csm, this is your thread

[csm]

Hi Nona,

Habit shows up even after the illusion has been seen through, but we don't need to take it personally.

What you are describing here is what happens when you shift focus from thought to direct experience and back to thought again.

Are you looking for a State in which the evidence of your senses destroys the thought?

No, not at all. But I am waiting for the evidence of my senses to change my relationship to the thought. Is that not to be expected? Will the illusion remain compelling whenever I am focused on thought (which is necessarily much of the day?) I expect that what I've seen now could cause a gradual shift over time, but I want to SEE it to the extent that I don't take the habits personally. Thoughts arise, and when they are accompanied by an emotional or bodily response the illusion of self is triggered. When I LOOK, I SEE that the thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations are not me, and that the sensations are not happening to a separate entity, but they feel personal.

I'm spending a lot of time looking, I'm finding no "I" and I'm not sure where to look to find the thing that is hanging me up. I feel bad about writing so little about direct experience, but there's nothing to say there - I can't find an "I". I don't want to waste your time writing about the incidental things I notice along the way. They are interesting, but not relevant to the "I" search.

The explorations in direct experience are usually very pleasant compared to focusing on thinking. I also find myself hoping for some conflict to arise during the day so that I'll have a dramatic episode of selfing to examine.
But frustration keeps arising and I guess I'm just coming up against an expectation that there is something more to this process than looking without finding a self. But I'm not sure what the missing piece is or where to look for it.

You say to notice that the ambiguity is in thought. I see this clearly. You say to check in to direct experience anytime confusion arises. I am, and will continue to do so. Is there anything else I should be doing?

Thank you :)

S

[nonaparry]

Dearest Sage,

I am waiting for the evidence of my senses to change my relationship to the thought. Is that not to be expected?

You still want Thought and Direct Experience to mirror each other. They don't. They can't! You have SEEN that Thought does not accurately describe what is happening in direct experience, yet you want Thought to be as "true" as direct experience.
Thought is a story, a fiction, an explanation about what is happening in reality; it isn't what IS happening in reality.

Will the illusion remain compelling whenever I am focused on thought

Is the illusion compelling now?? Do you honestly Believe that you are or have a separate entity "self" that is the do-er of what happens?
Or is what you are asking, "how long will the habits of a lifetime continue to provide a kneejerk reaction before I check whether my thoughts are true?

I want to SEE it to the extent that I don't take the habits personally.

You can SEE that every time you LOOK, in direct experience. You have XX years' worth of conditioned thinking and behaving; how quickly does one habit, for example the habit of LOOKing, replace a long-held habit? Have you ever tried to change a habit?

Thoughts arise, and when they are accompanied by an emotional or bodily response the illusion of self is triggered. When I LOOK, I SEE that the thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations are not me, and that the sensations are not happening to a separate entity, but they feel personal.

What does "they feel personal" mean? With which sense is "personal" being felt? Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling?
Or do you mean that when a thought shows up in conjunction with a sensation that you label "unpleasant", that there are other thoughts that claim that something is happening to a "you"?

Direct experience and thought are two different kingdoms; you are in one or the other. The illusion is SEEN through in one and created in the other.

I'm spending a lot of time looking, I'm finding no "I" and I'm not sure where to look to find the thing that is hanging me up. I feel bad about writing so little about direct experience, but there's nothing to say there - I can't find an "I". I don't want to waste your time writing about the incidental things I notice along the way. They are interesting, but not relevant to the "I" search.

You could not be more wrong in this. PLEASE write the "incidental things" you notice. If they are not relevant, I will ignore them. But you could be SEEing it without realising it.

I guess I'm just coming up against an expectation that there is something more to this process than looking without finding a self.

I suspect that's so. Expectations that there is some mystical magical esoteric understanding to get, or some Big Bang that happens to change everything get in the way of SEEing it.
In reality, SEEing through the illusion is a tiny shift in perception. And it's as easy as looking for your cell phone. LOOK! There's your cell phone!! LOOK! There is no separate entity "self"!! LOOK! Self is only a label.
Any expectations of what is supposed to happen when this is seen are just more stories.

