Looking for a guide

[Angela12]

Hi Joey:

brewera wrote:I’ve tried to explore what a sensation is without the label sensation but I don’t seem to get anywhere with that (can’t drop the label).

Is the label a problem? Do you need to get rid of the label? What would be the advantage to no label?

Good point. I guess I don’t need to drop the label. I realize now I was trying to find the “nothingness” I think is behind the label. It’s weird how the mind keeps thinking it can find something that isn’t there. I guess that’s me trying to turn it into an object that is locatable- then it’s something I can seek and find.

Is the feeling that you own bodily sensations proof of anything? Is that feeling actually different from other feelings?

I get what you are saying-it’s just another sensation. It feels different because it has a “tingly” quality to it which I apparently associate with “me-ness”. I see that the idea tingly and the tingly sensation are themselves just arising. I’m very frustrated that I can’t “get this” though (btw- I know this frustration is another sensation but this one feels like a problem)

brewera wrote:I think I’m having some trouble because the sensation feels like its just arising and at the same time isn’t separate from me and so feels like me. Maybe you could show me where I’m going awry here.

Are you separate from any feeling whether you label it as a bodily sensation or not?

Holy crap! NO! that was a real eye opener. When you asked that I realized the sound of the fireplace and the clock ticking aren’t any more separate than a bodily sensation. That realization quickly reverted to yeah but, they are “over there and I am over here”, but there is still some clarity that they are not separate from me in direct experience. I see that the thought “they are over there and I am over here” is also arising, also not separate. It seems that feeling of being located somewhere is the real bugaboo (there’s a word I never thought I would write) here.

Is the feeling that something feels like you any different from any other feeling? Is it proof of anything?
Do you need to get rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are you?

no, it’s just one more feeling. To be honest though even though I know that it stills feels more real. I see that its not proof of anything. I also see it comes with an idea-an image of a body and that is just arising also. More honesty- I do feel like I need to rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are me but only to the extent that I feel like I am solely them.

brewera wrote:I don’t think its anything in direct experience. I think I am trying to understand how it works logically. For example if I feel sad, that is just a sensation which is noticed by something, then a thought about it happened which is noticed by something.

Explore this phenomenon in direct experience. Can you find something that notices a thought? Are you the noticer? Are you separate from a thought?

Again, I think I am answering from the standpoint of the witness which is just another thought. When I looked I quickly saw that what I thought was something noticing the thought was just another thought saying “there’s a thought”. It’s like a bloody fun house with those wonky mirrors until you cut through and really look directly!!

The thought and the noticing of the thought are not separate. I think I mentioned that one of the practices I have used for a long time is neti neti so I reflexively seem to separate myself from the appearances. When I look directly though (and thank you for keeping me on track) I see I am not. The neti neti thing is also just a habit arising.

Does a thought ever reference something else? Can a thought know about anything else? Is a thought actually about anything? Are thoughts caused by something?

It is very clear to me when I use direct experience that a thought never references anything. It doesn’t interact with anything, it doesn’t know anything, it can’t act, it has no inherent meaning. this brings up all kinds of fear.

I have never explored whether a thought is about something thoroughly (I thought I had) until just now. That one was very interesting. Now I am beginning to see (not quite clearly though) that it’s nothing. It’s not about anything. If I think the thought “clock” it’s not about the clock itself. It has nothing to do with the clock (I see this in direct experience but I am definitely feeling lots of resistance to this is the form of “of course it’s about the clock and then when I look again I get a glimpse that the word/thought is about nothing)- it hasn't quite "clicked" for me yet.

brewera wrote:Also, it seems that if I think a particular thought I can produce a bodily sensation. For example if I purposely invoke the thought “I have no control” then I can produce the contraction in my gut.

What is your evidence that this is true? How do you know that you can purposely invoke a thought? Is there actually a boundary between the phenomenon that you call a thought and the phenomenon that you call a contraction?

I see that I can’t actually purposely invoke a thought. What really happened is that a series of thoughts arose – “I can purposely invoke a thought” followed by “I’m doing it now” followed by “I will invoke the thought that I am out of control” followed by “I am out of control” followed by “ that sensation is related to the thought I just had that I’m out of control” followed by “there must be an intermediary “me” who can do all this.

This is still quite fuzzy but I’m starting to see it.

brewera wrote:It would be losing myself completely which ironically is exactly what I’m trying to do.
This reveals an expectation. Are you certain that you want to lose yourself? What would that mean? Is it possible that your conceptual goal is seemingly obscuring clear seeing of what is already happening?

I’m certainly not certain I want to lose myself. I’m not sure at all what this is leading to if I’m totally honest.
I don’t know what it would mean to lose myself. Sometime I think it would mean freedom and other times I think it would mean insanity. I also know those are both concepts that arise accompanied by different sensations.
It is quite possible and likely probable that the expectation is obscuring my clear seeing- most definitely.

Is the feeling that you own the feeling of "not separate from me" proof of anything? Do you own that feeling? And are you separate from that feeling? Is there any need to get rid of that feeling? Or any feeling, for that matter?

No, the feeling is not proof of anything- it’s just a feeling. It’s just there. It can’t do anything. (this is all somewhat clear but not all the way clear but I do see the fog lifting- ha ha).

I definitely am having difficulty with the ownership questions you ask. I know the answer logically but am not able to get there in experience. Maybe it’s the word owner. Let me clarify to see if I am interpreting this correctly- by owner do you mean something different that experiencer, senser, perceiver, feeler, doer etc? Because to me they feel like different things and I can see I am not the experience, senser, etc in direct experience but I can’t see the owner thing. Grant it this is purely theoretical and has nothing to do with direct experience but it seems like if there is no separation between me and anything else then I “own” those experiences.

It feels to me like the two things of no one there and no separation can’t co-exist if that makes any sense. It’s like not owning it means being separate from it. And I don’t think its just semantics- i think this is a roadblock – very foggy here.

I also see in direct experience that a feeling is like a thought in that it has no inherent ability to do anything. Which leads me to wonder who the doer is then??? I think I am turning into my own personal fog machine!

brewera wrote:hmmm. This one was difficult. I can see that anxiety is a sensation. I can see it belongs to no one. I also see that any time I do an exploration I am assuming I am a body. It’s a bit of a reflexive thing I think. And I guess that that too is just a thought arising. But it feels real.

Good. Is the feeling that a thought is real a problem? Is the feeling proof of anything? Can the feeling actually obscure anything?

I just realized that when I explore like this its like I separate myself from the object of exploration to answer the questions like a "witnessing" thing.
No, the feeling itself is not a problem nor is it proof of anything. I’m not sure about the obscuring question. It seems to obscure by demanding attention. I also explored this and see that the feeling that attention is focused on the feeling is another sensation arising.

brewera wrote:No, it just proves a sensation and a thought are arising and I’m not even sure it proves that. I tried removing the label “thought” and “sensation” but get a bit stuck there.
As before, is the label problematic? Can you get rid of a label? What would be the possible value? Does a label actually obscure what is here?

The label is not problematic in and of itself. It just comes up by itself, hangs around a while and disappears. It has no inherent meaning so there is no value in getting rid of it or keeping it for that matter.

As with my last answer I still feel like it does obscure that is actually here.

brewera wrote:When I look directly I see that feelings are just sensations with no inherent meaning and cannot be about anything. I have been looking to attach meaning to everything. To attach a meaning of how it affects “me”. I can see that happening. I can see that the first assumption I make is that “I” exist even right after I see that I don’t

Very good! So then does the assumption that I exist mean anything? Is it a problem? Are you doing the assumption? Do you need to get rid of the assumption?

I see it means nothing and therefore should not be a problem but it feels like it is a problem. I see that the assumption just happens (btw, every time I see this I have a thought that goes something like “this is dangerous- if thoughts and feeling don’t mean anything then what will stop you from doing bad things?”- I also see it is kind of a habitual thought that just comes up).

I know I don’t need to get rid of assumptions but I feel like I do. I see that I am stuck in trying to either go to something or get rid of something here (like find enlightenment or get rid of my self or find no one)

Are thoughts proof of anything? Are feelings proof of anything? Do you need a particular thought or feeling to be present in order for clarity to be? Does clarity depend upon a particular feeling that you call a feeling of clarity? Can you do anything about the feeling or absence of a feeling of clarity?

Thoughts and feeling are proof of nothing ( this is becoming clearer but I still reflex back to yes there are almost immediately after I realize they aren’t.
I see that no thought or feeling can actually lead to clarity but again having some resistance here . I see that no thought or feeling can do anything so how could they produce clarity (I must admit this is part experience part logic). I still feel like I can do something about feelings- not sure where or why I’m so stuck on this.

I guess this is probably normal but I'm feeling a lot of frustration like i'm taking one step forward and two steps back. I feel a bit like a failure. I am, at the same time deeply grateful that you are taking the time to help me.

[joeylott]

Angela,

Many of your responses are very, very clear. So for the sake of brevity I'm not going to respond to each of them. Suffice it to say that if I have not responded directly to something then that is because it seems to me that your response was very clear. I know that with several of them you expressed that you feel as though you still "backslide" into a different perspective (i.e. seeing that clock ticking sounds and physical sensations are essentially non-different to feeling that you are separate.) However, in each case you also seem to be seeing more and more clearly that no particular experience, perception, idea. or feeling is necessary, and that whatever arises is simply happening uncaused and without an experiencer. So even if there are experiences that you call frustration or confusion or fogginess, those experiences, obviously, like all experiences, are happening uncaused and without an experiencer.

Is the feeling that something feels like you any different from any other feeling? Is it proof of anything?
Do you need to get rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are you?

no, it’s just one more feeling. To be honest though even though I know that it stills feels more real. I see that its not proof of anything. I also see it comes with an idea-an image of a body and that is just arising also. More honesty- I do feel like I need to rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are me but only to the extent that I feel like I am solely them.

I'll ask the obvious questions that you can surely already predict by now. :)

Is the feeling that you need to get rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are you itself proof of anything?
Are you separate from that feeling?
Does the feeling have any inherent meaning?

It is very clear to me when I use direct experience that a thought never references anything. It doesn’t interact with anything, it doesn’t know anything, it can’t act, it has no inherent meaning. this brings up all kinds of fear.

I have never explored whether a thought is about something thoroughly (I thought I had) until just now. That one was very interesting. Now I am beginning to see (not quite clearly though) that it’s nothing. It’s not about anything. If I think the thought “clock” it’s not about the clock itself. It has nothing to do with the clock (I see this in direct experience but I am definitely feeling lots of resistance to this is the form of “of course it’s about the clock and then when I look again I get a glimpse that the word/thought is about nothing)- it hasn't quite "clicked" for me yet.

This is all very clear. I will ask the obvious questions:

Are you separate from the fear?
Does the fear have inherent meaning?

Does the resistance have any inherent meaning?
Are you separate from the resistance?
Is the experience of glimpsing that a word/thought is about nothing inherently more valuable than another experience?

