Take two!

[Matthew]

When the thoughts start churning, they dominate attention. "Worrying" thoughts are often accompanied by tension and other "unpleasant" sensations. The world seems less vivid and more constricted until the thoughts subside.

This also seems just like a very natural thing to happen every now and then.
But the key question regarding such phenomena is:

Is there actually anything or anyone irritated by such happenings?
If the answer is: "Yes. 'I' is irritated by that"...
Then the next question is: How could the word=thought=letter 'I' ever be irritated by anything?

Who or what is irritated by upcoming thoughts?
Is there actually anything or anyone that could be irritated by upcoming thoughts?
Or is that -again- another thought ABOUT someone who is irritated?

[Bobf]

I read your post. Am driving to pick up my daughter at college - will try to respond tonight, if not then tomorrow

I understand that there can be irritation without an "I" that is irritated!

Bob

[Bobf]

Is there actually anything or anyone irritated by such happenings?
If the answer is: "Yes. 'I' is irritated by that"...
Then the next question is: How could the word=thought=letter 'I' ever be irritated by anything?

Who or what is irritated by upcoming thoughts?
Is there actually anything or anyone that could be irritated by upcoming thoughts?
Or is that -again- another thought ABOUT someone who is irritated?

When I am actively LOOKING, I can see that there is tension/irritation, but no one who is tense/irritated. But most of the rest of the time, there is immersion in my usual thought-story, in which "I" am tense or irritated.

Bob

[Matthew]

in which "I" am tense or irritated

Look at this "I" and ask exactly these questions:
Can a thought with the content "I" be tense or irritated?
Can the thought "I" ever do or become anything else than the thought "I"?

Let's just try another letter:


"'O' is tense today"
"'R is often irritated"

Does that make sense?
Of course not.
How then can "I" be tense or irritated?

[Bobf]

Look at this "I" and ask exactly these questions:
Can a thought with the content "I" be tense or irritated?
Can the thought "I" ever do or become anything else than the thought "I"?

Let's just try another letter:


"'O' is tense today"
"'R is often irritated"

Does that make sense?
Of course not.
How then can "I" be tense or irritated?

That was a very interesting exercise. I actually tried changing the sentences to "O am tense today" and "R am often irritated", so that they were in the first person. I also tried other things - "R am seeing", R am hearing, etc. When I substitute letters, there's definitely a shift into things just happening in the absence of an "I".

[Matthew]

Yep. Just letters. Thoughts. Words.
Good for communitation. Not good for identification :-)

Keep observing that. And also observe: Is there actually anything special about the letter "I" as opposed to other letters?
Yes. We have used it countless times to describe what's happening right now.
Could the identification with that letter have been only an innocent error all along?

Try looking like that also at other words like "Bob", "me", "you" and so on and tell me what can be observed!

[Bobf]

Keep observing that. And also observe: Is there actually anything special about the letter "I" as opposed to other letters?

When I say "I am ...", it summons up the feelings/thoughts associated with the self belief. These are the feelings I've mentioned previously - a sense of focused attention/tension in the head region and the subtle thought that this focused tension/attention is a seIf. If on the other hand, I say "Q is looking", there is just seeing without those feelings/thoughts.

Try looking like that also at other words like "Bob", "me", "you" and so on and tell me what can be observed!

Using words like "Bob" or "me" summons up similar feelings/thoughts to the "I" thoughts mentioned above. For example, if I think "Its been a tough year for me", there is the thought/feeling that bad things happened this year to ME. If I just think "its been a tough year", the same feelings arise, but they're not centralized.

When I use the word "you" - there is a sense of separation: "I" am over here and am separated from "you" over there.

Bob

[Matthew]

Whenever this whole sensation business arises again, have a look at it like that:
Look at the sensation exclusively in isolation.
Does the sensation itself tell anything about "I", "me", "Bob" or anything?
Is there an "I", "me", "Bob" anywhere to be found in pure sensation?
Could it be that it is just another thought suggesting that these sensations have to do with anything?
Could it be that it is just another thought suggesting that these sensations have to do with "I", "me", "Bob"?

Is there a letter/thought "I" anywhere within these sensations?
Where exactly? And what does it look/feel like?

When I use the word "you" - there is a sense of separation: "I" am over here and am separated from "you" over there.

In pure seeing..
Where do you SEE a separation?
Is there anything in pure seeing saying "over here" and "over there"?
Have a look!

[Bobf]

I just did the two "exercises" below, but I want to try them for another day. I think the first exercise (seeing if there's an "I" in the sensations I've described) is particularly important for me, and I'd like to spend some more time on it. So more tomorrow... Bob

[Matthew]

If this seems important, you can also look closely on different sensations.
For example the tactile sensation in the arm: Is there a "me" in this sensation?
The sensation at the bottom of the foot: Is "I" located there?
Sensations in the torso: Is there an ego somewhere to be found within these sensations?

And so on!

[Bobf]

Its very easy for me to get hung up on this exercise. When I conjure up the "me" sense, there are the feelings I've described in the upper and front parts of my body (in the head region and sometimes as far down as the stomach). I realize that sensations are supposed to have no location, but there is a sense that they do. I know that this sense is probably just a thought ("there is a tension in my 'head' and that tension is my "self"), but I'm often not aware of that thought.

I think that when I do this exercise, I'm trying too hard. Rather than trying to conjure up a self, I think its more effective for me to just observe what actually arises during the day and to see that its selfless.

By the way, I don't experience sensations in my arms or feet as being associated with a self - I just experience them as sensations.

Bob

[Matthew]

Yes. Nice and smooth. Looking should be done when it happens effortlessly.

I know that this sense is probably just a thought ("there is a tension in my 'head' and that tension is my "self"), but I'm often not aware of that thought.

That sense of being centered in the head seems to be a sticky one for some reason.
But let's be real.

By the way, I don't experience sensations in my arms or feet as being associated with a self - I just experience them as sensations.

What difference is there exactly between the sensations which thought labels as "coming from limbs" and the sensation which thought labels as "coming from head"?
Is there any difference? What exactly does that difference look and feel like?

Is there any other difference than the label "location"?

Does a sensation have to do with anything, let alone with a "self"?
Or is it only thought suggesting ALL these 'interesting' things...
Including the suggestion: "The sense of self is located in the head and has something to do with sensation"?


Try it:
Close your eyes and go directly into these sensations that thought labels as "self".
Can, when ignoring these suggestions for a while, there anything else be found than pure sensation?
Can a "self" be found?
If yes, what exactly does it look like? What exactly does it "feel" like?

[Bobf]

Matthew, I'm at a retreat at work all day today. Will post on this tomorrow. Sorry for the delay... Bob

[Bobf]

What difference is there exactly between the sensations which thought labels as "coming from limbs" and the sensation which thought labels as "coming from head"?
Is there any difference? What exactly does that difference look and feel like?

Is there any other difference than the label "location"?

As you said, this is very sticky for me. The sensations in my hands and feet just feel like sensations. There is some sense that the "hand" sensations are in a different location than the "feet" sensation, but I can sort of see that that's just a thought. The "head sensations" that I associate with a self feel somehow different. Maybe because it seems that thinking and attending arise in the same place as those sensations. I'm going to keep doing these exercises, because I think that this sense of location is really a subtle thought that I'm not that aware of. Sorry, I don't mean to be difficult!

Does a sensation have to do with anything, let alone with a "self"?
Or is it only thought suggesting ALL these 'interesting' things...
Including the suggestion: "The sense of self is located in the head and has something to do with sensation"?

Sometimes I can see that the head sensations are just sensations and have nothing to do with a "self". But it doesn't feel like a certainty.

Try it:
Close your eyes and go directly into these sensations that thought labels as "self".
Can, when ignoring these suggestions for a while, there anything else be found than pure sensation?
Can a "self" be found?
If yes, what exactly does it look like? What exactly does it "feel" like?

Doing this now, no self can be found - just sensations.

Bob

[Matthew]

Sorry, I don't mean to be difficult!

It's fine! Nothing to be sorry about, no one being difficult. Don't be sorry! Ever!

because I think that this sense of location is really a subtle thought that I'm not that aware of.

Yes!

The "head sensations" that I associate with a self feel somehow different. Maybe because it seems that thinking and attending arise in the same place as those sensations.

That's interesting!
Here's where looking has to happen thoroughly.
Look closely at these sensations and also at the 'location'.
Does thought and attention really arise at that place?
Can that be observed?
When looking at an apple, is the thought "apple" located inside those head sensations?
Can that actually be observed?
Or is it another thought telling a story about "it seems that thinking and attending arise in the same place as those sensations"?

Where is thought located?
Does it have a location in- and of itself?
How is it known that thought has a location in the first place? By another thought telling so?