You say to notice that the ambiguity is in thought. I see this clearly. You say to check in to direct experience anytime confusion arises. I am, and will continue to do so. Is there anything else I should be doing?

Yes. Relax. This is so simple that it's not enough for you. But LOOK straight at the truth: there is no separate entity "self, me, I" at all. Then let this sink in. Let the implications of a world, a Life, without a separate self sink in.
This is just a beginning.
Once you are clear, there are many possible paths...

love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona,

Thank you. I'm going to concentrate on just enjoying the process. Hopefully this post will give you more to work with.

You still want Thought and Direct Experience to mirror each other... you want Thought to be as "true" as direct experience.

I don't think that's true. I understand that thoughts will continue to arise and will tell all kinds of stories. Coming into this process I had learned through self-observation and processes like The Work to hold certain kinds of thoughts much more lightly. They still come up but don't have the same power they used to. This is what I was expecting in this case as well. Maybe that just takes time.

Will the illusion remain compelling whenever I am focused on thought

Is the illusion compelling now?? Do you honestly Believe that you are or have a separate entity "self" that is the do-er of what happens?
Or is what you are asking, "how long will the habits of a lifetime continue to provide a kneejerk reaction before I check whether my thoughts are true?

In thinking about this and the above "holding thoughts lightly" concept I guess I stumbled a bit with what "belief" actually is. It seems to me that it is just another thought, like intention is. I tried to look for a difference between believing a thought and not believing it and I'm not sure if I can see one. It strikes me that maybe where the self seems compelling it is actually the potency of an attached emotion that is bleeding over into the thought. However, the last couple days nothing very sticky has come up so I haven't had the opportunity to watch that unfold and examine the process.

To that end, since last night after writing my last post I have been trying to cultivate emotional selfing by visualizing difficult conversations and saying hurtful things to myself. Nothing has worked. In this context they are just so clearly empty thoughts that nothing is sticking. But that is odd because I'm so accustomed to those kinds of thoughts having hurt attached to them that I'm left feeling numb. That seems like an impediment to progress. I even sent a (kind) text today that I had been putting off a long time, to someone towards whom I have held a lot of anger and resentment. Still nothing. Right now I have no preference at all for whether or not they respond, despite thoughts that can weight out all the advantages either way.

My other focus has been to trying to strengthen my experience of sensory input without mental overlays. It is still very difficult but getting a little easier all the time. In the tactile realm I'm getting better at seeing no specific body/part and no local boundaries, but there still remains a limiting concept that draws a blurry mental boundary a short distance away from the body... so I have expanded outwards some, but haven't seen complete integration yet.

Visually I have been concentrating on a couple of exercises. One is to see literally what my vision shows me of my body and how I typically see only a small fraction and can never see even half, despite the mental pictures that tell me a whole story. I might be walking and observe that I can see a bit of a blur where my nose is, and two tiny blurs popping in and out of view at the bottom of my field of vision, and one "arm" swinging in and out of view. That's it. But the bulk of my environment is invisible, and held within a blurry boundary, and the swinging arm has no origin and just emerges and recedes back into the blur and the void.

The second visual exercise (again a walking one as I have a good commute on foot) has been to observe the field of vision as approaching me rather than seeing me moving into it. That's starting to come more naturally, and sometimes I start to get the sense that the field of view is flat and that the depth I see is a mental overlay, but that's hard to settle into. It makes me want to determine how far away the flat surface is, and then my mind attaches the distance that is associated with whatever object my eyes are focused on at that moment. So then I try to perceive the view as being at zero distance, but that hasn't really clicked. This last exercise feels important because the mental insistence on interpreting distances and seeing a tree over there reinforces the idea of separateness.