I’m certainly not certain I want to lose myself. I’m not sure at all what this is leading to if I’m totally honest.

Good. When you don't know what you're doing anymore then you're in a good position! )

I definitely am having difficulty with the ownership questions you ask. I know the answer logically but am not able to get there in experience. Maybe it’s the word owner. Let me clarify to see if I am interpreting this correctly- by owner do you mean something different that experiencer, senser, perceiver, feeler, doer etc? Because to me they feel like different things and I can see I am not the experience, senser, etc in direct experience but I can’t see the owner thing. Grant it this is purely theoretical and has nothing to do with direct experience but it seems like if there is no separation between me and anything else then I “own” those experiences.

It feels to me like the two things of no one there and no separation can’t co-exist if that makes any sense. It’s like not owning it means being separate from it. And I don’t think its just semantics- i think this is a roadblock – very foggy here.

I think this actually is just a matter of semantics. When I ask if you are the owner, I intend that essentially as a synonym for experiencer, doer, etc. From my perspective, ownership is a concept that implies separation. If I own a car, for example, then I am separate from the car. Given that, is this matter still a roadblock for you?

I also see in direct experience that a feeling is like a thought in that it has no inherent ability to do anything. Which leads me to wonder who the doer is then??? I think I am turning into my own personal fog machine!

This is very good. So then the question is: does occurrence necessitate a doer? Can you find a doer? Is it possible that what occurs is uncaused?

As with my last answer I still feel like it does obscure that is actually here.

In direct experience is there any evidence that there is something being obscured?

I see it means nothing and therefore should not be a problem but it feels like it is a problem. I see that the assumption just happens (btw, every time I see this I have a thought that goes something like “this is dangerous- if thoughts and feeling don’t mean anything then what will stop you from doing bad things?”- I also see it is kind of a habitual thought that just comes up).

I know I don’t need to get rid of assumptions but I feel like I do. I see that I am stuck in trying to either go to something or get rid of something here (like find enlightenment or get rid of my self or find no one)

This is all very, very good. There are two things here I want to explore further.

First, the sense of danger that you mention. This is, in my experience, quite common. And this is getting closer (again, in my experience) to what you've been overlooking.

What is it that stops you from doing bad things right now?
Are you the controller of yourself?
Are you separate within yourself? (i.e. a controller and a bad person who would do bad things if not controlled.)
What might happen if you neither controlled (resisted) nor indulged (did bad things?) Does that reveal anything?
Is there actually anyone here to do or not do anything?

Second, you say that you feel stuck in trying to go to something or get rid of something. This is very good to see this.

If you could neither go to something nor get rid of something, then what remains?
Are you actually capable of going to something or getting rid of something?
Is there another option apart from going to or getting rid of?

Thoughts and feeling are proof of nothing ( this is becoming clearer but I still reflex back to yes there are almost immediately after I realize they aren’t.
I see that no thought or feeling can actually lead to clarity but again having some resistance here . I see that no thought or feeling can do anything so how could they produce clarity (I must admit this is part experience part logic). I still feel like I can do something about feelings- not sure where or why I’m so stuck on this.

Is the resistance a problem?
Are you choosing the resistance?
Are you separate from the resistance?

Is the feeling that you can do something about feelings a problem?
Are you separate from that feeling?

Is the feeling of stuckness proof of anything?
Are you separate from the feeling of stuckness?
Is the feeling of stuckness the actuality of stuckness?
Is there a separate you who could be stuck?
What could you be stuck in or between? Is there anywhere to get to? Is there anywhere else?

I guess this is probably normal but I'm feeling a lot of frustration like i'm taking one step forward and two steps back. I feel a bit like a failure. I am, at the same time deeply grateful that you are taking the time to help me.

Do you have any evidence that the feeling of frustration is yours or about you?
Is the feeling of frustration a problem?
Do you need to get rid of it?
Is there a separate self who is capable of getting rid of the feeling?

And if I may offer a suggestion: don't resist the frustration or the feeling of failure. See what reveals itself when you neither resist nor indulge.

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

I'll ask the obvious questions that you can surely already predict by now. :)

Is the feeling that you need to get rid of the feeling that bodily sensations are you itself proof of anything?

(I find I am having to be very careful to keep going back to direct experience because I “know” the “right” answers and there is definitely a feeling of wanting to be right, please you and show progress.)
I almost answered “no” right away but when I looked at it I still find some stickiness there. Like the label “me” is really stuck to bodily sensations. The feeling itself seems like proof

Are you separate from that feeling?

Not at all

Does the feeling have any inherent meaning?

I “know” it’s just a feeling doing its thing but it feels meaningful…I feels like the thought “me” references bodily sensations to prove itself real and while I can logically deduce this not to be true I can’t seem to get there in direct experience….frustrating.

brewera wrote:It is very clear to me when I use direct experience that a thought never references anything. It doesn’t interact with anything, it doesn’t know anything, it can’t act, it has no inherent meaning. this brings up all kinds of fear.

I have never explored whether a thought is about something thoroughly (I thought I had) until just now. That one was very interesting. Now I am beginning to see (not quite clearly though) that it’s nothing. It’s not about anything. If I think the thought “clock” it’s not about the clock itself. It has nothing to do with the clock (I see this in direct experience but I am definitely feeling lots of resistance to this is the form of “of course it’s about the clock and then when I look again I get a glimpse that the word/thought is about nothing)- it hasn't quite "clicked" for me yet.


This is all very clear. I will ask the obvious questions:

Are you separate from the fear?

This brings something up. I have always used the “witness” type method to distance myself from feelings in order to see they are not me or cannot harm me (or whose kidding who- to make the feeling go away even though I know that’s not kosher advaita-wise) That habit seems to be coming back to bite me in the ass right now.

Does the fear have inherent meaning?

On one hand I can see it doesn’t. That it is just a phenomenon however on the other hand it feels very much like the fear protects someone even though I can’t find that someone.

Does the resistance have any inherent meaning?

No

Are you separate from the resistance?

No

Is the experience of glimpsing that a word/thought is about nothing inherently more valuable than another experience?

LOL! Here is was thinking I was making progress!!! Good job at helping me see through that posthaste!!! Of course not.

Good. When you don't know what you're doing anymore then you're in a good position! )

then I am definitely in a good position. I can’t tell whether I’m getting more clarity or less clarity. What I have discovered is that I am quite hung up on the idea of making progress.

I think this actually is just a matter of semantics. When I ask if you are the owner, I intend that essentially as a synonym for experiencer, doer, etc. From my perspective, ownership is a concept that implies separation. If I own a car, for example, then I am separate from the car. Given that, is this matter still a roadblock for you?

Not really… shortly after I posted this reply I did it a little differently and looked to see if I could find an owner- and of course I didn’t

brewera wrote:I also see in direct experience that a feeling is like a thought in that it has no inherent ability to do anything. Which leads me to wonder who the doer is then??? I think I am turning into my own personal fog machine!

This is very good. So then the question is: does occurrence necessitate a doer? Can you find a doer? Is it possible that what occurs is uncaused?

At times (like when I’m just sitting still) I can see quite clearly that there is no doer. Its when I am “doing” something like driving a car or producing something at work that I still very much feel like a doer. Like how could there things be happening if I wasn’t doing them or conversely if I wasn’t doing them, would they be happening-no!

brewera wrote:As with my last answer I still feel like it does obscure that is actually here.
In direct experience is there any evidence that there is something being obscured?

no, the obscuring thing is just another feeling/label

brewera wrote:I see it means nothing and therefore should not be a problem but it feels like it is a problem. I see that the assumption just happens (btw, every time I see this I have a thought that goes something like “this is dangerous- if thoughts and feeling don’t mean anything then what will stop you from doing bad things?”- I also see it is kind of a habitual thought that just comes up).

I know I don’t need to get rid of assumptions but I feel like I do. I see that I am stuck in trying to either go to something or get rid of something here (like find enlightenment or get rid of my self or find no one)


This is all very, very good. There are two things here I want to explore further.

First, the sense of danger that you mention. This is, in my experience, quite common. And this is getting closer (again, in my experience) to what you've been overlooking.

Well that nicely feeds my need for progress- LOL!!

What is it that stops you from doing bad things right now?

I’m laughing because it’s so obviously nothing.

Are you the controller of yourself?

There is not a controller- I wrote this but am not sure I’m clear on it. I sometimes get confused between the controller and physical actions. For example, something is controlling the keys my fingers press to form words. On the other hand I can’t find a controller. Additionally, I have a medical background so then I start thinking about things like nervous systems, neurons firing blah blah blah- which I guess are all just thoughts arising.

Are you separate within yourself? (i.e. a controller and a bad person who would do bad things if not controlled.)
Your words are like a scalpel sometimes (in a good way). Just two thoughts.

What might happen if you neither controlled (resisted) nor indulged (did bad things?) Does that reveal anything?

I don’t think anything would happen differently. I can see that I actually don’t do either of those things.

Is there actually anyone here to do or not do anything?

Again I have the confusion about the “doer” I described above.

Second, you say that you feel stuck in trying to go to something or get rid of something. This is very good to see this.

If you could neither go to something nor get rid of something, then what remains?

This almost made by cry but I don’t know why. What would remain- just this.

Are you actually capable of going to something or getting rid of something?

Not so sure about this one. Will work on this some more and get back to you.

Is there another option apart from going to or getting rid of?

Just doing nothing.

brewera wrote: Thoughts and feeling are proof of nothing ( this is becoming clearer but I still reflex back to yes there are almost immediately after I realize they aren’t.
I see that no thought or feeling can actually lead to clarity but again having some resistance here . I see that no thought or feeling can do anything so how could they produce clarity (I must admit this is part experience part logic). I still feel like I can do something about feelings- not sure where or why I’m so stuck on this.


Is the resistance a problem?

No resistance is not a problem. On reading my response again I also realized that it’s not such much that I think a thought or feeling can lead to clarity but more that a feeling will indicate clarity.

Are you choosing the resistance?

Nope, just happening.

Are you separate from the resistance?

I am really getting stuck on this separate thing. There is resistance and the noticing of it so it feels like resistance

Is the feeling that you can do something about feelings a problem?

No, its just a feeling

Are you separate from that feeling?

No, this one seems clear.

Is the feeling of stuckness proof of anything?

Nope

Are you separate from the feeling of stuckness?

Nope

Is the feeling of stuckness the actuality of stuckness?

HAHAHAHAHA! Nope

Is there a separate you who could be stuck?

Can’t find one.

What could you be stuck in or between? Is there anywhere to get to? Is there anywhere else?

Just here. Just now.

brewera wrote:I guess this is probably normal but I'm feeling a lot of frustration like i'm taking one step forward and two steps back. I feel a bit like a failure. I am, at the same time deeply grateful that you are taking the time to help me.

Do you have any evidence that the feeling of frustration is yours or about you?

You are so relentless but I’m very grateful for it. No evidence whatsoever

Is the feeling of frustration a problem?

No. Just a feeling.

Do you need to get rid of it?

to be honest there is definitely still a feeling of wanting to get rid of it.

