Request for a Guide

[Ngapa]

We have done a complete loop now, we're back to 'do I already realise lack of self, but think it should feel different?'
I honestly don't know the answer. As I said before, I'd expect to know if liberation from self occurred. You did agree to that.

I can see that it would be thoughts that were confused... but what would it be that sees that self is just a thought referring to nothing?

I have been following the possibility that I do realise it by 'trying' to ask myself when I assume a self, whether I can find one. No change noted.
You said

look to your experience now -- can you find a ‘self’, a ‘me’ entity behind your direct experience of the moment?

No I can't but that's when I look to my experience now. When I don't do that, but just get on with everyday things, I seem to assume a self.

You offered some exercises "to get me out of the thought-loop", could I try those now?

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi there, your latest post is useful in clarifying where things are at. This sentence was crucial for me: “I can see that it would be thoughts that were confused... but what would it be that sees that self is just a thought referring to nothing?” We’re clearly dealing with more than confused thoughts here -- still a residual belief in self. That’s good -- something concrete to work with.

OK the ‘simple’ answer to this question “what sees that there is no self” -- one that may be acceptable to mind -- is that any kind of who/what question anticipates an entity that is doing something. We discussed this before -- it’s just how language and hence, thought, work -- through imposing dualisms where there are none -- e.g. “It is raining” -- “what is raining?” -- there is no “it” -- it’s just a convention of language. There are just water drops falling. What looks? What thinks? There is no “thing” looking, no “thing” thinking -- looking happens, thoughts arise . . . Once you’ve dropped the self-view, who/what questions are seen through as conventions -- they don’t point to any “thing”. This brings me to the next point.

When I ask if you can find a self in experience you say “No I can't but that's when I look to my experience now. When I don't do that, but just get on with everyday things, I seem to assume a self.”

This is important -- you think that you should be able to notice when the self-view falls away. Yes you should. The process you describe of having to kind of drop into direct experience to see there is no self is not what you would expect from someone who has seen through the self-view. You don’t need to “check in” to see that self is not still there, lurking around! It is tied in to the point above -- thoughts about self continue to arise -- you continue to talk about “I, me, this that” as if these concepts pointed to real things -- but there is a deeper understanding -- not part of “mind” -- that these terms are useful conventions. This is not a “state” you dwell in but a fundamental insight into the nature of language and thought that means it is no longer “believed” in and hence it loses its power to direct action.

So you need to see this in your experience, it’s pointless me trying to explain it to you. So let’s get on with some exercises to work with this. OK please put aside what mind might be saying at the moment, and really look where I’m pointing. We will start off with some body awareness exercises building up to looking at thought/mind.

Now I’m going to ask you to get right into your experience of the moment. Try this exercise. Sit in a chair and bring awareness to all the contact points your body has with the chair and the floor. Feel the sense of pressure in your feet, move up to the pressure in the backside and the back. Close your eyes and focus just on the raw experience – ignore the ‘inner picture’ that has constructed the experience as ‘my body sitting in a chair’. Can you feel where the body ends and floor/chair begins or is the experience itself seamless? Without using thought – before thought intervenes – what is the nature of the experience? Where is the experience taking place? What are its qualities? Is there a ‘centre’ to this experience? Is there a ‘thing’ separate from the sensations that the experience is ‘happening to’? When thought tries to intervene, don’t follow it, allow awareness to remain in the raw experience. Do this several times for at least ten minutes. Report back what you find.

[Ngapa]

Just sensation, no "back" or "chair" or "floor". Without thought, sensation is just present, not really anywhere, not even body-shaped, no centre, no thing experiencing it.

You seem to have found where I am, and I see that I have been looking for some 'enlightenment' in my thinking. Kind of gets in the way of noticing it's all awareness. Must be a common problem, maybe one day my thread will be useful for others?

[Jack'n'theBox]

Just sensation, no "back" or "chair" or "floor". Without thought, sensation is just present, not really anywhere, not even body-shaped, no centre, no thing experiencing it.

OK great.

I see that I have been looking for some 'enlightenment' in my thinking. Kind of gets in the way of noticing it's all awareness.

Yep! There are no 'enlightened thoughts' -- just what is occuring in the moment, just this, just now.

So has this done it for you -- have you seen that 'self' exists only as thought? How does it feel to see this? Do we need to continue?

[Ngapa]

Even though I see it is pointless to do it in my thinking, I don't know what else there is.
I 'know 'it is all awareness, I can work that out, so I do the same thing of checking - "Can I see that it's all awareness at this moment?" "Now can I see that this too is all awareness?"
What else IS there apart from enlightened thinking? I can only find sensations and thinking.

[Jack'n'theBox]

There are only thoughts, sensations and feelings arising in the moment. Do you have to 'do' anything to see this? What is it that 'knows' this? What is it that 'checks' this out? Is there some 'thing' there that is still 'seeking'? Can you find this thing?