So it's been a bit of a weird day today feeling so emotionally flat. Unusually I have no co-workers around today so there is no one around to reinforce the illusion or trigger an emotional response. I look forward to being tested more.

Hugs,

Sage

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage,

You still want Thought and Direct Experience to mirror each other... you want Thought to be as "true" as direct experience.

I don't think that's true.

Maybe not! That's just what I got from your post.

Visually I have been concentrating on a couple of exercises. One is to see literally what my vision shows me of my body and how I typically see only a small fraction and can never see even half, despite the mental pictures that tell me a whole story. I might be walking and observe that I can see a bit of a blur where my nose is, and two tiny blurs popping in and out of view at the bottom of my field of vision, and one "arm" swinging in and out of view. That's it. But the bulk of my environment is invisible, and held within a blurry boundary, and the swinging arm has no origin and just emerges and recedes back into the blur and the void.

What you describe is direct experience: what is immediately available to sensation, in this case sight. Good stuff!

My other focus has been to trying to strengthen my experience of sensory input without mental overlays. It is still very difficult but getting a little easier all the time. In the tactile realm I'm getting better at seeing no specific body/part and no local boundaries, but there still remains a limiting concept that draws a blurry mental boundary a short distance away from the body... so I have expanded outwards some, but haven't seen complete integration yet.

It's not that complicated. Sensation-prior-to-thought is just that: the bits where you FEEL something before you've had a chance to THINK about it. It happens all the time! But we rarely focus on it.

How's the search for a separate entity "self" going?

love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona,

How's the search for a separate entity "self" going?

Well, it seems like something shifted a bit today. The "I" thoughts were comfortable and familiar but nothing came up that was convincing as a self. That said there weren't any dramatic events today to trigger the illusion and my feeling of emotional flatness has continued.

I was way more in touch with direct experience than normal, in part because today's work tasks were more conducive to it than usual and I had no coworkers around to interfere with my focus. I found myself really aware of how little of my field of vision is actually in focus, and how small it is compared to the mental construct of whatever space I'm in.

A couple of phone calls came up that I would typically find uncomfortable and which would usually leave me second guessing myself and agonizing over the right thing to say. Today they sort of flowed and I really wasn't aware of thinking about what I would say. The words just sprang forth in response to what I heard. Other times a few minor irritations bubbled up but there was no one to hold on to them so they passed quickly. There was, however, a low-level unease that persisted for much of the day, which accompanied the idea that there was something wrong about the numbness I was feeling.

No clear thought or emotion felt like "me" and my body didn't feel like "me" but I was still subject to the thoughts that my physical being is separate and distinct from the world around me.

Thanks,

S

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage,

I was still subject to the thoughts that my physical being is separate and distinct from the world around me.

You know those are only thoughts, right?
What is the case in direct experience?
Close the eyes and sit quietly. Allow mind to roam freely around what is believed to be the body, from "head" to "toes" and back.
With eyes closed, what is actually experienced? Is there a felt, distinct, boundary between body and clothes? Between body and chair? Between body and air? CHECK the sensations!
Where there is a sensation of pressure, is there a distinct boundary felt? Or is it only thought to exist after the fuzzy lack of boundary is perceived and mind announces, "Of COURSE there is a boundary. THIS is my body; THAT is a chair"? Remembering that memory is a thought and is not available in direct experience. Check it!

love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona,

I was still subject to the thoughts that my physical being is separate and distinct from the world around me.

You know those are only thoughts, right?

I know conceptually that they are only thoughts but I'm still having a heck of a time SEEing that. I've been exploring this a LOT in the last couple weeks, from both tactile and visual angles. I SEE the mental images that interfere with the tactile ones, but aside from the tiniest flickers I can't see past them. I SEE that what I see visually of my body and other bodies and objects around me isn't proof of separation. But the thoughts "It is there", "He is there", "I am here" arise soooo quickly and persistently.