Is there a separate self who is capable of getting rid of the feeling?

I had never looked at it like that before- good point- can’t find anyone!

And if I may offer a suggestion: don't resist the frustration or the feeling of failure. See what reveals itself when you neither resist nor indulge.

I will do that. So far I have just been analyzing it which I suspect is just a form of resistance.

Thanks again Joey.
Angela

[joeylott]

Angela,

This is all very good. I've got a handful of more questions for you to explore.

(I find I am having to be very careful to keep going back to direct experience because I “know” the “right” answers and there is definitely a feeling of wanting to be right, please you and show progress.)
I almost answered “no” right away but when I looked at it I still find some stickiness there. Like the label “me” is really stuck to bodily sensations. The feeling itself seems like proof

What I am seeing over and and over again (and you have now said as much too) is that you seem to expect that certain feelings will disappear and other feelings will appear as a confirmation of clear seeing. So let's explore this.

Is the feeling of stickiness inherently meaningful?
Is the feeling of stickiness about you?
Is the feeling of stickiness proof of anything?
If the feeling of stickiness disappeared and a feeling of freedom appeared, would that mean anything or prove anything?

I “know” it’s just a feeling doing its thing but it feels meaningful…I feels like the thought “me” references bodily sensations to prove itself real and while I can logically deduce this not to be true I can’t seem to get there in direct experience….frustrating.

What would "getting there in direct experience" be like? How would you know that you had arrived?
Whatever feelings, sensations, or thoughts appear, are they actually problematic? Do they actually mean anything?
Are any of them actually about you regardless of what feelings seem to appear?

This brings something up. I have always used the “witness” type method to distance myself from feelings in order to see they are not me or cannot harm me (or whose kidding who- to make the feeling go away even though I know that’s not kosher advaita-wise) That habit seems to be coming back to bite me in the ass right now.

Great! So then take a look and see if the appearance of the witness and the phenomenon of seeming distance between a sense of self and a sense of other is inherently meaningful. Is it about you? Is it yours? Can you choose or control the appearance of the witness or any other phenomenon? Does any of it actually create or prove the existence of anyone separate?

Does the fear have inherent meaning?

On one hand I can see it doesn’t. That it is just a phenomenon however on the other hand it feels very much like the fear protects someone even though I can’t find that someone.

Wonderful. So does the feeling that fear protects someone actually reference anything or anyone? Is the feeling proof of the existence of a separate self? Are you separate from the feeling?

then I am definitely in a good position. I can’t tell whether I’m getting more clarity or less clarity. What I have discovered is that I am quite hung up on the idea of making progress.

Yes! Now look to see if you are the one getting hung up. The experience that you call hung up seems to imply that someone is getting hung up. Can you find that one? Is the feeling of getting hung up proof of anything? Is there actually anything happening to someone?

At times (like when I’m just sitting still) I can see quite clearly that there is no doer. Its when I am “doing” something like driving a car or producing something at work that I still very much feel like a doer. Like how could there things be happening if I wasn’t doing them or conversely if I wasn’t doing them, would they be happening-no!

I suggest that you explore the actuality of what is happening in direct experience. Regardless of whether it appears that you are sitting or it appears that you are driving or producing, remain with direct, non-conceptual perception. Go for a short walk. Remain with direct perception. Let everything happen as it does. And see if you can find proof that you are doing anything. Look at several points to see if you can find the one who is actually doing any of it. You assume there must be. You assume that you are that one. But what do you actually find?

Is the appearance of a sense of doership itself proof of a doer? Can you ever find the one who is doing anything?

There is not a controller- I wrote this but am not sure I’m clear on it. I sometimes get confused between the controller and physical actions. For example, something is controlling the keys my fingers press to form words. On the other hand I can’t find a controller. Additionally, I have a medical background so then I start thinking about things like nervous systems, neurons firing blah blah blah- which I guess are all just thoughts arising.

What is your proof that something is controlling the keys your fingers press to form words? What evidence do you have that there must be a controller of any sort anywhere? Must apparent actions be caused? Is there actually any separate self to be found anywhere? Can you even find actions if you explore direct experience? What is actually here?

No resistance is not a problem. On reading my response again I also realized that it’s not such much that I think a thought or feeling can lead to clarity but more that a feeling will indicate clarity.

Yes! That is very, very clear.

I am really getting stuck on this separate thing. There is resistance and the noticing of it so it feels like resistance

Is noticing separate from what is noticed? Is there a separate noticer? Is there actually any possibility of separation here? Explore this in direct experience.

Do you need to get rid of it?

to be honest there is definitely still a feeling of wanting to get rid of it.

Sure. And does the feeling of wanting to get rid of it have any inherent meaning? Is it proof of anything?
Is there anyone separate from the feeling who can take receipt of it and then do something?

I will do that. So far I have just been analyzing it which I suspect is just a form of resistance.

Yes. This is very good. Analysis is a (futile) strategy for resisting what is already here.

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

What I am seeing over and and over again (and you have now said as much too) is that you seem to expect that certain feelings will disappear and other feelings will appear as a confirmation of clear seeing. So let's explore this.

Is the feeling of stickiness inherently meaningful?

No just a concept. References only itself it seems.

Is the feeling of stickiness about you?

No. not at all. I just had a really quick flash of no one there at all.

Is the feeling of stickiness proof of anything?

Of course not

If the feeling of stickiness disappeared and a feeling of freedom appeared, would that mean anything or prove anything?

No, as I have discovered over and over and then subsequently forgotten over and over feelings don’t inherently mean anything. I’m still getting a bit sidetracked with questions that arise like “what are they here for if they don’t mean anything” - I see this too is just a thought with no inherent meaning but I’m not quite “free” of it so to speak.

What would "getting there in direct experience" be like? How would you know that you had arrived?

Good question. I have asked myself this many times. I don’t know what it would be like in direct experience. I imagine (operative word here being imagine) that I would somehow feel like no one which seems absolutely ridiculous even as I type it. How could you ever feel like no one? But still this persists as an expectation. I read about a quarter of the gateless gatecrasher book before going to the guiding area and everyone seems to have some kind of breakthrough, however subtle so I’m imagining there must be some way of knowing. I just don’t know what that way is

Whatever feelings, sensations, or thoughts appear, are they actually problematic? Do they actually mean anything?

I can see that they are as themselves meaningless and therefore not problematic. It’s weird to realize that life has no meaning. I can see how that belief was deeply ingrained (and still somewhat functioning) in me.

Are any of them actually about you regardless of what feelings seem to appear?

when I look for a me for them to be about I don’t find anything- although I see that I subtly still expect to find nothing – nutty!!

Great! So then take a look and see if the appearance of the witness and the phenomenon of seeming distance between a sense of self and a sense of other is inherently meaningful. Is it about you? Is it yours? Can you choose or control the appearance of the witness or any other phenomenon? Does any of it actually create or prove the existence of anyone separate?

Wow and wow! I see now the “witness” feeling and the “witness” thought are just that. I see that the feeling or concept of distance is also just a thought and a feeling. I still have a nagging me-ness about the body and a resistance around the body not being the centre of experience but I think I am getting a glimmer here. Definitely some heavy resistance here still.

Wonderful. So does the feeling that fear protects someone actually reference anything or anyone? Is the feeling proof of the existence of a separate self? Are you separate from the feeling?

I can kind of feel that there is nothing/no one behind the fear to protect. The fear proves nothing other than a sensation is arising with a thought label. I am not separate from this or any other feeling. I kind of feel “off balance” when I explore this like I’m falling for a second- very strange feeling

Yes! Now look to see if you are the one getting hung up. The experience that you call hung up seems to imply that someone is getting hung up. Can you find that one? Is the feeling of getting hung up proof of anything? Is there actually anything happening to someone?

You should call yourself Joey the spiritual surgeon- LOL! I can’t find that one anywhere. And of course the feeling isn’t proof of anything. There is nothing happening to no one. Fuck me!

I suggest that you explore the actuality of what is happening in direct experience. Regardless of whether it appears that you are sitting or it appears that you are driving or producing, remain with direct, non-conceptual perception. Go for a short walk. Remain with direct perception. Let everything happen as it does. And see if you can find proof that you are doing anything. Look at several points to see if you can find the one who is actually doing any of it. You assume there must be. You assume that you are that one. But what do you actually find?

Is the appearance of a sense of doership itself proof of a doer? Can you ever find the one who is doing anything?

I’m am gonna work on this a bit before responding.

What is your proof that something is controlling the keys your fingers press to form words? What evidence do you have that there must be a controller of any sort anywhere? Must apparent actions be caused? Is there actually any separate self to be found anywhere? Can you even find actions if you explore direct experience? What is actually here?

Again I am gonna need some time with this one.

brewera wrote:I am really getting stuck on this separate thing. There is resistance and the noticing of it so it feels like resistance

Is noticing separate from what is noticed? Is there a separate noticer? Is there actually any possibility of separation here? Explore this in direct experience.

No. it’s not separate or the thing noticed couldn’t be noticed. There is no separate noticer. There is also no possibility of separation or nothing could be noticed. The noticing and the object seem to arise together- I’m not sure that entirely accurate but it seems that way.

It’s like everything arises together and another arising I will call attention seems to notice one thing at a time. So really everything is one thing but attention divides it – I think.

Sure. And does the feeling of wanting to get rid of it have any inherent meaning? Is it proof of anything?

No, it has no inherent meaning. In fact it is just a sensation or set of sensations (something in the gut and something in the jaw) and then a label that classified it as resistance. And then a thought that resistance is bad and then a thought that it needs to be gotten rid of. All of that is overlaid with a subtle but still present “me” perfume. But neither the sensations nor the thoughts have any meaning in and of themselves. In fact if the thoughts (words) were written in wingdings instead of English it would have no meaning so there can’t be any meaning inherent in the word or concept itself. Concepts are really weird once you see them for what they are- completely empty. That got me thinking that if concepts are empty than what about the “things” they point to and I kind of realized that there are no “things” because without concepts what is there really- something unnamable.

A meaningless sensation and an empty concept can’t prove anything (okay i am not using direct experience here - I realize that)

Is there anyone separate from the feeling who can take receipt of it and then do something?

There is no one separate nor anyone who can take receipt of it nor anyone to do anything. I just realized you switched up ownership with receipt. Very clever- it worked!

And if I may offer a suggestion: don't resist the frustration or the feeling of failure. See what reveals itself when you neither resist nor indulge.
brewera wrote:I will do that. So far I have just been analyzing it which I suspect is just a form of resistance.

Yes. This is very good. Analysis is a (futile) strategy for resisting what is already here.

I explored this a bit more since last writing and without resisting or indulging there is just openness. Then in comes the mind and says “you better do something with that” but I can see it’s just a thought.

Are you actually capable of going to something or getting rid of something? (from our last conversation)

I looked at this one again and it seems like everything comes to me or shows up somehow and then goes away again. No effort required on my part. I still feel an ownership but this is somewhat clearer.

