Thread for Vayira

[vayira]

Ok. I'm working with this one still...

Is there ever any control over whether
awareness is ‘broad’ or ‘limited’ (to go on
using that kind of terminology)?

Choice. Supposedly the 'i' has a 'choice'... to behave well or badly, to be aware or unaware, to be a good buddhist o not. That is an ingrained belief.
What is 'choice'?

Makes me feel like throwing up to look at it (but i may have just overeaten!) 'who' could possibly choose?

(Awareness is both great light & great darkness. Blackness. )

Moving in & out of clarity about this. Will get back again.

Also writing on a phone - so the formatting might be a mess.

[jowate]

Ok, will await further developments :)

[vayira]

Could you explore the possibility that ‘you’ have seen through the self-view, that certain conceptions (doubts, beliefs) are holding back full acceptance of this but that nevertheless certain ‘fruits’ of this mitigated seeing-through are already manifesting?

Something like that would make sense. For instance in the gym it seemed clear & obvious & the memory of that certainty is still clear, but right now, in this moment there is some fuzziness about self in experience. I am tired, going to bed in a minute but I'll try to write out what has happened as clearly as possible.

This is what hit home this afternoon...

Is there ever any control over whether awareness is ‘broad’ or ‘limited’ ?
If the objects of awareness right now are looping thoughts, one of which is ‘I must get back to broad awareness’, does that necessarily happen? We’re getting at there being no controlling self-entity.

Obviously there cannot be an "I" that "controls" it, but your question bought up the belief that in some way "I" am choosing, am "responsible" for things that arise. Questioning that both produced a sense of vertigo ("danger, can't be true!") and relaxation ("hey there is no 'me' to blame - 'narrow' awareness just arises")

Generally it feels like things are getting clearer. A sense of freedom there. But still a sense of other stuff still to be seen.

Then...

Take into account the question about whether it’s ‘awareness narrowing’ or more a different kind of object appearing in awareness.

This seems a key point too. I need to re-examine what has been labled "unawareness" until now. There is still some doubt here. Still need to look & see if it is possible to confirm in direct experience. Could sound like a paradox! Will get back when there is something to say about this.

these habit-energies still run BUT the principal source of their fuel – the self-view – has been cut off.
If you’re expecting these habitual ‘me’ states to stop, there’s an unexamined belief, i.e. that the ‘gate’ cannot have been passed until they stop happening.

Don't think there is a problematic belief here. I think in terms of the 2 veils. What we are working on here is the jñeya-varana. Dealing with the klesas is another matter. The klesas may have been strengthened by self-view, but once developed they won't just disappear once the fiction of self is seen through. They are a parallel process to deal with. (Without asking what "dealing with" really means.)

As i'm physically tired with heavy eyelids will try to meditate before sleeping. Could be an opportunity to investigate "unawareness".

Sweet dreams!
.

[vayira]

Some confusion & contradictory beliefs...

Trying to look at "unawareness"... when awareness "comes back" then (although I said the opposite before) sometimes there is a feeling of "i" returning.
Is it only possible to look at the less (narrow) aware processes after the event? when broad awareness "comes back". what is the looking?

At one point felt "i" was everywhere - in every single atom of experience without exception. This has happened before. From this perspective the issue doesn't seem to be seeing through "i" but seeing through identifying "i" with certain things & not with others.
Still some confusion about "i" being the subject maybe? even though the subject is universally present in experience.

Choice is still bugging me... It seems choice happens sometimes. Not "i" choose, but two courses of action become available & a decision occurs. Sometimes "i" takes a decision "i" don't agree with or don't think is a good idea!

To what point can "me"-ing habitual patterns, particularly strongly egotistical ones like "x*x% the rest of them, look after yourself" actually be compatible a real seeing through self? Especially if they are associated with narrow awareness so that it isn't possible look & see there is no self there.

That's what came up last night & this morning.

Some of the question above are rhetorical, but this is a real question: Is it a good idea to avoid conversations with friends about all this while we are in dialogue?

-

[jowate]

Hi V,

From your post last night:

Is there ever any control over whether awareness is ‘broad’ or ‘limited’ ?
If the objects of awareness right now are looping thoughts, one of which is ‘I must get back to broad awareness’, does that necessarily happen? We’re getting at there being no controlling self-entity.

Obviously there cannot be an "I" that "controls" it, but your question bought up the belief that in some way "I" am choosing, am "responsible" for things that arise. Questioning that both produced a sense of vertigo ("danger, can't be true!") and relaxation ("hey there is no 'me' to blame - 'narrow' awareness just arises")

So, look at what precedes a decision – can be something small or big. E.g. thoughts occur, emotional senses / preferences, impasse, more thinking, … so is ‘I’ doing it all, or is it doing itself, arising dependent on conditions?