When the concept falters for a fraction of a second the thoughts go "Oh, there! That's what you're looking for!" and my attention follows that awareness and with it comes the concept that it is going to a location in space (mental image) and to an object there (further mental image). The only thing I can manage for any length of time is a really distorted and/or blurry mental overlay rather than the familiar, supposedly (ha!) accurate one.

The other thing I've noticed is that sometimes I can scan back in my memory when I've been otherwise occupied and find no recollection of a tactile sense of separation moments before. So that's further evidence that if I'm not thinking separating thoughts I don't experience tactile separation, but I can't seem to crack it consciously.

I know I mentioned this in one of my early posts, but the very act of looking for it seems to come packaged in terms that thwart it. Even the way you directed me to scan

"head" to "toes"

starts me off in the conceptual realm in spite of your quotation marks. When I try to drop the "head" and "toes" and just "scan", I run into the same problem on a subtler level - that word in itself implies movement across space, movement from one place to another. I've tried to frame the looking without words but they quickly pop up anyway.

I've also tried to distract the thoughts with a simple task like counting or repeating a simple phrase while staying open to awareness of sensations. This seems like it may have potential as a technique but so far it's left my attention too divided.

So I've been SEEing an awful lot of thoughts and concepts and mental images pop up, and in the process they are becoming less bundled in with the sensations than they used to be, but they are still in the way.

I'll keep at it :)

S

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage!

I was still subject to the thoughts that my physical being is separate and distinct from the world around me.

You know those are only thoughts, right?

I know conceptually that they are only thoughts but I'm still having a heck of a time SEEing that.

Um. You're not expecting to SEE a thought, I hope.
I'm at a loss for how to direct you to look at what is around you that is not words. When I open my eyes, colours appear in awareness. That's ALL that happens.
Rug, bookshelves, fan, computer... these do NOT show up in awareness. The Label is not the Thing! You don't put plates and cutlery on the word "table" nor do you attempt to sit on the word "chair".
All I'm asking you to do is to focus your attention on the bits of life that show up before mind grasps for a label.

I SEE the mental images that interfere with the tactile ones

I'm going to remind you that SEE refers to vision. I do not for one moment imagine you SEE mental images interfering with tactile ones. That could only happen in thought. Until you are able to shift focus to sensation, with a resulting drop in thinking, you will keep thinking in circles. That's not it.

I SEE that what I see visually of my body and other bodies and objects around me isn't proof of separation.

SEEing is only visual. The other thing is understanding or thinking.
I'm glad you are clear that visual images with the change of colour that is associated with separate objects is not proof of separation!

But the thoughts "It is there", "He is there", "I am here" arise soooo quickly and persistently.

In thought!!! NOT in direct experience.

The other thing I've noticed is that sometimes I can scan back in my memory when I've been otherwise occupied and find no recollection of a tactile sense of separation moments before. So that's further evidence that if I'm not thinking separating thoughts I don't experience tactile separation, but I can't seem to crack it consciously.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the thinking which is building the illusion will never crack it. If your idea of consciously means with thought, you'll never do it. Seeing through the illusion that you are or have a separate entity "self" is done in direct experience, in sensation-prior-to-thoughts-about-it.

I know I mentioned this in one of my early posts, but the very act of looking for it seems to come packaged in terms that thwart it.

I have to Point using language; there is no other means of communicating this over the internet. But you don't have to take the words as an accurate descriptor of what's Happening. They are NOT.

I've tried to frame the looking without words but they quickly pop up anyway.

That's okay that they pop up; just work at extending the space before the words come. Focus on that place, that moment prior to words. LOOK at that.

Go outdoors into Nature and watch the growing things, the birds, bugs, and animals. Check if they have any "I, self, me" that DOES anything, that lives their life. WATCH, LOOK! don't think!!


love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona!

Sorry, disagreements and misunderstandings regarding language seems to be causing a lot of confusion between us.

All I'm asking you to do is to focus your attention on the bits of life that show up before mind grasps for a label.