On a completely different topic are you able to share with me how guides pick those ready to be guided on this website because it seems like you are the perfect guide for me..

[joeylott]

Angela,

It's getting clearer and clearer.

Is the feeling of stickiness about you?

No. not at all. I just had a really quick flash of no one there at all.

Wonderful. Now, of course, you know I have to ask: is the really quick flash of no one there the actuality of no one there? Is there anyone separate from that experience to claim it? Is there any separate self who can possess the discovery of no separate self?

No, as I have discovered over and over and then subsequently forgotten over and over feelings don’t inherently mean anything. I’m still getting a bit sidetracked with questions that arise like “what are they here for if they don’t mean anything” - I see this too is just a thought with no inherent meaning but I’m not quite “free” of it so to speak.

This is very good.

Can you find the one that you call yourself that might be able to be "free" of a thought or feeling?
What would be your evidence that you had become "free"? How would you know?

Good question. I have asked myself this many times. I don’t know what it would be like in direct experience. I imagine (operative word here being imagine) that I would somehow feel like no one which seems absolutely ridiculous even as I type it. How could you ever feel like no one? But still this persists as an expectation. I read about a quarter of the gateless gatecrasher book before going to the guiding area and everyone seems to have some kind of breakthrough, however subtle so I’m imagining there must be some way of knowing. I just don’t know what that way is

As you have reported back numerous times now, feelings (and experiences more generally) have no inherent meaning. Nor are they about you. Nor can you take possession of them. So once you see that, then can you say that a particular experience that you call a breakthrough would indicate anything? Is a breakthrough meaningful or indicative of anything? Would the breakthrough be about you?

Is a breakthrough experience necessary? What could that possibly give you? Could it confirm anything?

Or, to look at it another way, couldn't you simply redefine any arbitrary experience to serve as the confirmation? And then once you have the confirmation, what then? Does that confirmation actually change anything?

Wow and wow! I see now the “witness” feeling and the “witness” thought are just that. I see that the feeling or concept of distance is also just a thought and a feeling. I still have a nagging me-ness about the body and a resistance around the body not being the centre of experience but I think I am getting a glimmer here. Definitely some heavy resistance here still.

This is very good. So now see if the resistance has any inherent meaning. Is the resistance problematic? And, in fact, does what you call resistance actually resist anything? Is that feeling capable of doing anything at all? Is it capable of knowing about anything else which it could actually resist?

I suggest that you explore the actuality of what is happening in direct experience. Regardless of whether it appears that you are sitting or it appears that you are driving or producing, remain with direct, non-conceptual perception. Go for a short walk. Remain with direct perception. Let everything happen as it does. And see if you can find proof that you are doing anything. Look at several points to see if you can find the one who is actually doing any of it. You assume there must be. You assume that you are that one. But what do you actually find?

Is the appearance of a sense of doership itself proof of a doer? Can you ever find the one who is doing anything?

I’m am gonna work on this a bit before responding.

I look forward to hearing your findings.

What is your proof that something is controlling the keys your fingers press to form words? What evidence do you have that there must be a controller of any sort anywhere? Must apparent actions be caused? Is there actually any separate self to be found anywhere? Can you even find actions if you explore direct experience? What is actually here?

Again I am gonna need some time with this one.

ditto my last comment.

No. it’s not separate or the thing noticed couldn’t be noticed. There is no separate noticer. There is also no possibility of separation or nothing could be noticed. The noticing and the object seem to arise together- I’m not sure that entirely accurate but it seems that way.

This is good. A minor point to clarify: is there actually any boundary to be found between noticing and object? Can you actually find two things happening?

It’s like everything arises together and another arising I will call attention seems to notice one thing at a time. So really everything is one thing but attention divides it – I think.

This is good. Quite clear. Look a little more closely. Is there ever more than one thing happening? Can you actually find a boundary? Is there a separate happening called attention? Is what you are calling attention actually separate from what seemingly is being divided?

All of that is overlaid with a subtle but still present “me” perfume.

Does this phenomenon that you call the "me" perfume need to change for any reason? Does the phenomenon mean anything? Is it problematic in any way? And is the phenomenon actually proof of a separate self?

(okay i am not using direct experience here - I realize that)

You're deep enough in now, so I can explode the last few concepts you have. Here's my question: is there actually anything that is outside of direct experience?

I explored this a bit more since last writing and without resisting or indulging there is just openness. Then in comes the mind and says “you better do something with that” but I can see it’s just a thought.

Yes!

I looked at this one again and it seems like everything comes to me or shows up somehow and then goes away again. No effort required on my part. I still feel an ownership but this is somewhat clearer.

Very good. Let's explore a few points.

First, you say that it seems like "everything comes up to me." This phrasing may reveal a subtle sense of being the experiencer. So take a look and see if phenomena actually are appearing *to* you. Are you the observer or experiencer of phenomena? Is there a findable, separate self to take receipt of phenomena?

Secondly, is the feeling of ownership in any way a problem? Does the feeling of ownership prove the existence of a separate self that can own anything?

On a completely different topic are you able to share with me how guides pick those ready to be guided on this website because it seems like you are the perfect guide for me..

Ouija board.

Sincerely,
Joey

P.S. - I was joking about the ouija board. Actually, we use astrology.

P.P.S. - I was joking about astrology. Actually, in all sincerity, I happened to read your introduction and offered to help guide. First come, first served sort of thing. Simple as that. Ouija sounded more interesting, eh?

[Angela12]

hi Joey:

Wonderful. Now, of course, you know I have to ask: is the really quick flash of no one there the actuality of no one there? Is there anyone separate from that experience to claim it? Is there any separate self who can possess the discovery of no separate self?

Since I am no longer having the quick flash it’s hard to explore but I would say from where I am right now it was an appearance (because it’s gone). No one is separate from the experience. I guess no one can’t claim no self.

Can you find the one that you call yourself that might be able to be "free" of a thought or feeling?
What would be your evidence that you had become "free"? How would you know?

It seems like what I am is inherently free of thoughts and feelings- let me rephrase. It seems like what I am is inherently free of the meanings associated with thoughts and feelings. Or completely welcoming of them or some such thing- so in that way free of them. If you mean free of them as in they don’t exist, then no. they arise but meaningless is seen if you know what I mean (I hope you do because it seemed pretty convoluted when I wrote it.

As you have reported back numerous times now, feelings (and experiences more generally) have no inherent meaning. Nor are they about you. Nor can you take possession of them. So once you see that, then can you say that a particular experience that you call a breakthrough would indicate anything? Is a breakthrough meaningful or indicative of anything? Would the breakthrough be about you?

OHHHH…I totally see what you mean. EVERY experience is just that, an experience, and is therefore limited and has no inherent meaning, etc. None of these experiences can know anything else nor do they reference anything else. i get that. But, crap- who is the knower then? i can't find a knower so how are these experiences known? it seems like knowing always exists (and not a separate knowing but one that is part of everything) and experiences are limited. Am i way off track here.

Is a breakthrough experience necessary? What could that possibly give you? Could it confirm anything?

I have to say it still seems necessary. I guess I’m a little mired in this one. But I see that it wouldn’t necessarily confirm anything.

Or, to look at it another way, couldn't you simply redefine any arbitrary experience to serve as the confirmation? And then once you have the confirmation, what then? Does that confirmation actually change anything?

Ok, that's a bit clearer but I'm not quite there yet.

brewera wrote:Wow and wow! I see now the “witness” feeling and the “witness” thought are just that. I see that the feeling or concept of distance is also just a thought and a feeling. I still have a nagging me-ness about the body and a resistance around the body not being the centre of experience but I think I am getting a glimmer here. Definitely some heavy resistance here still

This is very good. So now see if the resistance has any inherent meaning. Is the resistance problematic? And, in fact, does what you call resistance actually resist anything? Is that feeling capable of doing anything at all? Is it capable of knowing about anything else which it could actually resist?

Resistance has no inherent meaning. Just a sensation + label. It doesn’t resist anything nor could it- that is REALLY clear this time. It has no ability to act at all. Or to produce meaning.

brewera wrote:
I suggest that you explore the actuality of what is happening in direct experience. Regardless of whether it appears that you are sitting or it appears that you are driving or producing, remain with direct, non-conceptual perception. Go for a short walk. Remain with direct perception. Let everything happen as it does. And see if you can find proof that you are doing anything. Look at several points to see if you can find the one who is actually doing any of it. You assume there must be. You assume that you are that one. But what do you actually find?

Is the appearance of a sense of doership itself proof of a doer? Can you ever find the one who is doing anything?

I’m am gonna work on this a bit before responding.

I look forward to hearing your findings.

Still working on this one.

What is your proof that something is controlling the keys your fingers press to form words? What evidence do you have that there must be a controller of any sort anywhere? Must apparent actions be caused? Is there actually any separate self to be found anywhere? Can you even find actions if you explore direct experience? What is actually here?

Again I am gonna need some time with this one.
ditto my last comment.

And ditto my last comment as well.

This is good. A minor point to clarify: is there actually any boundary to be found between noticing and object? Can you actually find two things happening?

No boundary whatsoever.

brewera wrote:It’s like everything arises together and another arising I will call attention seems to notice one thing at a time. So really everything is one thing but attention divides it – I think.

This is good. Quite clear. Look a little more closely. Is there ever more than one thing happening? Can you actually find a boundary? Is there a separate happening called attention? Is what you are calling attention actually separate from what seemingly is being divided?

I think I see what you’re getting at. All the things (objects, appearance, whatevers) really are just one big thing – like sensingperceivingthinking -all one thing- this would include the appearance of what I call attention. It seems like the only division is thought-based illusion.

Does this phenomenon that you call the "me" perfume need to change for any reason? Does the phenomenon mean anything? Is it problematic in any way? And is the phenomenon actually proof of a separate self

?
I see now that the phenomenon I call me is just part of the fabric of sensingpercievingthinking.

You're deep enough in now, so I can explode the last few concepts you have. Here's my question: is there actually anything that is outside of direct experience?

HAHAHAHAHA- wow! Of course not. How could there be!!!

brewera wrote:I looked at this one again and it seems like everything comes to me or shows up somehow and then goes away again. No effort required on my part. I still feel an ownership but this is somewhat clearer.

Very good. Let's explore a few points.

First, you say that it seems like "everything comes up to me." This phrasing may reveal a subtle sense of being the experiencer. So take a look and see if phenomena actually are appearing *to* you. Are you the observer or experiencer of phenomena? Is there a findable, separate self to take receipt of phenomena?

You are correct. There is definitely a subtle sense of being the experiencer. I have to actively look to find no experiencer otherwise the old bugger just shows up.

Secondly, is the feeling of ownership in any way a problem? Does the feeling of ownership prove the existence of a separate self that can own anything?

No sir.

brewera wrote:On a completely different topic are you able to share with me how guides pick those ready to be guided on this website because it seems like you are the perfect guide for me..

Ouija board.

Sincerely,
Joey

P.S. - I was joking about the ouija board. Actually, we use astrology.

