Hello

[Hannah B-T]

well, it feels to me that when I try to isolate my sensations they are like reflections of sensations in rippling water. Not literally; just metaphorically. Does this make sense?

Yes. I've been looking at feeling sensations directly and what is pure sensation in the body and what is added interpretation for about 3 or 4 years. It's a rich if often frustrating path but one that in my case has led consitently to clarity and more peace.

I've noticed it being labelled different things at different times. Quite the vocabulary for spinning stories about myself!

This is great to notice. The mind/thoughts make the illusion of a substantial 'thing' out of transient sensations. Seeing the lables change for the same sensations is a powerful way that that starts being undermined.

I don't know if you would consider he thoughts associated with the heaviness to be part of the raw sensation of the emotion

For the purpose of this sort of inquiry I would go with sensations + thoughts about them/interpreting them as 'personal'= emotion. But this is only one model. The key thing is this ongonig process of questioning what is being assumed and deconstruction of things.

It's almost like over time physicists thinking matter was matter, then seeing it was made of smaller bits called cells, then that the were made of chemicals, which were made of elements, which were made of atoms, whc were made of subatomic particles....which didn't even 'exist' unless they were being observed.
Each time science had to reajust their entire paradigm. And each time they still weren't satisfied and stayed curious.

the thoughts are up to their old tricks again, labelling one more personal than the other, which just makes the heart-heavy feeling stronger! A cycle! Vicious!

But so cool to see this!

thoughts themselves appear to be personal in this same way as the emotions do. And in the same way, upon inspection (lens moving closer) they are unmasked as mere sounds in the minds ear, no more personal than the sounds spoken by somebody else, or his dog.

Well examined.

The cycle never ends, and it remains convincing still, and still, no matter how many times the experiment (inspection) is performed (administered). This is what bothers me so intolerably - the stubbornness of how it keeps up being so convincing as soon as the inspection is over. It puts me back to square one!

Ok this is purely the old paradigm trying to undermine inquiry.
What is the only thing that can ever be looked at and inquired into.
Just this moment, right here, right now.
And now...and now....and now...and now...
It's actually utterly simple.
Either this moment is being seem with more clarity what is actually going on, in which case, all good.
Or it's not (which will be obvious as there is suffering going on), so that can be noticed and looking at things with more clarity can start again. At any moment.

Often there is internalised lots of stories and ideas about how this should be, which just creates expectations.
There is no 'how it should be'
there is just this, right here to keep being curious about.
Which is actually much more manageable!

I think it has something to do with proximity.

Proximity to what?
Is there a centre point to experience?
Take your right index finger right now and point to the centre of experience.
Where does the finger point to?
Now examine what is gonig on there to make it seem like it's the centre point.

It's like the inner monologue doesn't care about reason or evidence at all. It just goes on saying whatever it wants, and beliefs will go on being whatever, whatever. I know the mind isn't so easily changed. I suppose repeated exposure will wear resistance thin.

Does the inner dialogue have to be bothered about? If it's not bothered with it can go on churning out whatever it likes. Is there an expectation certain ideas /thoughts will stop appearing?

This body isn't the experiencer at the receiving end of experiences. I can't find this body to be beholding the experience.

Yes. The part of experience labelled 'body' is just appearing, same as 'noise in the street' or 'pictures on tv screen'.

[Space6006]

Yes. I've been looking at feeling sensations directly and what is pure sensation in the body and what is added interpretation for about 3 or 4 years. It's a rich if often frustrating path but one that in my case has led consitently to clarity and more peace

.

I can't imagine coming off this path now. Now I've noticed how not simple it all is I can't see it all the same unquestioning way as before.

This is great to notice. The mind/thoughts make the illusion of a substantial 'thing' out of transient sensations. Seeing the lables change for the same sensations is a powerful way that that starts being undermined

I definitely hear you on this.

Proximity to what?
Is there a centre point to experience?
Take your right index finger right now and point to the centre of experience.
Where does the finger point to?
Now examine what is gonig on there to make it seem like it's the centre point

.