A small but potentially telling exercise, just ‘decide’ you’re going to move a hand: ‘I am going to move this hand’. Does the hand necessarily move? Try that quite a few times.

I think in terms of the 2 veils. What we are working on here is the jñeya-varana. Dealing with the klesas is another matter. The klesas may have been strengthened by self-view, but once developed they won't just disappear once the fiction of self is seen through. They are a parallel process to deal with. (Without asking what "dealing with" really means.)

Ok, this is a valid model. There are two perspectives (broadly) on ‘working on habits’ – either Working on oneself in order to become a better / happier person, or seeing through the belief that I am a ‘self’ on which ‘I’ can work. Before the self-view has been seen through, the first is really the only option, as that’s the world-view of self. After it’s been seen through, habits tend to become more and more self-liberating, although this can include working on some specific area.

TBC...

[jowate]

Now from your post today:

Trying to look at "unawareness"... when awareness "comes back" then (although I said the opposite before) sometimes there is a feeling of "i" returning.

The thing to be looking at is: is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ of ‘I’ demonstrating there is an ‘I’, or is it rather a misapprehension, a mistaken interpretation of the sensations and mental activities that are happening?

Is it only possible to look at the less (narrow) aware processes after the event? when broad awareness "comes back". what is the looking?

Notice that when awareness takes in just one strand of arisings, particularly compulsive thinking, it’s not taking in much else. Similar, say, if you’re sitting an exam, doing complex work, or absorption meditation. Obviously the mind ‘reviews’ this later. Does the ‘judging mind’ have the same problem with the apparently ‘deliberate’ narrowing-down (or focus) that it has with the apparently non-deliberate focus, labelled ‘distraction’ or ‘compulsive thoughts’ etc?

Yet, outside of mental judgments, what is the difference in respect of a ‘self’ doing it in these two kinds of scenario?

This also relates to your point about the issue being “seeing through identifying "i" with certain things & not with others”.

Still some confusion about "i" being the subject maybe? even though the subject is universally present in experience

Not quite sure how you mean ‘subject’. The general assumption is that ‘I’ am the subject, the experiencer. This assumption is wrong as the ‘I’/self is non-existent. So what is the ‘subject’? There is experience, but is there ‘an experiencer’? For instance, is there a sense of a ‘watcher’ or ‘observer’ of experience? And if there is such a sense, is this direct experience or a subtle mental imputation? And yet … direct experience is happening, undeniably.

Choice: as with decisions, which amount to the same, look carefully at how it happens as in the post above.

To what point can "me"-ing habitual patterns, particularly strongly egotistical ones like "x*x% the rest of them, look after yourself" actually be compatible a real seeing through self? Especially if they are associated with narrow awareness so that it isn't possible look & see there is no self there.

So (as I think you see) this is mental-emotional doubt / objection raising its head - so see through the non-existent self and such matters will become clearer by default.

Some of the question above are rhetorical, but this is a real question: Is it a good idea to avoid conversations with friends about all this while we are in dialogue?

Well it depends … I think if it’s the kind of friend who likes theoretical discussion about these kinds of matters, it might be best to desist. But if it’s possible to discuss clarification of your direct experience with the investigations with them, it could be useful.

T.

[vayira]

So, look at what precedes a decision – can be something small or big. E.g. thoughts occur, emotional senses / preferences, impasse, more thinking, … so is ‘I’ doing it all, or is it doing itself, arising dependent on conditions?
A small but potentially telling exercise, just ‘decide’ you’re going to move a hand: ‘I am going to move this hand’. Does the hand necessarily move? Try that quite a few times.

Ha ha - don't think i need to do that one - i do it almost every morning!
"i" sends out the command "get up" & nothing happens. The supposed "i" can even get quite insistent - not even a muscle twitches. Quite astonishing really. At some point the psycho-physical organism gets going, either the desire to pee, a flash of anxiety about things to do or even a conscious desire start the day mindfully sets it in motion. The decision just happens when the conditions provide sufficient pressure for it to happen.

Or... "i" can find "me" doing something that it never consciously decided to do. Eg: How did I get to be opening this door when I was sitting meditating a minute ago? (It happened once!)

i think I've accepted the thing about choice / decision although it got my head spinning when you brought it up.

An insufficiently subtle concept of karma can reinforce the idea of "i" as its agent. Modification of being through action occurs. An action with a strong sense of "me" can have unfortunate consequences & reinforce that way of being. But the "choice" between paths of action arises in dependence on conditions. Lots that could be said, but perhaps it is a digression.

The thing to be looking at is: is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ of ‘I’ demonstrating there is an ‘I’, or is it rather a misapprehension, a mistaken interpretation of the sensations and mental activities that are happening?

ok - it was just a feeling.

Not quite sure how you mean ‘subject’. The general assumption is that ‘I’ am the subject, the experiencer. This assumption is wrong as the ‘I’/self is non-existent. So what is the ‘subject’? There is experience, but is there ‘an experiencer’? For instance, is there a sense of a ‘watcher’ or ‘observer’ of experience? And if there is such a sense, is this direct experience or a subtle mental imputation? And yet … direct experience is happening, undeniably.

ok - will look at this more carefully.

Notice that when awareness takes in just one strand of arisings, particularly compulsive thinking, it’s not taking in much else. Similar, say, if you’re sitting an exam, doing complex work, or absorption meditation. Obviously the mind ‘reviews’ this later. Does the ‘judging mind’ have the same problem with the apparently ‘deliberate’ narrowing-down (or focus) that it has with the apparently non-deliberate focus, labelled ‘distraction’ or ‘compulsive thoughts’ etc?
Yet, outside of mental judgments, what is the difference in respect of a ‘self’ doing it in these two kinds of scenario?

Need to look at this some more too.

So (as I think you see) this is mental-emotional doubt / objection raising its head - so see through the non-existent self and such matters will become clearer by default.

Ok boss i get the message :-) back to work...

.

[jowate]

Good - well I don't think I have anything to add ... look forward to your further observations.

T.

[vayira]

Woke up (apparently in the middle of the night)
As conscious arose, the sense of "i" returning also arose but this time it was immediately followed by the awareness that there is no "i" to be found & that this is only a feeling. Similar to the gym experience you called "unbinding".

Scanned experience to see if there is really any anything left that could constitute an "i". The image of a Falla presented itself in my mind. Don't know if you know of the Fallas? It is a festival here in Valencia with huge (as tall as 7 story buildings) inflammable sculptures. They are very dramatic, imposing - sometimes grotesque, sometimes beautiful, but they are completely hollow made of wooden frames with paper maché, polystyrene (unfortunately) etc. They look solid, but despite appearances, they are nothing, they just about last out a week in the open air & then disappear in smoke.

The self is like a Falla. It has no substance whatsoever. The sense of an "i" arises, but it is nothing, it is hollow, you push it & it falls over. (Fallas are weighed down by sand bags so that doesn't happen!)



In the above Falla the "buildings" around Gulliver's feet are also part of the Falla.



A hollow self being consumed by fire... it doesn't mind a bit!

Rolled over & realised it was morning, not the middle of the night. A bright clear new day with no self to get in the way.

The change is absolutely minimal. It was just you pointing out the aspect of choice/decision that made the difference. Can't spot any more doubts.

There were some questions left over from yesterday...

Not quite sure how you mean ‘subject’.

Kant talks of the "transcendental unity of apperception" - or as Magee puts it - the nature of experiencing is singular not plural. Because experience has this characteristic we can misconstrue that unity to be a self. Something like that was what i meant.

Notice that when awareness takes in just one strand of arisings, particularly compulsive thinking, it’s not taking in much else. Similar, say, if you’re sitting an exam, doing complex work, or absorption meditation.

The similarity had never struck me before, but in fact sometimes one can pass over into the other. They are not identical though. Skilful absorption is not incompatible with open lucid awareness. Obsessive, cyclic thought seems to preclude it. But however it is, it doesn't seem to be a crucial point.

Do you think there is any more work to be done? If that was it, then it really was a tiny shift. Couldn't imagine anything less dramatic!

-

[jowate]

Hi V,

Well from that, it looks to me that 'the point is got' ... sorry about the grammar there! Yes, the undramatic nature of it is usual. You could 'watch it' for a bit, and in the meantime engage with these questions - if we're both happy with the responses, I could put it up for other guides to have a look at and see if anyone else can, or can't, suggest some other perspetives for you to have a look at.

Here are the questions:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

6) Anything to add?

T.

[jowate]

p.s. liked the post and the pictures! :)

[vayira]

p.s. liked the post and the pictures! :)

Just google searched for Fallas images & those seemed to illustrate what they are. The one that appeared in my mind was a strange contorted thing... the one I saw burnt this year.

Will let the decision to answer the questions arise in it's own time!

-

[jowate]

... anything ... ? :)

T.

[vayira]

... anything ... ? :)
T.

Hi yes I wrote it last night, but it got very late & i'll post it later today when i've had time to reread & make sure it is coherent!