P.P.S. - I was joking about astrology. Actually, in all sincerity, I happened to read your introduction and offered to help guide. First come, first served sort of thing. Simple as that. Ouija sounded more interesting, eh?

Damn! I thought for sure you used a divining rod!!

Thanks again Joey. Appreciated as always.

[joeylott]

Angela,

We seem to be whittling this down very nicely.

OHHHH…I totally see what you mean. EVERY experience is just that, an experience, and is therefore limited and has no inherent meaning, etc. None of these experiences can know anything else nor do they reference anything else. i get that. But, crap- who is the knower then? i can't find a knower so how are these experiences known? it seems like knowing always exists (and not a separate knowing but one that is part of everything) and experiences are limited. Am i way off track here.

Does knowing require a knower? If you cannot find the knower then why assume there is one?

As to knowing always existing and experiences are limited - that may be one way to see it. Ultimately, however, are you satisfied with any understanding? Does that understanding actually capture the reality of what is? Is the understanding necessary in any way or for any reason?

Is a breakthrough experience necessary? What could that possibly give you? Could it confirm anything?

I have to say it still seems necessary. I guess I’m a little mired in this one. But I see that it wouldn’t necessarily confirm anything.

Is the feeling that it seems necessary proof that anything is necessary? If the feeling that it seems necessary magically vanished, would you have any evidence whatsoever that a breakthrough experience is actually necessary? What might the outcome of a breakthrough experience be? Would the resultant experience actually have any inherent value or meaning? Do any of these experiences belong to you? Are you defined by the experiences? Do the experiences actually affect you?

I think I see what you’re getting at. All the things (objects, appearance, whatevers) really are just one big thing – like sensingperceivingthinking -all one thing- this would include the appearance of what I call attention. It seems like the only division is thought-based illusion.

I see now that the phenomenon I call me is just part of the fabric of sensingpercievingthinking.

Very clear.

You are correct. There is definitely a subtle sense of being the experiencer. I have to actively look to find no experiencer otherwise the old bugger just shows up.

Is the appearance of a seeming experiencer a problem? Is that appearance fundamentally any different than the appearance of a car or a coffee cup? Does the appearance of an experiencer pose any problem? Do you need to get rid of the experiencer phenomenon? Could you get rid of it?

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

Hi Joey:

Does knowing require a knower? If you cannot find the knower then why assume there is one?

I never thought of it that way (i.e in a non egocentric way-LOL). There is no reason that knowing would require a knower and it clearly doesn’t because in direct experience there is knowing by no knower.

As to knowing always existing and experiences are limited - that may be one way to see it. Ultimately, however, are you satisfied with any understanding? Does that understanding actually capture the reality of what is? Is the understanding necessary in any way or for any reason?

Good question. As you can see I am quite hung up on understanding things and how they work. Now that you ask that I can see that any understanding would just be an experience and could not capture the reality of what is? Then my mind stopped from sheer exhaustion for a second…
I’m struggling a bit with whether understanding in necessary although I know that statement completely contradicts what I just wrote about understanding being just another experience. A little muddled here.



Is a breakthrough experience necessary? What could that possibly give you? Could it confirm anything?

I have to say it still seems necessary. I guess I’m a little mired in this one. But I see that it wouldn’t necessarily confirm anything.

Is the feeling that it seems necessary proof that anything is necessary? If the feeling that it seems necessary magically vanished, would you have any evidence whatsoever that a breakthrough experience is actually necessary? What might the outcome of a breakthrough experience be? Would the resultant experience actually have any inherent value or meaning? Do any of these experiences belong to you? Are you defined by the experiences? Do the experiences actually affect you?

No, the feeling is just a feeling (you would think I would have seen through this by now) and is not proof that anything is necessary. It’s not proof of anything really except maybe that knowing exists.

The outcome of a breakthrough experience… well, enlightenment…okay, okay I see that is just a concept arising along with the concept that I need it or can get it somehow.

The experience, like any experience, would have no inherent meaning, would not belong to me, define me or affect me- it’s shocking to see how I “get” something and then backslide right back into the “me” habit.

Is the appearance of a seeming experiencer a problem? Is that appearance fundamentally any different than the appearance of a car or a coffee cup? Does the appearance of an experiencer pose any problem? Do you need to get rid of the experiencer phenomenon? Could you get rid of it?

Ultimately I can see that the appearance of an experiencer is not a problem and is not fundamentally different from any other experience as long as I stick with direct experience.
I neither could get rid of it nor do I need to.

From our last conversation:

I suggest that you explore the actuality of what is happening in direct experience. Regardless of whether it appears that you are sitting or it appears that you are driving or producing, remain with direct, non-conceptual perception. Go for a short walk. Remain with direct perception. Let everything happen as it does. And see if you can find proof that you are doing anything. Look at several points to see if you can find the one who is actually doing any of it. You assume there must be. You assume that you are that one. But what do you actually find?

Is the appearance of a sense of doership itself proof of a doer? Can you ever find the one who is doing anything?

I’m am gonna work on this a bit before responding.

I have been doing this (in the shower, driving, at work, going to sleep etc) and it is becoming clearer but I need some guidance around movement. Anything requiring movement seems to solidify a “me” entity rather quickly. I’m having a hard time getting down to a direct experience of movement.

Also, now that I’m at work I feel much more a separate me than I did over the weekend. Any suggestions?

What is your proof that something is controlling the keys your fingers press to form words? What evidence do you have that there must be a controller of any sort anywhere? Must apparent actions be caused? Is there actually any separate self to be found anywhere? Can you even find actions if you explore direct experience? What is actually here?
Again I am gonna need some time with this one.

I am very close to seeing there is no controller although the “controller” thought and feeling are surfacing relentless (don’t worry- I see they don’t mean anything nor do they have an owner).

I can see that actions just happen (although I only see this occasionally after some real intense looking). I can’t find a separate self which apparently doesn’t stop me from looking (as an aside I see the looking is an appearance)

When I look to see if I can find actions in direct experience I get caught up in the question about movement. But maybe movement does prove anything. I’m confused because I haven’t been able to find movement in direct experience (instead I just find various appearances) but the whole movement question persists.

Thanks,
Angela

[joeylott]

Angela,

Great investigation.

Good question. As you can see I am quite hung up on understanding things and how they work. Now that you ask that I can see that any understanding would just be an experience and could not capture the reality of what is? Then my mind stopped from sheer exhaustion for a second…
I’m struggling a bit with whether understanding in necessary although I know that statement completely contradicts what I just wrote about understanding being just another experience. A little muddled here.

Can understanding do anything? Can understanding produce anything? Can understanding give you anything? Are you separate from either the experience of understanding or the experience of not understanding? Is there fundamentally a different between the experience of understanding or the experience of not understanding? Is there anyone who can take receipt of understanding? Is there actually any possible outcome as a result of understanding?

The experience, like any experience, would have no inherent meaning, would not belong to me, define me or affect me- it’s shocking to see how I “get” something and then backslide right back into the “me” habit.

Yes! So now, does the experience of getting something or the experience of backsliding actually reference a separate self? Is there anyone to take receipt of either experience? Does either experience mean anything? Is the "me" habit about you? Does it affect you? Is there anyone separate from the phenomenon that you call the "me" habit?

Ultimately I can see that the appearance of an experiencer is not a problem and is not fundamentally different from any other experience as long as I stick with direct experience.

Wonderful! Now, is the seeing in this case (which is another experience) necessary in any way for the actuality of the absence of an experiencer to be the case? Do you need a particular experience of seeing?

I have been doing this (in the shower, driving, at work, going to sleep etc) and it is becoming clearer but I need some guidance around movement. Anything requiring movement seems to solidify a “me” entity rather quickly. I’m having a hard time getting down to a direct experience of movement.

I'm guessing that you've turned direct experience into a particular feeling state or a particular category of experience. Whereas, actually, as we've explored previously, direct experience is unavoidable. That is all that is happening!

I'm also guessing that there is something about the experience of the relative stillness of the body that you conceptually conflate with freedom or clarity - as if clarity is a particular category of experience such as "stillness."

See if any of that is true.

Sit still and notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Notice that seemingly on top of the non-conceptual perception there is a layer of conceptual interpretation such as labeling a particular experience of relative stillness as being "direct experience" or "it." Is the concept of an experience the actuality of an experience? Does an experience have any inherent value or meaning? Is the conceptual layer actually separate from direct experience? Is there any effort necessary or possible in the experience of what I've been terming the conceptual?

Now go for a walk or do some activity that you normally conceive of as obscuring direct experience. Notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Whatever conceptual phenomena seem to be occurring, can you find a separation between you and that? Is there actually any possibility of anything apart from direct experience?

Also, now that I’m at work I feel much more a separate me than I did over the weekend. Any suggestions?

What is your evidence of being a separate me? Is that experience actually proof of anything? Is it possible to escape direct experience?

I am very close to seeing there is no controller although the “controller” thought and feeling are surfacing relentless (don’t worry- I see they don’t mean anything nor do they have an owner).

Good. I smiled at your parenthetical statement. I'm glad that you're sparing me the typing of the questions now! :)

I can see that actions just happen (although I only see this occasionally after some real intense looking). I can’t find a separate self which apparently doesn’t stop me from looking (as an aside I see the looking is an appearance)

This is very good. Now just see if the "real intense looking" is actually something that you are doing. Is there actually any effort involved or even possible even in the phenomenon that you call "real intense looking?"

When I look to see if I can find actions in direct experience I get caught up in the question about movement. But maybe movement does prove anything. I’m confused because I haven’t been able to find movement in direct experience (instead I just find various appearances) but the whole movement question persists.

If you cannot find something, then why assume that it exists? Isn't it possible that the concept of movement is simply a conceptual interpretation of a phenomenon that in direct experience doesn't match the concept? Movement requires time and space. In direct experience can you find time or space? Might the absence of time and space explain the absence of movement?

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

Hi Joey:

I'm beginning to despair that this will never sink in. Thanks for your ongoing help.

brewera wrote: Good question. As you can see I am quite hung up on understanding things and how they work. Now t

hat you ask that I can see that any understanding would just be an experience and could not capture the reality of what is? Then my mind stopped from sheer exhaustion for a second…
I’m struggling a bit with whether understanding in necessary although I know that statement completely contradicts what I just wrote about understanding being just another experience. A little muddled here.

Can understanding do anything? Can understanding produce anything? Can understanding give you anything? Are you separate from either the experience of understanding or the experience of not understanding? Is there fundamentally a different between the experience of understanding or the experience of not understanding? Is there anyone who can take receipt of understanding? Is there actually any possible outcome as a result of understanding?

I want to write understanding can’t do anything but I still feel like it provides (produces) some power somehow to solve or resolve or something like that. The power to “fix” things maybe. That might be a clue. I am all about diving in and researching and taking action to resolve or solve something. Feels like I’m the doer of that.
Fundamentally I can see there is no difference but there is definitely a strong “ownership” aspect that comes up here. I can kind of see in direct experience that there is no owner but it not very clear at all. And it feels really strongly like understanding produces an outcome.

Yes! So now, does the experience of getting something or the experience of backsliding actually reference a separate self? Is there anyone to take receipt of either experience? Does either experience mean anything? Is the "me" habit about you? Does it affect you? Is there anyone separate from the phenomenon that you call the "me" habit?

There is a strong sense of ownership in this one too. I can see intellectually that neither experience references a separate self but certainly not experientially in any way. There is a very strong sense of identity with being intelligent and able to solve things. To use the mind in this way. Okay, a little glimmer just now when I realize that all that could be happening without “me” – like just happening but still quite foggy on this one.

brewera wrote: Ultimately I can see that the appearance of an experiencer is not a problem and is not fundamentally different from any other experience as long as I stick with direct experience.

Wonderful! Now, is the seeing in this case (which is another experience) necessary in any way for the actuality of the absence of an experiencer to be the case? Do you need a particular experience of seeing?

Well, I seem stumped on every question this time around. I see that seeing is not necessary but I don’t see how you would know it wasn’t necessary unless you saw it wasn’t necessary. How’s that for circular logic?

brewera wrote:I have been doing this (in the shower, driving, at work, going to sleep etc) and it is becoming clearer but I need some guidance around movement. Anything requiring movement seems to solidify a “me” entity rather quickly. I’m having a hard time getting down to a direct experience of movement.

I'm guessing that you've turned direct experience into a particular feeling state or a particular category of experience. Whereas, actually, as we've explored previously, direct experience is unavoidable. That is all that is happening!

I'm also guessing that there is something about the experience of the relative stillness of the body that you conceptually conflate with freedom or clarity - as if clarity is a particular category of experience such as "stillness."

See if any of that is true.

Sit still and notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Notice that seemingly on top of the non-conceptual perception there is a layer of conceptual interpretation such as labeling a particular experience of relative stillness as being "direct experience" or "it." Is the concept of an experience the actuality of an experience? Does an experience have any inherent value or meaning? Is the conceptual layer actually separate from direct experience? Is there any effort necessary or possible in the experience of what I've been terming the conceptual?

Now go for a walk or do some activity that you normally conceive of as obscuring direct experience. Notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Whatever conceptual phenomena seem to be occurring, can you find a separation between you and that? Is there actually any possibility of anything apart from direct experience?

I will work on this tonight but for the time being I think you might be on to something. I definitely equate direct experience with the sublest “form” I can experience. For example, typing is sensing and seeing and hearing and thinking (labeling) but in a felt sense kind of way if that makes any sense– if that’s not direct experience then I am way off base in my exploration.

brewera wrote: Also, now that I’m at work I feel much more a separate me than I did over the weekend. Any suggestions?
What is your evidence of being a separate me? Is that experience actually proof of anything? Is it possible to escape direct experience?

I see that it is just a feeling that is arises more often. It of course proves nothing and I could never escape direct experience.

This is very good. Now just see if the "real intense looking" is actually something that you are doing. Is there actually any effort involved or even possible even in the phenomenon that you call "real intense looking?"

I am really resisting this exploration right now. Interesting. Or should I say that resisting is arising. – Again I see that it is an appearance but thought it might be important to mention (it likely isn’t important because how could it be more important than any other experience when they are all meaningless- this is all hurting my head today!!

brewera wrote: When I look to see if I can find actions in direct experience I get caught up in the question about movement. But maybe movement does prove anything. I’m confused because I haven’t been able to find movement in direct experience (instead I just find various appearances) but the whole movement question persists.

If you cannot find something, then why assume that it exists? Isn't it possible that the concept of movement is simply a conceptual interpretation of a phenomenon that in direct experience doesn't match the concept? Movement requires time and space. In direct experience can you find time or space? Might the absence of time and space explain the absence of movement?

I kind of saw that after I sent the last one in. The part about space and time. No space or time=no movement. But doesn’t it also = no appearances? I will ponder this some more.

I honestly don't know if i have more clarity or am more and more confused!!


Angela

[joeylott]

Angela,

Something just occurred to me that seems relevant at this point. You mentioned in your introduction that you have been seeking for about ten years in the realm of non-duality. But what you have yet to mention is why you imagine that you seek. It seems to me that you have an earnestness and a sincerity about you that seem to go well beyond a mere intellectual curiosity. You seem driven.

What I've noticed is that often times we fixate on what we imagine will be the positive goal that we might attain - enlightenment, liberation, awakening, peace, etc. But as you're surely starting to see, much of that was only ever a fantasy. So in this exploration the fantasy begins to dissolve. What then?

What I find is that the positive goal - the fantasy - was part of a duality. It is the positive polarity. The negative polarity is what we have wanted to avoid or escape. Normally we don't want to look at the negative polarity. Which is understandable. But as the positive polarity collapses, then it gets harder and harder to avoid the negative polarity. Still, sometimes we still struggle to avoid.

So it can be valuable to simply take the shortcut. We've explored, to some degree, the positive polarity - that fantasy of what you might attain. Let's do the same to the negative polarity. What is it that you want to avoid? What has prompted the search? What if there never will be an escape?

I'm beginning to despair that this will never sink in.

It won't. So you don't need to despair any longer. :)

In all seriousness, what is it that might sink in? And are you separate from that? Is there actually any possibility of anything changing in the way that you imagined it needed to? Is there anyone who would be the beneficiary of that change?

I want to write understanding can’t do anything but I still feel like it provides (produces) some power somehow to solve or resolve or something like that. The power to “fix” things maybe. That might be a clue. I am all about diving in and researching and taking action to resolve or solve something. Feels like I’m the doer of that.
Fundamentally I can see there is no difference but there is definitely a strong “ownership” aspect that comes up here. I can kind of see in direct experience that there is no owner but it not very clear at all. And it feels really strongly like understanding produces an outcome.

What is it that needs to be fixed or solved in this case?

There is a strong sense of ownership in this one too. I can see intellectually that neither experience references a separate self but certainly not experientially in any way.

How do you differentiate between intellectual or experiential seeing? Is this really just a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as a confirmation of something?
Does the sense of ownership pose a problem?
Is the sense of ownership yours?
Are you separate from the sense of ownership?

There is a very strong sense of identity with being intelligent and able to solve things. To use the mind in this way. Okay, a little glimmer just now when I realize that all that could be happening without “me” – like just happening but still quite foggy on this one.

Is the sense of identity a problem? Does it mean anything? Is it yours or about you?
Do you have any proof that you are using the mind?
Can you locate a mind?
When thoughts appear, are you separate from them? Is there a thinker?

Well, I seem stumped on every question this time around. I see that seeing is not necessary but I don’t see how you would know it wasn’t necessary unless you saw it wasn’t necessary. How’s that for circular logic?

What is knowing? Is the phenomenon that you call knowing meaningful? Does it prove anything? Does the phenomenon itself actually reference anything? Are you the knower? Are you separate from the phenomenon?

What happens if you simply let go of all knowing for just a moment? Does anything fundamentally change?

Is the fundamental absence of a separate self dependent on a particular experience? Does the experience that you call knowing indicate anything? Is there actually anyone who needs to have a particular experience as confirmation of the absence of a separate self?

I will work on this tonight but for the time being I think you might be on to something. I definitely equate direct experience with the sublest “form” I can experience. For example, typing is sensing and seeing and hearing and thinking (labeling) but in a felt sense kind of way if that makes any sense– if that’s not direct experience then I am way off base in my exploration.

I look forward to hearing what you find.

I kind of saw that after I sent the last one in. The part about space and time. No space or time=no movement. But doesn’t it also = no appearances? I will ponder this some more.

Space and time are conceptual. This is evident because you cannot find them. Appearance, on the other hand, simply appears. There's no need to try to get rid of anything. The same applies to the self. There's no need to get rid of anything that exists. So we don't need to negate anything, which is just conceptual contortion. Rather, we need only to examine what we assume to be true in order to see if it really is as we have imagined it to be. That is all.

So it is not necessary to exert any effort in all of this. In fact, the less you try to do, the more you may discover what is already here. So let's try this approach: explore the following questions with immediacy. Do not consult thought, concept, or analysis at all. Notice that it is seemingly possible to simply let go of everything just for a moment. Or, put another way, for just a moment don't grab ahold of anything - not a thought, a concept, a story, a label, or anything else. That doesn't mean you try to get rid of them. Just let them be as they are and don't touch them. Just for a moment. And in that moment, answer these questions:

Is there anything knowable here?
Is there any separate self findable?
Is understanding of any value?
Is there any possibility of control?
Is there any choice?

I honestly don't know if i have more clarity or am more and more confused!!

Good. That's how we know we're on the right track!

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

Joey:

I'm guessing that you've turned direct experience into a particular feeling state or a particular category of experience. Whereas, actually, as we've explored previously, direct experience is unavoidable. That is all that is happening!

I'm also guessing that there is something about the experience of the relative stillness of the body that you conceptually conflate with freedom or clarity - as if clarity is a particular category of experience such as "stillness."

See if any of that is true.

Sit still and notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Notice that seemingly on top of the non-conceptual perception there is a layer of conceptual interpretation such as labeling a particular experience of relative stillness as being "direct experience" or "it." Is the concept of an experience the actuality of an experience? Does an experience have any inherent value or meaning? Is the conceptual layer actually separate from direct experience? Is there any effort necessary or possible in the experience of what I've been terming the conceptual?

Now go for a walk or do some activity that you normally conceive of as obscuring direct experience. Notice that non-conceptual sensory perception is happening effortlessly. Whatever conceptual phenomena seem to be occurring, can you find a separation between you and that? Is there actually any possibility of anything apart from direct experience?

I did this and it is very obvious when I sit still that the idea of an experience is not in actuality an experience (except the experience of thinking). I see that no experience has any inherent value or meaning (al least I see during the exploration- not always otherwise). There is no separation between the conceptual and non-conceptual levels. There is no effort possible (I’m really glad you asked that because it brought to light what i having been feeling more and more- that there is no effort- that it all just happens – no me to effort or not effort.
When I tried it with an activity I can somewhat see the same thing. I think the problem is for me that in order to really have a direct experience of things I usually have to close my eyes (don’t even ask – I do realize that seeing is a direct experience- I just find it really distracting (distraction arising- LOL). With my eyes open I seem bombarded with distraction and labels and its hard for me to get to direct experience, so to speak.

Something just occurred to me that seems relevant at this point. You mentioned in your introduction that you have been seeking for about ten years in the realm of non-duality. But what you have yet to mention is why you imagine that you seek. It seems to me that you have an earnestness and a sincerity about you that seem to go well beyond a mere intellectual curiosity. You seem driven.

What I've noticed is that often times we fixate on what we imagine will be the positive goal that we might attain - enlightenment, liberation, awakening, peace, etc. But as you're surely starting to see, much of that was only ever a fantasy. So in this exploration the fantasy begins to dissolve. What then?