I understand that, and that's what I'm attempting to do. As I've explained the thoughts come so quickly that there has been very little time with those moments.

I have to Point using language; there is no other means of communicating this over the internet. But you don't have to take the words as an accurate descriptor of what's Happening. They are NOT.

I understand that you have to use language and if it sounded like I was criticizing that there was misunderstanding. I was just trying to describe a variety of ways that I have seen thoughts interfere with my attempts to look at direct experience. If I limit my writing to descriptions of direct experience I won't have much of anything to write to you.

I understand that the words don't accurately represent reality, but my efforts to let go of the words, to see and feel without thought for long enough to get familiar with that experience have failed so far.

Until you are able to shift focus to sensation, with a resulting drop in thinking, you will keep thinking in circles. That's not it.

I understand that. I'm not trying to reason my way into this. I have been trying and am now trying to explain to you what I have been experiencing, inevitably using concepts. What I have been experiencing is mainly a lot of thoughts arising.

If your idea of consciously means with thought, you'll never do it.

No, that is not my idea of "consciously". I mean conscious as in paying attention to - as in aware with an object to be aware of. In this case the object I want to be conscious of is the sensation, and instead I'm conscious of the thoughts. I know that I am aware of the sensation too, but that's not where my attention lies, in spite of my attempts to shift it.

I continue to look. I look dozens upon dozens of times as I go about my day. I look for longer, dedicated stretches in the evening. I look pretty continuously as I walk to and from work, which is about a 1/2 hour each way. I have been looking in my sleep and dreaming about looking almost every night. It's just not coming easily.

I will keep at it.

Thanks Nona,

S

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage!

There are no disagreements here; only inability to discover how to focus your attention on direct experience.

If I limit my writing to descriptions of direct experience I won't have much of anything to write to you.

I'm wondering if limiting your writing to descriptions of direct experience might actually be helpful.

Let's try it! Today, describe what is seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled only. If you didn't see, hear, touch, smell, taste it, don't write it.
Now: with the above caveat, describe your day.

Looking very much forward to your reply,
love
Nona

[csm]

Soft light with many slightly darker flecks. Soft, warm pressure of weight. Repetitive pressure on smooth, hard surface, soft tapping sound. Bright light in warm tones, gentle massaging sensation, sweet flavour. Rushing noise, cool wet sensations. Soft, warm pressure, pressure against a smooth, hard, warm surface. A slightly sweet flavour, warmth. A loud roar, a loud crash, a roar again. A rapid, expansive pressure. Aching. Fluctuating coolness, tingling. Rhythmic, firm pressure, a loose rhythmic pulling sensation. Bright light, bright and dark shapes. Heat. Wooshing and humming, thump-thump sounds at irregular intervals, a continuous quiet rattle. A faint sour taste. Sparkling. Pale spots. Colours and movement. A clanging sound. A sour smell. Aching. A firm localized pressure repeated a few times, a beeping sound. Small coloured lights in the dark. Coolness. A creaking sound, a gentle hum. Pressure against hard, smooth surfaces, a clinking sound. Warm, wet, slick sensation. A rough sensation. A stinging. Light colours, a localized weight. A sudden increase in light. A clanking sound, a cool smooth sensation, a contraction, an ache. A shortness of breath. A roar, a warmth, an acrid scent. A hissing sound. A chill, a tingling, a firm pressure, a creaking sound. A rich flavour, smooth texture and crisp texture. A warmth and aroma. A loud noise and metallic smell. A sticky sensation and a ticking sound. Small dark marks against bright light. A humming sound. A hard, cool, smooth sensation. A warm smooth sensation. A slightly sweet taste and fizzy feeling. Warmth. Bright colours. Dimming light. A chill and a loud roaring. A warmth and a slight vibration. A monotone view with small points of light. Rhythmic pressure and a quiet rattle. Warmth and gentle light.

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage!