Love
V

[vayira]

Sorry it has taken some time to answer the questions. Partly I wanted to review some more before answering the questions and partly my sleep patterns have gone weird & that has interfered.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

No. Nobody anywhere at any time could have an entity within that corresponds with 'self'

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

Before this dialogue I thought about belief in self as a deep rooted thing: something difficult to find even, never mind root out. Now it seems the actual belief in self is in fact very much on the surface of mind. There are deep rooted habitual patterns reinforced by that belief, but the belief itself floats near the surface of the mind.

Sometimes people talk about it being a mistake of language, but it feels more like a mistake of perception. A bit like a optical illusion. Eg. you are having a nap in the summer grass & open your eyes to see a weird mountain in the distance. As you sit up to look better you realise it is a molehill. If you lie down again you can see the mountain quite clearly, but you know it is a molehill. From that position you can see a mountain, but once you've seen it's molehill, you don't believe in the mountain any more. There is an linguistic element in that perception - the label “mountain” or “ molehill”.

Of course, in this case there isn't exactly a molehill there. There isn't a particular thing that could produce the sensation of having an "i" at the centre of your being. Perhaps the mistake is that we take the fact that experience is unified in awareness to mean that there is "something" that unifies it.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

The change is so minimal that to begin with the answer might have been "no difference". There is no particular new feeling or anything at all like that. On one level everything is exactly the same as before. In fact the thought came up "why bother with the whole process of seeing there is no self if nothing really changes?"

However, there are some subtle shifts. Eg: more willingness to move towards things "i" didn't like or overcome the feeling of resistance to do something that has to be done. The thought arises "what 'i' is there who doesn't want to do it?" & overcoming the resistance has been far less complicated.

If a habit patterns come up that are strongly linked to an idea of "me", the old inner dialogue still comes up too, but it seems to be quickly recognised as invalid.

The other day there was the opportunity to see what happens if something comes up that produces a strong negative reaction. Something happened that triggers irrational feelings of fury & extreme agitation (won't bore you with details). As soon as those feelings began to arise (as intense as usual), immediately the thought arose "there is no self anyway, why bother with all this over-reaction". The external problem didn't resolve itself and although the desire to stride about the house slamming doors & things arose exactly as usual, being unable to put the simple fact there is no self to one side, despite the frustrating circumstances, more & more calm came from feeling there was no "me" to act out the habitual pattern. In the end i left the house feeling happy, whereas previously more & more frustration at not being able to sort it out would have arisen & i would have been slamming doors etc & before leaving the house in a filthy mood.

While all this went on there was a kind of curiosity to see what would happen.

Obviously changes of behaviour are perfectly possible even with the belief in “i”, but what was new was how effortless it seemed to let go of stuff.

(the use of the word "i" above is to avoid extreme contortions of the English language!)

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

When you wrote...

If the objects of awareness right now are looping thoughts, one of which is ‘I must get back to broad awareness’, does that necessarily happen? We’re getting at there being no controlling self-entity. Obsessive thinking is usually unpleasant, spaciousness pleasant – both are objects arising in awareness, which has no preferences, views or judgements and simply ‘allows’.

Even though there was already no doubt that there was no "me" to be found anywhere in experience this bought up the realization there was still a hidden belief in "my" responsibility for "unawareness". it shook me up to realise that behind "my" choosing, making decisions, being "good" or "bad" etc there could be no "i" either. that made me realize my understanding of karma had an unexamined idea of "i" hidden in it too. after straightening out that erroneous concept of karma, that seemed to be it...

It came clear that even decisions of an ethical nature etc simply arise in dependence on conditions. no "i" is involved. what a relief! (could write lots about the clarified concept of karma but this isn't the place)

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

As in Q4, this was the crucial point for me. As it cleared up i wrote this example to you about getting up in the morning...

"i" sends out the command "get up" & nothing happens. The supposed "i" can even get quite insistent - not even a muscle twitches. Quite astonishing really. At some point the psycho-physical organism gets going, either the desire to pee, a flash of anxiety about things to do or even a conscious desire start the day mindfully sets it in motion. The decision just happens when the conditions provide sufficient pressure for it to happen.

All the time decisions are happening... instant life & death decisions like pulling the break levers on your bike so you are not killed by a truck. Complex life decisions which will change your circumstances over the next 10 years. “Self” doesn't participate in those decisions. Processes go on somewhere inside & the decisions happen.

6) Anything to add?

Thank you very much for your guidance. It was such a tiny thing to change that it seems silly now to have given you all that work in pointing it out! But without that, who knows how long it might have taken.

Even now there are sometimes subtle doubts... is that really it? Is this completely irreversible? Could the old beliefs come back? Should it be possible to see if it is irreversible does one just have to wait & see? (Writing that I see these questions are silly – old thought patterns can arise but could I ever be completely taken in by them as before?)

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if you can spot anything else that needs to be examined in these answers.

Love & many thanks again
V