
“I’m stuck.”
“I’m suffering.”

Then look.

Not as a formula. As fresh investigation.

2. Yes, “_____ing is happening” makes sense.

That may be the cleaner pointer now.

Seeing is happening.
Hearing is happening.
Thinking is happening.
Planning is happening.
Resisting is happening.
Wanting is happening.
Trying is happening.
Selfing is happening.

This gently removes the implied owner without turning the sit into a courtroom investigation.

But be careful: don’t use “happening” as a mantra to push experience away.

Not:

“This is only happening, so it doesn’t matter.”

Closer:

“This is happening. No owner needs to be added.”

That’s enough.

3. Yes, simply noticing hot selfing may be enough.

At least for now.

When hot selfing is obvious, you may not need to dissect it into thought, sensation, image, wanting, contraction, story, ownership. That dissection is useful when identification is sticky or confusing. But when it’s already obvious, the lighter move may be better:

Hot selfing is happening.

Then stop.

Let it burn without adding the analyst.

Because the investigator can become another self:

“I must examine this properly.”
“I must find what it’s made of.”
“I must locate the suffering self.”

That’s more doing.

So the current direction is simpler:

This is it.
Stay here.
_____ing is happening.
Hot selfing is happening.
No need to add an owner.

Then life continues.

Work happens. Sitting happens. Resistance happens. Noticing happens. Forgetting happens.

No problem.

The inquiry is still available when needed. But don’t keep using a crowbar after the door is already open.


vince

[whoknows]

Thank you for all of that.

I appreciate your insight into the multiple hands of my attitude to spiritual practice.

I like the “laboratory” image for sitting periods. I can’t recall whether I’ve mentioned that my college major was cognitive science. I have a long-standing interest in how the mind works and what consciousness is. I like it when that curiosity a key part of the spirit of my meditation.

Everything already being okay does not mean the organism stops brushing teeth, meeting deadlines, sitting with her husband, doing inquiry, drinking water, or noticing selfing. It means those things don’t have to be recruited into the fantasy of fixing a defective self.

Yes. This is helpful. Meditation and inquiry don’t need to be about fixing anything.

So tonight’s sit can be very simple:

Practice is happening.
Resistance to practice is happening.
Hope that practice will help is happening.
Fear of being burdened is happening.
No practitioner found.

Sounds good. Mind will quite possibly object or get confused. That happens too.

Only use that inquiry when there is heat — when a thought, action, choice, or reaction feels strongly mine.

. . . . .

Then look.

Not as a formula. As fresh investigation.

Unfortunately (or you would probably say fortunately), I’ve had a lot of opportunities for observing selfing in the past day, due to a major inconvenience and disruption of plans and routine. Spouse and I both handling it relatively well. Plenty of complaining, but not a lot of terrible upset. Both attribute that to our “practice” (and also to having good friends who could help). Noticing lots of tightness in chest, throat, face. As is often the case, the hardest thing for me is spouse’s unhappiness with situation.

[vinceschubert]

Meditation and inquiry don’t need to be about fixing anything.

This is what comes up about that.. (it's actually a new inquiry)
“Fixing” usually belongs to time .

It relates to the past as:

“Something happened that should not have happened.”
Something went wrong.
Something damaged me.
Something was missed.
Something was unfair.
Something in me became flawed.
So now this present experience is treated as evidence of an old problem.

And it relates to the future as:

“Something must happen so this will finally be okay.”
I need to heal this.
I need to get past this.
I need to become different.
I need to arrive somewhere better.
Then I’ll be safe, free, whole, acceptable, peaceful.

So fixing often creates a bridge between a remembered/implied past and an imagined future:

Past: something went wrong.
Future: something must be made right.
Present: this moment becomes a repair project.

That’s the key point.

The present sensation, thought, contraction, sadness, shame, or confusion is no longer simply allowed to be here. It is interpreted as a sign of unfinished business.

Inquiry cuts differently.
It asks:

What is actually here, now?

Not:
Where did this come from?
How do I get rid of it?
What does this mean about me?
When will it be gone?

Just:

What is this, directly?

A tight chest is not past.
A thought about being broken is not past.
A fear of never being free is not future.
They are all present events .

The stories may be about past or future, but the appearing of them is now.

So fixing says:

“This should not be here, and I must do something so it won’t be here later.”

Meditation/inquiry says:

“This is here. What is it, before the story of fixing begins?”

That does not mean practical repair never happens. Broken chair? Fix it. Tax problem? Deal with it. Hurt someone? Apologize. Body needs rest? Rest.

But inner fixing often means arguing with experience because it does not match an imagined version of how “I” should be.

Peace begins when the present is no longer treated as a mistake left over from the past or an obstacle to a better future.

I’ve had a lot of opportunities for observing selfing in the past day

Remember (if you already know this?) that selfing isn't about selfing. We neither condone nor condemn selfing. The opportunity is entirely focused on the recognition that it happened.
Notice if the recognition changes the attachment to selfing.

vince

[whoknows]

So fixing says:

“This should not be here, and I must do something so it won’t be here later.”

Meditation/inquiry says:

“This is here. What is it, before the story of fixing begins?”

What is actually here, now?

Not:
Where did this come from?
How do I get rid of it?
What does this mean about me?
When will it be gone?

Thank you for the pointer on fixing vs. inquiring. This seems like just the thing for where I am right now. I like how it recognizes the problem with a goal-oriented approach to practice while also recognizing the worthwhileness of a certain sort of practice.

Remember (if you already know this?) that selfing isn't about selfing. We neither condone nor condemn selfing. The opportunity is entirely focused on the recognition that it happened.
Notice if the recognition changes the attachment to selfing.

Yep, I’ve been observing that merely noticing the selfing aerates it a bit.