This is Excellent. Do this all day, just noticing and describing sensation. As much as possible, stick to the sensation itself rather than to descriptive modifiers that are not actually sensed. We don't actually have a language for sensation alone, so it's tough!

Notice, in direct experience, Life just Happens.

love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona!

Do this all day, just noticing and describing sensation. As much as possible, stick to the sensation itself rather than to descriptive modifiers that are not actually sensed. We don't actually have a language for sensation alone, so it's tough!

It is tough! So can I ask why I should be describing it as well as noticing it? I found that that really interfered with the process in a lot of ways. And do you mean describe it to you or just to myself? Or if I'm sticking to "the sensation itself" is it just "Seeing, seeing, hearing, feeling, hearing..."

I leave tomorrow for my big trip and I'm not sure what kind of access to the web I'll have between flights. I get to my destination Monday afternoon so I'll check back then if not sooner.

If you have additional suggestions for good airplane exercises I'd love to hear them.

Thank you :)

S

[nonaparry]

Hi Sage,

It is tough! So can I ask why I should be describing it as well as noticing it?

Yes; you should be describing it, to me, so I can get an idea of what's going on for you. If you don't describe, I can't even begin to get an idea of what you're LOOKing at.

I found that that really interfered with the process in a lot of ways.

Which was the process that was being interfered with? The noticing or the describing?

And do you mean describe it to you or just to myself?

Is there a difference? If there is, I would like to read both!

Or if I'm sticking to "the sensation itself" is it just "Seeing, seeing, hearing, feeling, hearing..."

Describe as accurately as you are able the exact sensation that is being experienced. You will probably find this difficult, but persevere!
For example, you wrote "Soft light with many slightly darker flecks." What part of this description was actually directly experienced? Was "soft" directly experienced? Was "light"? Or was there a colour, perhaps whitish, that was interpreted as "light"? What about "slightly"? Was slightly experienced?
This is TOUGH! But you seem to be a Thinker and I want you to Notice what exactly you actually experience prior to thinking about it. There is a good reason for this.

You may have better luck doing this exercise with eyes closed. The connection of XX years between sight and language can be very strong! With eyes closed, and without relying on memory (which is actually thought), what exactly is experienced?

If you have additional suggestions for good airplane exercises I'd love to hear them.

Okay, here you go: on your flight(s), check whether any of the passengers are flying with a separate self. Watch as everyone around you just appears to do whatever they do. Check if any separate "self" arrives to DO any action "for" them or for you.

Check, is there any event that occurs on the plane that does not simply happen without an "I, self, me, director, controller"?

Check, is there any apparent object or experience that occurs separate from the awareness of it?

Have a great journey!

love
Nona

[csm]

Hi Nona!

Thanks for the clarifications. I have to be quick, but here's a little response.

Which was the process that was being interfered with? The noticing or the describing?

I found there was a series of editing operations happening in thought, which served to pull me out the direct experiences. The experiences that weren't immediately describable got rejected and not explored further. Those that could be described were left behind as thoughts tried on different ways of describing them. Then thoughts had to periodically reinforce the descriptions I had settled on so that they could be remembered later for reporting.

"Soft light" and "slightly darker" were words pointing to the fact that the view was low in contrast with almost no hard delineations. I think it's fair to say eyes can observe those qualities (though the words add extra layers of conceptualization). I also think "light" in the sense of light and dark is less conceptualized than "whiteish" is. It can be too bright or too dark to perceive colour, but we're always sensitive to how much light there is.

A lot of the mental energy I described went into struggling with how much detail to put into the descriptions. I had to use your examples as a guide. So when you say "familiar taste of full-bodied slightly charred liquid" I have to assume that a large degree of conceptualization is reasonable, and qualifiers like "slightly" are too.

I guess I just felt that the exercise drew me into my thinking more than out of it. But I will keep at it, with more emphasis on the eyes-closed version, and will work with your other exercises too, thank you! I'm excited to have so much time in the next few days to just sit and look.

Thanks again,

S