What I find is that the positive goal - the fantasy - was part of a duality. It is the positive polarity. The negative polarity is what we have wanted to avoid or escape. Normally we don't want to look at the negative polarity. Which is understandable. But as the positive polarity collapses, then it gets harder and harder to avoid the negative polarity. Still, sometimes we still struggle to avoid.

So it can be valuable to simply take the shortcut. We've explored, to some degree, the positive polarity - that fantasy of what you might attain. Let's do the same to the negative polarity. What is it that you want to avoid? What has prompted the search? What if there never will be an escape?

My search really started innocuously. I was quite physically ill with a bunch of weird symptoms that no one could diagnose the worst of which was unremitting pain and I was on the brink of desperation. I was also just REALLY unhappy and very discontented with just about everything in my life. So I was searching for a cure which led my down the holistic, energy medicine route, which led to meditation which led to a very short affair with Buddhism. Then I happened across Eckhart Tolle and ambled down the Course in Miracles route (who’s kidding who, I Never ambled ) and then onto a number of other teachings. I found a teacher who I resonated with but still wasn’t’ quite getting it.
And now, here I am. Part of the reason that non-duality resonated with me was because I could see my physical pain was just an appearance and it took alot of the fear out of it. Before that I would spiral downward in a thought process about how I was going to get sicker, lose my job, not be able to support my kids, and on and on.

I guess the long and short of it is I was trying to alleviate suffering- emotional, physical, spiritual. I was deeply unhappy (more accurately depressed) and had tried all the conventional things (new relationship, new house, new job, church, self-improvement, medication) which of course all failed. The first sense of peace I found in my life was when I started meditating.

brewera wrote:I'm beginning to despair that this will never sink in.

In all seriousness, what is it that might sink in? And are you separate from that? Is there actually any possibility of anything changing in the way that you imagined it needed to? Is there anyone who would be the beneficiary of that change?

I realized right before I started to write this that I have been approaching this with an either/or kind of mentality around the no one here, not separate from anything thing. That a bit convoluted so let me explain: until now it always seemed like two different goals. Like I was either exploring to see no one was there OR exploring that I wasn’t separate from anything. I just (like 10 minutes ago) realized they are not mutually exclusive and are in fact the same thing. Looking back at your questions I can see ou have been trying to get this across.

Okay, now to answer your question. I guess I am still counting on an “aha” moment to let me know I “got there”- through the gateless gate or whatever – which of course is why they call it gateless I guess. It’s not really there. How would you know you went through a gate that wasn’t there? What kind of “aha” would that produce? I see nothing can really change, everything is as it is, there is no one to effect change nor anyone to receive it.

brewera wrote:I want to write understanding can’t do anything but I still feel like it provides (produces) some power somehow to solve or resolve or something like that. The power to “fix” things maybe. That might be a clue. I am all about diving in and researching and taking action to resolve or solve something. Feels like I’m the doer of that.
Fundamentally I can see there is no difference but there is definitely a strong “ownership” aspect that comes up here. I can kind of see in direct experience that there is no owner but it not very clear at all. And it feels really strongly like understanding produces an outcome.


What is it that needs to be fixed or solved in this case?

Okay, an example would be my 26 year old son has been diagnosed with dipolar disorder and I feel like if I understand it I can help him. Does that make sense? If I look at this more directly I think I see that the desire to learn, even the learning and the feeling that it gives me power all arise to no one.

How do you differentiate between intellectual or experiential seeing? Is this really just a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as a confirmation of something?

Not entirely sure if your question is rhetorical or not. In case it’s not I differentiate it by a felt sense or by direct experience rather than theory if that makes sense. It’s not a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as confirmation but rather the clear seeing of something

Does the sense of ownership pose a problem?

No, it doesn’t. it’s just there

Is the sense of ownership yours?

Seems like it is until I look and find no owner

Are you separate from the sense of ownership?
No.

brewera wrote:There is a very strong sense of identity with being intelligent and able to solve things. To use the mind in this way. Okay, a little glimmer just now when I realize that all that could be happening without “me” – like just happening but still quite foggy on this one.

Is the sense of identity a problem? Does it mean anything? Is it yours or about you?

Well, now that you ask, no.

Do you have any proof that you are using the mind?

No, I only experience thinking or the current thought. No mind per se.

Can you locate a mind?

You know that I can’t, do you?

When thoughts appear, are you separate from them? Is there a thinker?

There is thinking only and no separation from me. I see that I am still “producing” separate in order to see the thought so the direct experience on no separation is still a little iffy for me.

brewera wrote:Well, I seem stumped on every question this time around. I see that seeing is not necessary but I don’t see how you would know it wasn’t necessary unless you saw it wasn’t necessary. How’s that for circular logic?

What is knowing? Is the phenomenon that you call knowing meaningful? Does it prove anything? Does the phenomenon itself actually reference anything? Are you the knower? Are you separate from the phenomenon?

Touché! It’s just a phenomenon. It’s weird how some of them are so obviously phenomenon and some seem so real. Not a proof of anything. As a phenomenon it can’t reference anything. There is no knower, only knowing. I am not separate from it (this is a bit iffy as I mentioned- it’s that dichotomy where it doesn’t seem like a can be “no one” and “not separate from” at the same time.)

What happens if you simply let go of all knowing for just a moment? Does anything fundamentally change?

No, everything is just the same. Just is. Funny how I believe “I” even matter in all this.

Is the fundamental absence of a separate self dependent on a particular experience? Does the experience that you call knowing indicate anything? Is there actually anyone who needs to have a particular experience as confirmation of the absence of a separate self?

No and no and no

brewera wrote:I will work on this tonight but for the time being I think you might be on to something. I definitely equate direct experience with the sublest “form” I can experience. For example, typing is sensing and seeing and hearing and thinking (labeling) but in a felt sense kind of way if that makes any sense– if that’s not direct experience then I am way off base in my exploration.

I look forward to hearing what you find.

Okay direct experience to me seems to be thinkingsensingperceiving. By that i mean observed thoughts (a more accurate description would be thinking/knowing) and felt sensations in the body (sensing/knowing) and perceptions (seeing/knowing, hearing/knowing, etc.)

Space and time are conceptual. This is evident because you cannot find them. Appearance, on the other hand, simply appears. There's no need to try to get rid of anything. The same applies to the self. There's no need to get rid of anything that exists. So we don't need to negate anything, which is just conceptual contortion. Rather, we need only to examine what we assume to be true in order to see if it really is as we have imagined it to be. That is all.

So it is not necessary to exert any effort in all of this. In fact, the less you try to do, the more you may discover what is already here. So let's try this approach: explore the following questions with immediacy. Do not consult thought, concept, or analysis at all. Notice that it is seemingly possible to simply let go of everything just for a moment. Or, put another way, for just a moment don't grab ahold of anything - not a thought, a concept, a story, a label, or anything else. That doesn't mean you try to get rid of them. Just let them be as they are and don't touch them. Just for a moment. And in that moment, answer these questions:

Is there anything knowable here?

No.

Is there any separate self findable?

No.

Is understanding of any value?

This one isn’t quite as clear but I can see it is likely a big fat no.

Is there any possibility of control?

I see there isn’t but i don’t like that one bit- LOL

Is there any choice?

No, everything just happens. There is a huge amount of resistance to this though (and I know that that is just an appearance-no worries!!)

Thanks again,
Angela

[joeylott]

Angela,

Great exploring.

I did this and it is very obvious when I sit still that the idea of an experience is not in actuality an experience (except the experience of thinking). I see that no experience has any inherent value or meaning (al least I see during the exploration- not always otherwise). There is no separation between the conceptual and non-conceptual levels. There is no effort possible (I’m really glad you asked that because it brought to light what i having been feeling more and more- that there is no effort- that it all just happens – no me to effort or not effort.
When I tried it with an activity I can somewhat see the same thing. I think the problem is for me that in order to really have a direct experience of things I usually have to close my eyes (don’t even ask – I do realize that seeing is a direct experience- I just find it really distracting (distraction arising- LOL). With my eyes open I seem bombarded with distraction and labels and its hard for me to get to direct experience, so to speak.

Ah-ha. Thank you for clarifying the closed eyes thing. I completely understand that. In fact, I often suggest (and may have suggested to you) to explore certain phenomena with eyes closed because it simplifies things. I find it can be a very useful stepping stone. However, its utility is limited. So there does come a point where it is necessary (as far as anything could possibly be necessary) to explore with eyes open.

So here's my suggestion. Do the first part of the exercise (the sitting still part) first with eyes closed. Then do it a second time with eyes open, this time exploring ONLY the visual sensory input. Then do it a third time with eyes open, and this time explore all sensory input. Do this exercise a few times if doubts remain about the nature of what is here.

Then, when doubts no longer remain for the sitting exercise, do the movement exercise.

Let me know what you find.

My search really started innocuously. I was quite physically ill with a bunch of weird symptoms that no one could diagnose the worst of which was unremitting pain and I was on the brink of desperation. I was also just REALLY unhappy and very discontented with just about everything in my life. So I was searching for a cure which led my down the holistic, energy medicine route, which led to meditation which led to a very short affair with Buddhism. Then I happened across Eckhart Tolle and ambled down the Course in Miracles route (who’s kidding who, I Never ambled ) and then onto a number of other teachings. I found a teacher who I resonated with but still wasn’t’ quite getting it.
And now, here I am. Part of the reason that non-duality resonated with me was because I could see my physical pain was just an appearance and it took alot of the fear out of it. Before that I would spiral downward in a thought process about how I was going to get sicker, lose my job, not be able to support my kids, and on and on.

I guess the long and short of it is I was trying to alleviate suffering- emotional, physical, spiritual. I was deeply unhappy (more accurately depressed) and had tried all the conventional things (new relationship, new house, new job, church, self-improvement, medication) which of course all failed. The first sense of peace I found in my life was when I started meditating.

I am very glad that I asked this question.

Here's my observation: we believe (or assume) ourselves to be separate selves. And these separate selves seemingly experience pain, fear, and horror of various sorts. So seemingly these separate selves take action to improve their situations. And perhaps we believe that this has been successful to some degree. For example, apparently meditation corresponds to a sense of peace. So there appears to be progress.

Now, from the perspective of the apparent separate self, it would seem that the removal of the self will spell disaster. Because the separate self is making progress, and without the separate self then you (notice how the logic gets hairy here) will backslide into suffering. And this can be an obstacle.

In other words, we're still secretly hoping that the whole "spiritual" search is going to yield the big payoff of no more pain, fear, or any other unwanted experiences. And we attribute our seeming progress to the separate self we imagine ourselves to be. So we fear discovering that there is no separate self because we imagine that will actually be different. Or, worse yet, we fear precisely that nothing will change, which we then interpret through the lens of the imaginary separate self who we imagine would therefore suffer without recourse.

So let's explore some of this.

Seeing that your physical pain is just an appearance takes a lot of the fear out of it. Is this true? Does seeing do anything? Can seeing affect change? Does seeing know about the actuality of pain? Is the pain your pain?

And more to the point: Can you actually do anything to diminish or control pain or any other phenomenon? Can the revelation of the absence of a separate self affect pain? Can one phenomenon bring about the cessation or reappearance of another phenomenon?

Or perhaps even closer to home: if the pain were to return, perhaps worse than it was before, would that mean anything about you? Would it indicate a failure on your part?

Is there any possibility of control or backsliding? Is any of this is yours or about you? Has it ever been?

Was the downward spiral thought process phenomenon about you? Was that your doing? Was the meditation yours? Was that your doing? Can you find any evidence that any of it was ever causative in any way?

Has there ever been a separate self? Did a separate self ever do anything? Would the revelation of no separate self actually change anything?

I realized right before I started to write this that I have been approaching this with an either/or kind of mentality around the no one here, not separate from anything thing. That a bit convoluted so let me explain: until now it always seemed like two different goals. Like I was either exploring to see no one was there OR exploring that I wasn’t separate from anything. I just (like 10 minutes ago) realized they are not mutually exclusive and are in fact the same thing. Looking back at your questions I can see ou have been trying to get this across.

This is good. Now I'd like you to look at the idea you have about the goals of no one and non-separation.

Is your idea of what seeing no one will be the actuality of no separate self?
Is your idea of what seeing no one will be like inherently meaningful?
And are you actually certain that seeing no one is the goal of this conversation? Is it possible you've tried to fit this conversation into your limited, conditional, and conceptual fantasy of what "seeing no one" means?

Is your idea of non-separation the actuality of non-separation?

Okay, an example would be my 26 year old son has been diagnosed with dipolar disorder and I feel like if I understand it I can help him. Does that make sense? If I look at this more directly I think I see that the desire to learn, even the learning and the feeling that it gives me power all arise to no one.

Is there a conflict between the appearance of understanding and the actuality of the fundamental impossibility of understanding?
If you truly see or accept the reality of the impossibility of understanding would that actually change anything?
Have you ever actually understood anything?

How do you differentiate between intellectual or experiential seeing? Is this really just a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as a confirmation of something?

Not entirely sure if your question is rhetorical or not. In case it’s not I differentiate it by a felt sense or by direct experience rather than theory if that makes sense. It’s not a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as confirmation but rather the clear seeing of something

How will you know when there is clear seeing?

There is thinking only and no separation from me. I see that I am still “producing” separate in order to see the thought so the direct experience on no separation is still a little iffy for me.

What would the direct experience of no separation be? How would you know when that has occurred?

Touché! It’s just a phenomenon. It’s weird how some of them are so obviously phenomenon and some seem so real. Not a proof of anything. As a phenomenon it can’t reference anything. There is no knower, only knowing. I am not separate from it (this is a bit iffy as I mentioned- it’s that dichotomy where it doesn’t seem like a can be “no one” and “not separate from” at the same time.)

To be clear, my "goal" in this conversation is not to bring about a state of no one nor a state of not separate from. And, in fact, the concept of "no one" in particular may be a stumbling block. So let's explore this.

What will "no one" be like? How will you know when you've arrived? Will it be different than now? Will it be a disappearance of something or someone?

Is there any possibility of control?

I see there isn’t but i don’t like that one bit- LOL

You know what I'm going to ask.

Is the not liking actually referencing anything else?
Is the not liking yours?
Is it about you?

Sincerely,
Joey

[Angela12]

Ah-ha. Thank you for clarifying the closed eyes thing. I completely understand that. In fact, I often suggest (and may have suggested to you) to explore certain phenomena with eyes closed because it simplifies things. I find it can be a very useful stepping stone. However, its utility is limited. So there does come a point where it is necessary (as far as anything could possibly be necessary) to explore with eyes open.

So here's my suggestion. Do the first part of the exercise (the sitting still part) first with eyes closed. Then do it a second time with eyes open, this time exploring ONLY the visual sensory input. Then do it a third time with eyes open, and this time explore all sensory input. Do this exercise a few times if doubts remain about the nature of what is here.

Then, when doubts no longer remain for the sitting exercise, do the movement exercise.

Let me know what you find.

I am going to take a bit of time with this before I answer it.

Here's my observation: we believe (or assume) ourselves to be separate selves. And these separate selves seemingly experience pain, fear, and horror of various sorts. So seemingly these separate selves take action to improve their situations. And perhaps we believe that this has been successful to some degree. For example, apparently meditation corresponds to a sense of peace. So there appears to be progress.

Now, from the perspective of the apparent separate self, it would seem that the removal of the self will spell disaster. Because the separate self is making progress, and without the separate self then you (notice how the logic gets hairy here) will backslide into suffering. And this can be an obstacle.

In other words, we're still secretly hoping that the whole "spiritual" search is going to yield the big payoff of no more pain, fear, or any other unwanted experiences. And we attribute our seeming progress to the separate self we imagine ourselves to be. So we fear discovering that there is no separate self because we imagine that will actually be different. Or, worse yet, we fear precisely that nothing will change, which we then interpret through the lens of the imaginary separate self who we imagine would therefore suffer without recourse.

So let's explore some of this.

Seeing that your physical pain is just an appearance takes a lot of the fear out of it. Is this true? Does seeing do anything? Can seeing affect change? Does seeing know about the actuality of pain? Is the pain your pain?

You are playing with every neuron in my brain!! I’m trying to unravel this. The physical pain is an appearance, the seeing that it is an appearance is another appearance, the idea of seeing is an appearance, and the idea that it can affect change is an appearance. Bloody hell!!! What is real then???

The appearance of “seeing” can’t know the pain. I think what I actually saw (so to speak and please don’t make me do that exercise again) is that the idea of pain wasn’t the pain itself. The actuality of pain can’t be known except through direct experience. The pain is not mine (although it really really really felt that way and I’m not sure it wouldn’t feel that way again if it ever got bad again)

And more to the point: Can you actually do anything to diminish or control pain or any other phenomenon? Can the revelation of the absence of a separate self affect pain? Can one phenomenon bring about the cessation or reappearance of another phenomenon?

okay, these ones are hard too. You’re certainly not going easy on my tonight. How do painkillers work then? I can’t unravel this one.

The revelation can’t affect pain. Still confused because with the clear seeing of the idea of pain being an appearance “separate from” the sensation of pain it certainly seemed to diminish the suffering. But maybe pain (physical) and suffering (mental) are two distinct things. If you are referring just to physical pain then the revelation would not affect it. I’m still really lost in this whole revelation thing.

Or perhaps even closer to home: if the pain were to return, perhaps worse than it was before, would that mean anything about you? Would it indicate a failure on your part?

I see right now that it would mean nothing about me but I’m also quite certain that if the pain did return I would feel very different. The pain seems to bring out all the me-ness in me.

Is there any possibility of control or backsliding? Is any of this is yours or about you? Has it ever been?

I see that it isn’t but I’m not 100% there with it.

Was the downward spiral thought process phenomenon about you? Was that your doing? Was the meditation yours? Was that your doing? Can you find any evidence that any of it was ever causative in any way?

okay, this is pretty clear (thank god!) I see the thought process as just happening and not happening to anyone. Meditation also just happened. There is no evidence of causation.

Has there ever been a separate self? Did a separate self ever do anything? Would the revelation of no separate self actually change anything?

No, just the idea of one. No a separate self never did anything. The “separate self” feeling and thought just arose periodically like everything else (fear here again). Nothing would change- I wrote that and realized that I don’t actually believe that. If there is no specific identification with thoughts or feelings then suffering would change. I know I have opened myself up to a slew of questions here- fire away!!

brewera wrote: I realized right before I started to write this that I have been approaching this with an either/or kind of mentality around the no one here, not separate from anything thing. That a bit convoluted so let me explain: until now it always seemed like two different goals. Like I was either exploring to see no one was there OR exploring that I wasn’t separate from anything. I just (like 10 minutes ago) realized they are not mutually exclusive and are in fact the same thing. Looking back at your questions I can see you have been trying to get this across.

This is good. Now I'd like you to look at the idea you have about the goals of no one and non-separation.
Is your idea of what seeing no one will be the actuality of no separate self?

I imagine not.

Is your idea of what seeing no one will be like inherently meaningful?

No

And are you actually certain that seeing no one is the goal of this conversation? Is it possible you've tried to fit this conversation into your limited, conditional, and conceptual fantasy of what "seeing no one" means?
Yes I am pretty sure that is exactly what is happening

Is your idea of non-separation the actuality of non-separation?

No

brewera wrote: Okay, an example would be my 26 year old son has been diagnosed with dipolar disorder and I feel like if I understand it I can help him. Does that make sense? If I look at this more directly I think I see that the desire to learn, even the learning and the feeling that it gives me power all arise to no one.


Is there a conflict between the appearance of understanding and the actuality of the fundamental impossibility of understanding?

If I understand you correctly there is no conflict. There is no actual understanding only an appearance called understanding

If you truly see or accept the reality of the impossibility of understanding would that actually change anything?

No, nothing would change

Have you ever actually understood anything?

No, I haven’t – I don’t even know what anything is.

How do you differentiate between intellectual or experiential seeing? Is this really just a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as a confirmation of something?

Not entirely sure if your question is rhetorical or not. In case it’s not I differentiate it by a felt sense or by direct experience rather than theory if that makes sense. It’s not a matter of waiting for a particular feeling as confirmation but rather the clear seeing of something

How will you know when there is clear seeing?

A halo will appear, a shaft of dazzling light from on high? I see what you are getting at.

brewera wrote: There is thinking only and no separation from me. I see that I am still “producing” separate in order to see the thought so the direct experience on no separation is still a little iffy for me.

What would the direct experience of no separation be? How would you know when that has occurred?

I couldn’t say. I imagine without a separate you, you can't describe anything. I have no idea how to answer the second question.

To be clear, my "goal" in this conversation is not to bring about a state of no one nor a state of not separate from. And, in fact, the concept of "no one" in particular may be a stumbling block. So let's explore this.

What will "no one" be like? How will you know when you've arrived? Will it be different than now? Will it be a disappearance of something or someone?

I’m curious to know what your goal is because I’m not sure I even have one anymore. I think you are saying that any “state” is not your goal because any state could only be an appearance. I’m super confused because I obviously am really hung up on this goal idea and I can’t see any way around that until I “realize” there is no me to have a goal (which is of course the very goal of which I speak)- do you see my confusion. Okay, now to answer the inevitable questions…up until this very second I think I saw it as just things arising but now I wonder who would be there to notice things arising. Hmmmm…

What will be different? I guess I think that there won’t be anyone here to be invested in appearances, but rather just appearances appearing (that brought about a moment of sheer terror)

brewera wrote:
Is there any possibility of control?

I see there isn’t but i don’t like that one bit- LOL

You know what I'm going to ask.
Is the not liking actually referencing anything else?

Nope, not liking is just there. It doesn’t reference or interact in any way with anything else.

Is the not liking yours?

No, it’s just there doing its not liking thing

Is it about you?

No, it’s about itself only

Thanks Joey,
Angela