Seeking a guide

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

I can't say anything is perceived with the eyes. There is, however, perception. Colours, writing (the brand written on it). Shapes. Shadows. Awareness of light. The air-con control and sheet are in clear focus and the rest of my visual field has blurry bits. Everything is joined together in the visual field.

OK. Good start, thanks.
Now could you please redo the exercise and connect even more with the raw sensations: what impacts upon the organ of sight.
For example: 'writing' is not what was perceived, 'writing' is the mind's interpretation of a particular perception, agreed? So 'writing' is put aside.
What is asked for is what is direct(ly) experience(d).

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

No worries Kathy.
Best post when there's a feeling of readiness, when not rushed. This is not a race. :-)
And if it looks like it'll take much longer than a day, simply post a quick “Working on it!” note.
All the best.

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

"Now could you please redo the exercise and connect even more with the raw sensations: what impacts upon the organ of sight.
For example: 'writing' is not what was perceived, 'writing' is the mind's interpretation of a particular perception, agreed? So 'writing' is put aside.
What is asked for is what is direct(ly) experience"

Am stuck here. I can't seem to get anything different in my answers if I do the exercise again. There's no 'organ if sight' in my experience. There's just seeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

There's no 'organ if sight' in my experience.

Yes! I used 'organ of sight' as a guide for the exercise. Unfortunately words can also mislead.
Good on you for pointing it out.

There's just seeing.

Yes! Excellent.

Now, the next step: same exercise, with a twist!
When observing -directly experiencing- is there a “self” anywhere amongst what is experienced?

By “self”, I mean a particular “Kathy-ness” flavour; something in what is experienced that undeniably feels like “Kathy”.

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Yes but it's just a feeling and it's fleeting - there for a nanosecond and then I would have to say, no, there's no self/kathy-ness


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Yes but it's just a feeling and it's fleeting - there for a nanosecond and then I would have to say, no, there's no self/kathy-ness

Thanks for the quality of the observation.

Now more precision is needed: “Yes but it's just a feeling and it's fleeting...”
Is it: 1. Yes there is a “self”, the "self" lasts an instant and then goes.
Or,
Is it: 2. There is a feeling that a “self” exists, the feeling lasts an instant and then goes.

Can you see the difference between the two assertions (1 and 2)?
1. postulates the existence of a “self”.
2. postulates the existence of a feeling.

Which of the two is it?

If not sure, feel free to repeat the exercise and refresh the observation.

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Number 2. Just a feeling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Number 2. Just a feeling

Thank you.

Now 'feeling' can point to an emotional state, but this clearly is not the case here.

'Feeling' can also point to ideas or beliefs such as: I have a feeling that this person is telling the truth, I have a feeling that someone is watching me. And it looks like this is what is happening.
There is a feeling/idea/notion/belief/thought that a “self” is present, albeit for a short while, and then it disappears.
Have you ever found this “self” even though you 'think' it is there?

Here's an exercise.
Try and find a calm moment, when you're alone. Find a comfortable position.
Then observe your mind.
See a thought arise. Try and just see the thought, try not to get caught up in the content of the thought (the story). See the thought eventually disappear.
Observe how this process of thoughts arising and passing away, goes on and on.

This is what thoughts do: they arise they play themselves out, then they vanish. Exactly the same as the thought of a “self”, isn't it.

So what makes the thought about the “self” any more important or believable than the myriad other thoughts that arise and to which no attention is even granted?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

That's a great exercise. Nothing, nothing at all, makes the thought about the 'self' more believable than the myriad of other thoughts. I can't even say that the thought of the 'self' happens more often or more consistently than other thoughts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

That's a great exercise. Nothing, nothing at all, makes the thought about the 'self' more believable than the myriad of other thoughts. I can't even say that the thought of the 'self' happens more often or more consistently than other thoughts

Great observing.
Thoughts are just thoughts, equally as impermanent, and their content equally believable or unbelievable.
And yet they are held on to, given amazing power, sometimes even power of life and death, when most of the time they remain unchallenged.

So, now a step further with thoughts.
Same exercise: observing the mind, the thoughts coming and going.

When observing the mind -directly experiencing- is there a “self” anywhere to be found?
And...
Is there a “controller”, an “agency” anywhere to be found that determines what thought will arise next?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Definitely no agent, no control. Thoughts mysteriously appear and go. Can't find a self doing this...observing directly, a self can't be found


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Definitely no agent, no control. Thoughts mysteriously appear and go. Can't find a self doing this...observing directly, a self can't be found

That's excellent work.

Now the exercise will extend to vision and mind.
Returning to the first exercise, with a simple object on a surface.

Please look at the object and note what is experienced.

At the same time, observe the mind. What happens? What is the mind doing?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Pared right back, there is just seeing...as for the mind, there is a very subtle sense of something like recognition some thoughts come and go, content is random.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dridhamati]

Hi Kathy,

Pared right back, there is just seeing...

Good...

as for the mind, there is a very subtle sense of something like recognition...

“Recognition”, could you tell more please?

Cheers,
Dridhamati

[dharmakrow]

Re recognition - not sure what to say. A sense of pure presence, maybe, a knowingness


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk