RaamS

[JonathanR]

Dear Raam

It's helpful to understand that you can't get this 'wrong' and the exercise I set, even in a public place...it can't be done wrong. It can't really be "done" as such, though it may seem to 'work better' some days.

. in the past I've held onto the feeling that direct enquiry is more "productive", perhaps more directly oriented towards awakening than just "being present".

I understand. In talking a lot and using words it can seem that something important is going on.

Ironically , being present is extremely direct. In 'presence' everything that needs to be seen may appear and be recognised without necessarily naming or conceptualising about it.

. What's funny is that enquiry is also largely "fruitless" when i would do it, but when I i did try to sit and post attention to the breath or the senses, this story would just make me want to
do some searching for the "I"

Interesting.

. Ultimately, did the noticing of sensations help in your case, Jon?

It did and does Raam.

Noticing sensations in the moment can help enormously with enquiry. It can also be enjoyable.

Let me know when you are arrived at your destination and settled. I have a quite different exercise for you to try.

. Observing sensations quickly brings attention to the present, and the familiar presence is definitely present, but seems out of reach again in a way. Once it was questioned as to whether this idea that presence is obscured is a thought, it was realized that the presence was right here only.

Very good. That sort of recognition can become automatic.

. guess even calling it silence, space or presence is, on some level, being used as an excuse to be dismissive of the presence, Jon. There seems to be a throwaway manner in which I say "yeah, I know that space well"

Yes! Youve hit it clearly. It's the calling it, the naming , of each perfectly moment of experience that dismisses it.

Does that seem like a widespread habit among human beings? The labelling and naming?

Love

Jon

[indianguy]

Dear Jon,

I've properly read the rest of your post but would like to respond later today.

I particularly just wanted to say this:

Let me know when you are arrived at your destination and settled. I have a quite different exercise for you to try.

I'm just here at Mumbai for a little less than a day, to attend a friend's wedding, and have a flight back home this evening, and I should be back home by tonight.

The weekend would certainly have me rested and free, and I believe I'll be able to try out the exercise (s) you suggest diligently.

Thank you so much Jon.

Love,
Raam

[JonathanR]

Ok Raam

The exercise requires you to find a piece of fruit. An orange, banana, mango, apple; it doesn't matter what type of fruit.

Start by placing the fruit in a room and go somewhere else so that you cannot see it any more, another room perhaps.

Sit quietly for a few minutes. Bring the fruit to mind now. You may find it helpful to close your eyes but whatever works best for you. Visualise or remember the fruit as accurately as possible , it's colour, texture, scent, weight and so on. As if it were here right now.

After a few minutes of that go and fetch the actual fruit. Now, hold the fruit, notice it's colours, its weight, it's texture , its temperature, its scent. Even taste it.

Now compare the two types of experience. The 'thought-fruit' and the experience of the real fruit.

How do these compare?

Love

Jon

[indianguy]

Dear Jon,

It's helpful to understand that you can't get this 'wrong' and the exercise I set, even in a public place...it can't be done wrong. It can't really be "done" as such, though it may seem to 'work better' some days.

Really, thanks for reiterating this. I do seem to fall into beliefs of "I could've tried to do it better" at times and your words help me take myself off the hook when I either find myself doing that or when I read your posts. So thank you so much.

I understand. In talking a lot and using words it can seem that something important is going on.

Yes yes, Jon, exactly. Also, there's a belief that I'm "turning" my attention towards the "actual thing", and trying to work close to or at the talk target itself when I'm trying to look for "I". But again, these are just thoughts about enquiry. Often, when I'm actually doing self enquiry, I don't "feel" any progress there either, per so. So I'm as clueless and disoriented as ever anyway :)

Ironically , being present is extremely direct. In 'presence' everything that needs to be seen may appear and be recognised without necessarily naming or conceptualising about it.

Thanks, Jon. Honestly, having a guide feels like such a blessing. Now I don't have to do the worrying and the evaluating of which "path" is better and several other aspects with this. Thanks a lot for being with me through this. I guess I've been pretty dismissive of the potency of presence, I'll try to spend some time in it whenever it feels like it, hopefully often. Your passage did make it quite easy and, well, unbinding.

Very good. That sort of recognition can become automatic.

Even in remembering to question whether something is a thought, such recognitions don't seem to happen often. At times I find even the asking to be a little mechanical, not "deliberate" enough to sort of mean the question, I guess. It so happened that this particular day this recognition came u. Just wanted to share this as an observation too, not as a complaint or anything.

Yes! Youve hit it clearly. It's the calling it, the naming , of each perfectly moment of experience that dismisses it.

Yes yes, Jon!

Does that seem like a widespread habit among human beings? The labelling and naming?

Definitely, Jon. Starting with something as shallow or simple as a political stance all the way until intricate details of how we feel about things, the very stating of a label diminishes peoples inclination to probe further, when, in fact, a label is often an umbrella term that could refer to a spectrum. The one who states the name or label might be referring to one extreme of it while the one listening to it might be interpreting it as the other extreme.

That part was with respect to communication. It seems to be the case with perception (or rather sensation of the objects of sensations and thought) too, where there's some impatience in "getting" even perception "over with", where a partially recognized object or feature is quickly labelled and quickly moved on from.

So yeah, it certainly seems to be the case - even with myself, with my own thoughts and emotions sometimes receiving judgement and a reaction such as an almost instinctive recoil based on a label of acceptable or not, rather than patient noticing.

I've got my orange and kept it in another room, just wanted to respond to this post first, Jon.

Will respond to the next one shortly.

Love,
Raam

[indianguy]

Dear Jon,

The exercise requires you to find a piece of fruit. An orange, banana, mango, apple; it doesn't matter what type of fruit.

Start by placing the fruit in a room and go somewhere else so that you cannot see it any more, another room perhaps.

Yes Jon, I've got an orange, looked at it for a couple of minutes at some of the details of it. I was deliberate to note enough details about it, particularly visual details and the weight, before I placed it back in the fridge and returned to another room for the rest of the exercise.

Sit quietly for a few minutes. Bring the fruit to mind now. You may find it helpful to close your eyes but whatever works best for you. Visualise or remember the fruit as accurately as possible , it's colour, texture, scent, weight and so on. As if it were here right now.

I sat and waited for 5-6 minutes and a portion of this time was spent in updating some part of the text above. I then closed my eyes and started remembering and visualizing the orange.

Some portion of the visual aspect of the fruit could be pictured fairly easily, including clearly visible marks, dents and some colour patterns. What was even more easier to remember the feeling of were the weight, temperature and texture in some regions. I could quickly connect to how it felt to hold it. However, I'm not able to remember the entire surface. There are hazy regions where I am not sure of the appearance, colour and other features too. Overall even the image in my mind is hazy.

After a few minutes of that go and fetch the actual fruit. Now, hold the fruit, notice it's colours, its weight, it's texture , its temperature, its scent. Even taste it.

Now compare the two types of experience. The 'thought-fruit' and the experience of the real fruit.

How do these compare?

Looking at the actual fruit is a richer visual experience, with several more features being noticed better this time, visually and with touch. It's probably heavier than I'd thought.. Perhaps it was easier to hold the fruit when standing than when I'm sitting now?

I don't have to make an effort to even smell the fruit, the fragrance enters my nostrils automatically.

I guess that's the bottomline, Jon: direct perception does not need effort. Sure, labelling, looking for words to describe and interpreting may involve effort, but just perceiving directly is almost effortless. I say almost because there feels to be some deliberation in saying "okay, let's bring attention to this fruit here" from wherever attention was.

Thought, on the other hand - or rather, deliberate thought feels way more effort consuming and a sort of deviation from some equilibrium, and with even that much effort, the imagined experience of the fruit was way more lean, way less rich compared to the actual experience. The deliberation to visualize felt harder than the deliberation to merely move attention to a fruit right in front of the eyes.

Even in not moving attention deliberately like that, there's a sort of peripheral perception (an extension of peripheral vision to the other senses) that seeps into the senses-field which I would consider effortless.

I suppose the visual experience can be improved through increase in familiarity and taking time to imprint the fruit in the memory better, but if attention is fully on the object, that's probably the full blast of the current experience. Even there' there could be smaller sub-regions that did not receive enough attention earlier, receiving it now, resulting in uncovering of even further details - a closer perspective or a different angle of view, but those seem to be related to unnecessarily technical factors.

Direct experience just feels richer and seems to take much less effort than picturing the experience mentally, Jon.

Love,
Raam

[JonathanR]

Hi Raam

. Direct experience just feels richer and seems to take much less effort than picturing the experience mentally, Jon.

Yes that resonates. It's true. Thanks for doing the exercise

The "thought" orange is a mental object, a conceptual thing or image. At least in this exercise we can compare it with direct experience of a real orange that can be sensed, felt, seen, smelled and so on.

Can as much be said for what we refer to as "self"?

. Thanks, Jon. Honestly, having a guide feels like such a blessing. Now I don't have to do the worrying and the evaluating of which "path" is better and several other aspects with this. Thanks a lot for being with me through this.

You're welcome Raam. I'm glad to hear you say this as there are a lot of people , I've noticed, who are really caught up in exactly this thing of trying to evaluate and measure and work out where they are supposed to be on this or that path. It's good to let go of any tendency to compare or measure. All roads lead to the Gate

. I guess I've been pretty dismissive of the potency of presence, I'll try to spend some time in it whenever it feels like it, hopefully often. Your passage did make it quite easy and, well, unbinding.

Here and Now and nowhere else is a good place to start and stay. It actually takes no effort to stay here because it's manifesting already as what we call "the present" .

. Even in remembering to question whether something is a thought, such recognitions don't seem to happen often. At times I find even the asking to be a little mechanical, not "deliberate" enough to sort of mean the question, I guess

Is it about having to be 'doing' questioning in order to make something happen that otherwise would not happen ? What if noticing happens naturally whenever Inquisitiveness appears , enough for 'waking up' or recognition of what's actually going on to reassert itself?

. the very stating of a label diminishes peoples inclination to probe further, when, in fact, a label is often an umbrella term that could refer to a spectrum.

Words and language have an important role in keeping the illusion rolling. It turns out to be very surprising how the words we use are often used in order to bolster the assumption that there's a "self" inside a body and so on. We really must explore the role of words, labels and language.

Love

Jon

[indianguy]

Hello Jon,

Yes that resonates. It's true. Thanks for doing the exercise

It was fun Jon, thank you as well:)

The "thought" orange is a mental object, a conceptual thing or image. At least in this exercise we can compare it with direct experience of a real orange that can be sensed, felt, seen, smelled and so on.

Can as much be said for what we refer to as "self"?

So far, I haven't yet seen, felt or have otherwise perceived the self. There have been a lot of thoughts about it - emotions, desires, compulsions, decisions have been attributed to the self by thought as a habit. The self has been considered as a coordinate system, a point of reference for taking certain decisions that have then been classified as self-ish, a lot of activity has gone on in this direction for a very long time. In fact, this is how I was taught to think.

But unlike the orange, I have not yet perceived the self - or an entity that I could say that knew without doubt, is the self. It has just been talked and thought about a lot.

You're welcome Raam. I'm glad to hear you say this as there are a lot of people , I've noticed, who are really caught up in exactly this thing of trying to evaluate and measure and work out where they are supposed to be on this or that path. It's good to let go of any tendency to compare or measure. All roads lead to the Gate

And thank you, Jon, for being the reason for thought to loosen its grip on the need to compare and measure, and for holding my hand through this. The love and patience you have shown with me is something I'm very grateful for.

Here and Now and nowhere else is a good place to start and stay. It actually takes no effort to stay here because it's manifesting already as what we call "the present" .

Right, Jon.

Is it about having to be 'doing' questioning in order to make something happen that otherwise would not happen ?

Now that you ask this, I guess so. I'm not sure about how it feels at the beginning, but many a time, if the questioning doesn't seem to come up by itself, there's a panic mode that I find myself in - a frenzy where I wish I wouldn't just waste time and go deeper within because who knows what tomorrow will be like, shouldn't I be "doing the best I can, to work towards my awakening" and a whole load of very serious thoughts about wanting to awaken in in this lifetime, which is definitely what you've described - trying to "do" questioning to make something happen that otherwise wouldn't.

I'm unable to say whether it begins with that attempt too, but it certainly ends up in exactly this mental state.

What if noticing happens naturally whenever Inquisitiveness appears , enough for 'waking up' or recognition of what's actually going on to reassert itself?

That'd be lovely - I suppose it does happen, but sometimes there's an impatience that wants it "now":) I think when such a natural inquisitiveness does come up, it is seen to have been natural and spontaneous only in retrospection, eventually and after the whole thing has happened. I don't know what I'm referring, to say this, but it feels like that's how I'd know, if at all I get to know that it happened that way.

In my case, I think thought loves seeping in and saying "wow, this is a natural, spontaneous inquisitiveness, isn't it", and then carries attention away into evaluating and judging:) There have been enough times when thought has come into an otherwise silent or attentive moment and said "maybe today's the day I'll awaken" and then steals the show. I can only laugh about it now.

I see what you mean, Jon. Waiting for it feels like another mental process, but the message here is that if I try to force inquisitiveness, it may not help.

Words and language have an important role in keeping the illusion rolling. We really must explore the role of words, labels and language.

Absolutely, Jon. Can't tell you how much I agree.

Once I listened to a talk by Rupert Spira where he said that (something to the effect of this, I'm paraphrasing and this is far from verbatim) if you close your eyes, what you perceive is thought and sensation. And then I realized that the word "inside" (as in inside "me") had tricked me into imagining that there were layers of darkness within which a tiny little "I" was hiding that needed to be recognized, looked deeply at and then understood clearly.

Now I could tell that this whole thing, this whole inner cave stuff was just thought. I'm just here. Which doesn't need a "deep" looking. This transparent me that I'm looking past, to "find" me, is what's me, right?

The idea of a deep, dark inside is still there, but at least at times, I can just easily shrug and be like - yeah, okay, whatever's here is what I am. This hasn't broken the belief that whatever I am is limited, and somehow associated with the body, but the need to close my eyes and search for what feels like me, reduced, I think. It feels silly to need to close my eyes and search for me when I'm just here.

I don't know if it's always like this, there ends up being a clinging to some other obscure image of an I, but there are times where it can feel a little more relaxed - still limited and even sort of bound, but relaxed and simple.

Just those phrases "I feel this inside" and "this is what's going on outside" created such stark imagery of what inside is "supposed" to look like. Even the word "transparent" I've used above, felt authentic when I typed it, but has created a different image that is being clung onto, now:)

So yeah, language - or rather, the relationship with language and the ideas it creates does a lot of damage.

A note on my relationship with language and the world of words:
As a person with a story, I absolutely love languages, Jon, but at the subjective level, there's some noise because of it. Some time in my teenage, I taught myself to think in words - to even speak out my thoughts at times in solitude, to help improve my linguistic proficiency, particularly in English which was my academic first language and also in my mother-tongue Tamil. This grew to change my pattern of thinking to be in words instead of the obscure, wordless thoughtstuff that was the building block of thoughts. Doing so stretched out my thinking, where I'd hold dearly onto a thought until I "finished" a sentence almost until the punctuating full stop even in my head - in sound, of course, not as a visual sentence.

As a human being, this has made the person, Raam, an articulate man, capable of using the most nuanced words to communicate exactly what he thinks or feels about something. But the obsession with words has become so habituated that, at the subjective level, there's a ceaseless commentary about anything, often in English, but I've practised switching to any language I'm interested in. Switching languages is perhaps the only thing I could do - quietening it or going back to wordless, voiceless, language-less obscure thoughtstuff seems impossible now. I'm not saying it as a complaint, just wanted to share what it's like here.

For a long time on the spiritual journey, I believed that I would have to let go of language to proceed inwards, and that this was a barrier that I'd unnecessarily erected - one that I'd have to knock down at some point and dreaded not being able to. Now I see that silence is not about changing any of this but about actually seeing that silence is there right in the middle of all the noise. If thought-patterns and the habit of thinking happened to turn this way, it did, that's all. It's great with friendships and with writing.

So, yeah, there's this very intimate relationship with words in me, and I'd be extra-fascinated to try and see in what ways language and words have kept the illusion up in me.

I do remember this rephrasing that you suggested:

" Theres every possibility that very uncomfortable sensations could lead to many thoughts appearing about "me" , thus creating an even noisier or louder impression that there is actually a "me" a "sufferer". This illusion might seem convincing for a while "

I try to apply a similar rephrasing of thoughts at times - it doesn't always seem to resonate, but I guess it feels right at times.

Certainly excited to explore the role of words, Jon.

Love,
Raam

[indianguy]

Jon,

I guess I didn't elaborate this part clearly enough:

Now I could tell that this whole thing, this whole inner cave stuff was just thought. I'm just here. Which doesn't need a "deep" looking.

When Rupert said that what we have is perception and thought, I realized (seems like a big word, but I'm not able to think of a simpler one) that whatever I'm not perceiving within had to be thought. So a lot of the "black" that I "see" "within" had to be thought, there was no other way. Of course, the obscure patterns formed behind the eyelids were part of what was being perceived by the eyes - by the sense of vision, but the seemingly deep "inside", the "place" where I had to look for myself was simply imagined.

Whatever feels like me is just here, not hidden. It does continue to feel "out of reach" because there's a mental attempt to find it as an object, but there was no longer a huge, dark "cave" within which to find myself. The room was found to be smaller, so to speak, so it wasn't going to be too much effort to search.

So, perhaps, in a way, if everything else is outside, I am outside too and there's no "inside" per se, just an imagined fog that thought considered to be physical or at least tangible enough to search within, but a much simpler structure.

It took more effort to conceive up the dark space that I thought to be the "within", and effortless perception doesn't bring up any tangible "within" - not even as tangible as abstract emotion. Which had to only mean that this "inner space" was just thought.

Hope I didn't sound repetitive, but felt like I hadn't really conveyed this clearly in yesterday's post, Jon.

Love,
Raam

[JonathanR]

Hi Raam

. Now I see that silence is not about changing any of this but about actually seeing that silence is there right in the middle of all the noise

Absolutely. Its great that this is seen.

There is a particularly succinct story from Buddhism in which Bahiya , rather agitated and desparate to get beyond doubts , keeps asking Buddha for a teaching. Buddha tells him twice that this is not the time but then after a third plea he says this:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

The emphasis on the word "training" might suggest "doing" or "effort". That interpretation could create a confusion. What "you" have been "doing" in noticing silence is similar or very close to what is spoken of here. But in this silence, however it is maintained (or sometimes not) , can a "doer" be found?

Love

Jon

[JonathanR]

By the way Raam

I did read both your posts and found a lot of what you were saying showing great contemplation and examining of experience.

I'm not Buddhist actually, nor Hindu, Christian or anything else, unless I'm all of them , (which might actually be lol). In quoting the BahitaSutta, it just sprang to mind and seems worded so clearly. It seemed appropriate.

Jon

[indianguy]

Hi Jon,

I did read both your posts and found a lot of what you were saying showing great contemplation and examining of experience

Thanks, Jon.
I read yours yesterday as well, but it was a hectic day with barely any energy left to receive it properly, to dwell on it and respond. Hence thought I'd reply today, that's all.

I'm not Buddhist actually, nor Hindu, Christian or anything else, unless I'm all of them , (which might actually be lol). In quoting the BahitaSutta, it just sprang to mind and seems worded so clearly. It seemed appropriate.

That's absolutely cool, Jon. I'm grateful for any guidance here.

Although, in the sense of a lifestyle, the Hindu religion I was born into is one that I have adopted as a means of living by as an individual and as a component of the community (in between being an engineer, a son, a brother an a handful of other things), I know for sure that I cannot cling to one religion or one teaching for this.

When it comes to liberation, the actual thing I want to work towards, I guess I'm neither a Hindu nor not one. And Buddhism had come a long way in helping me see some hope that Awakening can take place in this lifetime itself. Had I stuck to Hindu teachings, I might have spent a lifetime of engaging in rituals and scriptural study, with the belief that I shouldn't be expecting awakening in this lifetime and just praying for it in a future one.

On this plane, I can only be what J know from experience. And in this space, I don't think I can confidently say anything about what I do not know from experience. I cannot be a theist, nor an atheist. I cannot hold too tightly onto any religion or feel audacious enough to reject any, either.

I'm just trying to be humble, open and receptive to all the help I can get, so I wouldn't close myself to anything. In the context of my liberation as a very real thing to get to in life, teachings of Buddhist teachers such as Angelo and Adyashanti are treated with the same reverence with which I'd treat the teachings of Hindu teachers like Adi Shankaracharya or Nisargadatta Maharaj. I consider your guidance as nothing less, Jon.

Even with other religions or non religious systems, I may have my political, historical and other thought-idea based opinions that relate to the conditioning thay I've grown up with, but on the authentic spiritual plane the only thing that matters is to awaken. I may argue vehemently on some of these topics as a local person, Raam, but could give up any other stance for my Awakening, Jon. Nothing matters more than this, and the tiniest creaks through which truth leaks are far more valuable than beliefs and ideas that have been gathered mentally.

So yeah, the only reason for the delay was that i wasn't sure I'd received your words well enough trust and wanted to take some time to let it sink in. My apologies if the delay in my reply made it seem to be anything else.

Absolutely. Its great that this is seen.

Thanks Jon, for letting me know that this is on the right track.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

The emphasis on the word "training" might suggest "doing" or "effort". That interpretation could create a confusion. What "you" have been "doing" in noticing silence is similar or very close to what is spoken of here.

The mind would've absolutely clung to the idea of effort in connection with the word training, had you not specified that it is not.

I'm not sure i can say that when seeing rajes place, it is "only" the seen. Yes, when looking for the one who sees, such a one is not to be found, but the idea of a "me" being somewhere around seems to seep in, in a "zoomed out" perspective with lesser attention to the seeing.

In a passive, paid back sense, it almost feels like there's some place I haven't looked. It's just an idea, just a brief, but it feels deeply rooted and I'm not even sure how to test out challenge this belief.

Even the case of not finding a self who does the seeing doesn't seem to clear it up. I don't know "where" this belief is, for me to go and confront it exactly where it is.

A lot of thought saying things, but it's what I'm able to to say, Jon.

But in this silence, however it is maintained (or sometimes not) , can a "doer" be found?

I sat once more, relaxed, paying attention to the senses of touch and sound to come to the present moment.

There is presence, but no doer. There may be me-ness as presence but no particular doer. Even if what I am is this presence, there isn't a one who is doing. Even if I were to call the presence as me, it isn't doing anything, so it's certainly not a doer.

Love,
Raam

[JonathanR]

. Even the case of not finding a self who does the seeing doesn't seem to clear it up. I don't know "where" this belief is, for me to go and confront it exactly where it is.

You're using spatial references as if a self were a thing, occupying part of a body. Or perhaps a more diffuse formless thing, but still 'somewhere'.

Has a self ever been seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelled? If one is sensed, how? Where is the sensation?

. There is presence, but no doer. There may be me-ness as presence but no particular doer. Even if what I am is this presence, there isn't a one who is doing. Even if I were to call the presence as me, it isn't doing anything, so it's certainly not a doer.

What if we were to drop the label "presence" . Would the lack of labeling destroy or prevent what you're calling 'presence'?

Here is an exercise:

Find a sheet of A4 paper and sit at a table with a pen.
Rule a line down the centre if the paper vertically.

Now on the left hand side, Write down thoughts. Could be things like "I am breathing" or "I worked well today" . Don't bother with complex abstract thoughts. Just thoughts relating to what you have been doing or will do. Simple sentences.

When you have at least seven written in the left hand column look at each sentence in turn and revise it. Reword it so that it has the same meaning for all practical purposes, but without any reference to "I" or "me".


Love

Jon

[indianguy]

Hey Jon,

You're using spatial references as if a self were a thing, occupying part of a body. Or perhaps a more diffuse formless thing, but still 'somewhere'.

Yes yes, I noticed, but for some reason, there's some clinging onto some idea of space and an idea of some "portion" of the space being unexplored. It must be thought, but it feels real on some level. It also feels like this is "where" my clinging to the idea of a local self is stuck, and so I wanted to unabashedly expose it rather than to just intellectually state that it's a thought.

Perhaps "showing" or telling you about it and then letting you help pull this apart might help in some way.

I will reply to the rest of the post after carrying out the exercise later today.

Thanks a lot Jon.

Love,
Raam

I will do the exercise later today and also respond to the rest of the post.

[indianguy]

Hello Jon,

You're using spatial references as if a self were a thing, occupying part of a body. Or perhaps a more diffuse formless thing, but still 'somewhere'.

Yeah. It felt right to describe it the way it feels even though it's absurd. It doesn't feel as if it is a physical location, but there's an idea that it's probably "somewhere", especially when the darkness of the insides seem like an abstract unplottable 'space' (often when not paid attention to). At times when it is clear that there's no inside space, there's an idea that whatever feels like me might be an abstract but limited container of what is being felt here, particularly emotionally.

Upon looking for it, I have, so far been completely unsuccessful in finding a self. It is not even as tangible as emotion, I think. Emotion at least leaves markers - sensations, a heaviness within, or some relief. Might have to look at an actual emotion well enough, actually and contrast it against the feeling of a self - I'll try this soon, Jon. I do not know what markers to identify the self by. I don't know why I am assuming it's there, Jon.

You asked me some time back, what if this is what no-self is like?

I guess I'm not able to answer because this is what I've known and I've thought that this is the self-state. I've imagined all this time that this is what it feels like to have a self. It feels a little unsure as to how I must start looking. There's of course, the default place "within" that I'd turn to first, but I don't know right now if that's an imagined place to look - coming from habit or something.

Sorry if this feels as if I'm overwriting some things that I've said in the past, I'm trying to be articulate about what I'm feeling right now, Jon, even at the cost of sounding 'regressive' in comparison with how I've sounded before.

Has a self ever been seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelled? If one is sensed, how? Where is the sensation?

Definitely not with these five senses. A subjectivity is seen in sensation, but upon close observation, it is only sensation. A subject is certainly not to be found.

But there's a question as to how the experience of self would compare with the experience of emotion. No particular emotion is being felt right now, so I'd like to observe this and respond a little later please.

For now, the abstractness of thought feels that it can be more closely compared with the experience of self, because it is certainly clear that the self is not a sensation like sight, touch, sound, taste or smell. Thought, at least, is not in a physical space.

The thought can be visualized, heard (if it is a sound thought like a earworm song), but the self is not to be found in such a subtle format either. For now, I haven't been able to find it. But the idea that I probably haven't looked "everywhere" "exhaustively" is still there. But where else can I look? Where else is there?

I'd like to try and re-respond tomorrow as well, Jon.

What if we were to drop the label "presence" . Would the lack of labeling destroy or prevent what you're calling 'presence'?

Calling it presence felt a little like a safety blanket - it made it feel a little more tangible I guess.

Jon, I'd really like to take till tomorrow to respond a little more properly, please. I'll do the exercise as well, tomorrow. I'm more exhausted than I thought and it's not helping.

Love,
raam

[JonathanR]

Hi Raam

Yes better to rest now.

I will not respond until you have posted again.

Best wishes

Jon