[Ngapa]

So there is a thinking habit of 'seeking' and it is persistent. So it must be thinking which is checking out my experience, then taking no notice of what it finds.
Since it is not necessary to change thinking in order to realise the imaginary nature of the self which thinking assumes, I don't know why I don't realise it - or why whatever realisation I have is making no difference. If true realisation made no difference, no-one would bother to set up a website for it.
I can't find anything but thoughts, sensations and feelings in my experience, but I do have to do something to notice this. Otherwise things carry on under the influence of self-based thinking. Well, they do anyway it seems.
There seems to be a catch - if I realise it through thinking, that doesn't change the whole of my thinking; if it takes something other than thinking (and we cannot find anything other than thinking, sensations and feelings) I seem to realise it that way, but it makes no difference. Obviously I don't realise it in the required way, that is, this thinking, sensations and feelings does not realise it is not a self.
Your responses seem accurate and perceptive, can you guide me through this not-seeing? How can I continue this without 'seeking' blocking it?

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK stick with it. I think we can work through this. We just need to really see how mind works -- it's like the wizard behind the curtain thing -- once the curtain is pulled back and mind is exposed, it is no-longer believed. So let's get back to the exercises.

Let’s extend the exercise we did the other day – keep on doing the body sensation stage, then move on to the other senses, . . . look at smell, where is that sensation happening, try to stick with the pure sensation and notice how the mind kicks in AFTER the event by producing ‘selfing’ thoughts, e.g. ‘smell of incense in my nose’ – all this is imputed in thought and is not there in bare experience. Do it with taste, hearing, sight, individually. Then, and this is the important part, try to keep all the various sensations that mind says are happening in ‘my body’ in awareness simultaneously – keep on building up to this and do it for 10 minutes at a time – in a chair, on the bus, on the park bench. Keep with the raw experience and notice there is a ‘gap’ between the experience and the ‘selfing’ thoughts that impose to claim the experience as ‘mine’. ‘Self’ or ‘me/I’ is nothing but a superstructure imputed by mind -- to see this find the ‘gap between the raw experience and the labelling of that experience.

Maybe this metaphor will help explain what I’m getting at – the fullness of “experience” as it arises in awareness is like a symphony – there are maybe 30 different “instruments” (sensations/feelings/thoughts) all “playing” (arising) simultaneously. You can be aware of the symphony playing in its totality but at times certain instruments (trumpets, drums, bass etc.) may rise into prominence and be more apparent. When this happens you don’t stop hearing the entire symphony. It is still there. It’s just that a certain instrument, or a certain melody or refrain arises, and is more apparent for a while, then recedes again as some other sound in the symphony arises to take its place. Imagine that your “experience” is like this symphony. All the sensations that we have been looking at that enter through the 5 sense gates and thoughts generated by mind are always already co-present in awareness. But certain aspects of experience, like a sound, an itch, a flashing light, may arise and for a moment become more apparent – but you never lose sight of the wholeness of experience as it arises in awareness.

Just like with the symphony, “you” don’t need to “do” anything to notice the moderations in the sound – they simply arise in experience and become more or less apparent. Same with sensations arising in experience. Just find that space of awareness in which sensation arises and allow the symphony to play out – notice how different aspects of experience arise and recede but don’t follow them, don’t grasp on to them. Don’t label them.

Let me know how this goes -- then we’ll move on to look again at thoughts.

[Ngapa]

Thanks. Practising this, will report back soon.

[Ngapa]

When noticing the 'symphony' I 'saw' that even LOOKING for a self must be thinking - the sensations are just present and could not ask this question, it doesn't make sense in the context of sensations, only within thinking. That felt significant.

I noticed too how there is a slide from recognition of an object or sensation into some involvement - a world of thinking. Then I've lost sight of the wholeness of experience, the singularity of awareness.

I could continue with this exercise, especially becoming more used to finding thinking as being thinking, i.e. as awareness being thinking but still just another part of the symphony.

[Jack'n'theBox]

When noticing the 'symphony' I 'saw' that even LOOKING for a self must be thinking - the sensations are just present and could not ask this question,

Yes, excellent observation.

it doesn't make sense in the context of sensations, only within thinking. That felt significant.

Yes. Definitley on track here.

I noticed too how there is a slide from recognition of an object or sensation into some involvement - a world of thinking.

Yes. a "world of thinking" -- this is where the self-view hangs out.

Then I've lost sight of the wholeness of experience, the singularity of awareness.

OK. What loses sight of the wholeness of experience? Is there something separate from experience that is somehow observing it? Can you find this observer?

I could continue with this exercise, especially becoming more used to finding thinking as being thinking, i.e. as awareness being thinking but still just another part of the symphony.

NOt sure what you mean here about awareness "being thinking"? Look again very closely at all sensations/thoughts as they arise -- are they separate objects that somehow appear to awareness? What I mean is awareness really separate from the arising of the sensation/thought?

Maybe this metaphor will help -- think of a TV screen -- images/sounds/conversation appear on the screen. Are these images somehow separate from the screen? If you look very closely at the images on the screen, say with a magnifying glass -- can you still see the "objects" that you originally htought were on the screen?

What happens when you look very closely at the arising of a sense object in awareness? Can you find the object? Is the sensation separate for the awareness?

[Ngapa]

What loses sight of the wholeness of experience? Is there something separate from experience that is somehow observing it? Can you find this observer?

ah good point - within the thinking it is assumed there is a Me that tracks what is in awareness, by a thinking-echo - well really by thoughts about my conceptions of the experiences; that process gets displaced sometimes, and when it returns its story is that the Me was "lost in thinking" and had lost sight of the idea of wholeness it was maintaining. Actually nothing happened, there had been sensations and thinking, then just thinking - but it's all awareness, the "wholeness of awareness" doesn't need to be tracked by thinking, it is there anyway, there is no-one to "keep sight of it"

You said: "you never lose sight of the wholeness of experience as it arises in awareness." and "notice how different aspects of experience arise and recede but don’t follow them, don’t grasp on to them. Don’t label them" but I know there must have been grasping and labelling of the elements of the "symphony", as the way of keeping sight of the wholeness of awareness. In other words this was a thinking process - hence its interruption by other thoughts.

Not sure what you mean here about awareness "being thinking"?

"Awareness being thinking" - I mean the presence of awareness being thinking rather than being sensations in other senses. We always know awareness as being something, there must be some appearance which is known, this can be the appearance of thinking. In your metaphor, you can never find the objects without the screen or vice versa.

Can I notice the wholeness of awareness without making this a thinking-watching process? Can thinking end a train of thought without the thought: "I was thinking, I was distracted from the process of noticing awareness"? I already know there is no I that could keep a separate view of the changing appearances, watching everything including thoughts. Yet when the thought occurs to notice the wholeness of awareness, the assumption jumps back that "I" can do this.

[Jack'n'theBox]

there had been sensations and thinking, then just thinking - but it's all awareness, the "wholeness of awareness" doesn't need to be tracked by thinking, it is there anyway, there is no-one to "keep sight of it"

OK good.

but I know there must have been grasping and labelling of the elements of the "symphony", as the way of keeping sight of the wholeness of awareness. In other words this was a thinking process - hence its interruption by other thoughts.

This is tricky but keep on working at noticing the "symphony" without the labels -- to develop the metaphor when you are "lost" in a piece of music you aren't thinking "trumpets . . . cymbals . . . violas . . ." When thougths arise see them as simply a variation within the symphony not as something extrinsic to it.

We always know awareness as being something, there must be some appearance which is known, this can be the appearance of thinking. In your metaphor, you can never find the objects without the screen or vice versa.

Yes, screen and object -- awareness and sensation are "not two" but co-arise. But is there some thing outside awareness that "sees" awareness or is there simply a process of awaring?

I already know there is no I that could keep a separate view of the changing appearances, watching everything including thoughts. Yet when the thought occurs to notice the wholeness of awareness, the assumption jumps back that "I" can do this.

OK well let's move on to the final stage of this exercise which should help with the above:

Extend the direct experience exercise we did earlier to include thought. i.e. go through all the stages looking at the senses, then as the final stage include awareness of thought. Don’t try to control or get rid of thought. Just watch thoughts come and go. As you do this consider: Where do thoughts come from? Are they the product of a ‘thinker’ or do they just arise? Where do they go? do they have dimensions or durations? As the final phase of this exercise notice all the sense sensations and the thoughts arising in awareness simultaneously – don’t follow the thoughts or get distracted by any one sensation, just notice the totality of experience and rest there for a while. Can you discern a thing (me/self)? all this is happening to? Can you find an agent anywhere in "all this" that can direct any part of it (like a conductor might a symphony)?

[Ngapa]

is there some thing outside awareness that "sees" awareness or is there simply a process of awaring?

I have observed that "awaring" is just how awareness is - there is nothing being aware of awareness - I am certain of this. But even now as I reflect on this and notice it again, it is as if I disappear. As if there is a me aware of all this - until I look and see there isn't. As though I need another way of conceptualising it, so I'm not stuck with this way which doesn't match experience.

conductor? - thinking of turning attention to one of the senses seems to have that effect. Directing attention is a curious aspect of thinking. The effect thinking has on actions and attention, coupled with its "I did that" script, makes it seem that there is an I directing the thinking. Of course only the thinking is findable.

But this exercise seems useful, I am doing it frequently.

[Jack'n'theBox]

I have observed that "awaring" is just how awareness is - there is nothing being aware of awareness - I am certain of this.

OK good.

But even now as I reflect on this and notice it again, it is as if I disappear. As if there is a me aware of all this - until I look and see there isn't.

Isn’t this just thought claiming to be the observer? Is there anything observing this thought (that isn’t just another thought saying so?)

conductor? - thinking of turning attention to one of the senses seems to have that effect.

OK we say stuff like “turn your attention to the breath” – but is it thought that “turns” attention – indeed is attention a different thing from awareness or just a different modality of awareness? Is awareness something that can be moved around by an agent? Check this out in experience. As you are awaring of the “symphony” – how is it, exactly, that one aspect of experience arises, becomes more prominent then fades as a new arising becomes more prominent? Is there a “thing” (thought?) that somehow moves attention around as you might a flashlight? Look and see if you can discover what is really going on here and let me know.