I first considered pointing to my chest...but that was wrong. Then I considered my head, but that's wrong too. Despite saying that there's a sense of being behind my eyes, I'm not satisfied that I've found a centre of experience by pointing there. That's weird.

Does the inner dialogue have to be bothered about? If it's not bothered with it can go on churning out whatever it likes. Is there an expectation certain ideas /thoughts will stop appearing

I suppose there is an expectation. Usually when something is learned it changes certain thoughts. When I learned that Santa didn't exist thoughts like "Santa can make it round the whole world in one night" or "Santa really exists" stopped appearing. Likewise, I guess I expect thoughts like "self really exists" to stop appearing eventually. I would associate that with learning or knowing or realising that self doesn't exist.

Ok this is purely the old paradigm trying to undermine inquiry.
What is the only thing that can ever be looked at and inquired into.
Just this moment, right here, right now.
And now...and now....and now...and now...
It's actually utterly simple.
Either this moment is being seem with more clarity what is actually going on, in which case, all good.
Or it's not (which will be obvious as there is suffering going on), so that can be noticed and looking at things with more clarity can start again. At any moment.

Often there is internalised lots of stories and ideas about how this should be, which just creates expectations.
There is no 'how it should be'
there is just this, right here to keep being curious about.
Which is actually much more manageable

"Looking at things with more clarity can start again, at any moment", that resonates somehow with me. I guess the gap between square 1 and the destination (clarity) is not that far once you've got a sense for looking with more clarity at current experience.

What concerns me a little is I'm expecting to be asked if I can say with a big fat yes that there's no inherent self, but how can I give that big fat yes if the old thoughts keep recurring? It seems like the old thoughts will always be a source of doubt.

[Hannah B-T]

Hi just to let you know I will be on holiday from tomorrow till Sunday so won't be able to post.

Despite saying that there's a sense of being behind my eyes, I'm not satisfied that I've found a centre of experience by pointing there. That's weird.

Weird is good. Go with weird.
Is it possible that this 'centre' is just a assumption, a group of sensations being interpreted by the mind as 'a centre' or more significant or important in some way? I mean for spacial awareness it's probably necessary biologically to relate objects seen to a point, but that's different to some existential belief that everything in perception refers back to a centre, which of course is 'me'.

Likewise, I guess I expect thoughts like "self really exists" to stop appearing eventually. I would associate that with learning or knowing or realising that self doesn't exist.

Ok say to yourself 'the self really does exist' a few times and then 'the self is an illusion'. Is there anything about either of those two thoughts making on more accurate than the other? What else needs to happen to establish which one of those ideas stand up to scrutiny?

I guess the gap between square 1 and the destination (clarity) is not that far once you've got a sense for looking with more clarity at current experience.

Not that far? It's as close as your face and the next breath :)

but how can I give that big fat yes if the old thoughts keep recurring? It seems like the old thoughts will always be a source of doubt.

Because every time someone asks that question, you go to experience for the answer, rather than more ideas, and I bet the answer from that place will be very consistent.

Change the question to 'are their keys in your pocket right now?' the question isn't ' do keys have real existence? Have you ever carried keys in your pocket? What is the true nature of keys in pockets?'
See where i'm going with this?

xx

[Space6006]

Weird is good. Go with weird.
Is it possible that this 'centre' is just a assumption, a group of sensations being interpreted by the mind as 'a centre' or more significant or important in some way? I mean for spacial awareness it's probably necessary biologically to relate objects seen to a point, but that's different to some existential belief that everything in perception refers back to a centre, which of course is 'me'.

I might say that the head is the center of seeing, but not the center of experience as a whole. Truthfully, experience isn't something that has a center, I don't think. It just doesn't make sense to talk about things that way. Experience isn't in a place, it doesn't have a location or any relationship to space at all. I might say experience is before space or even time. Experience is just, in a sense, reality, or the fact of reality right now. It isn't an object which can be indexed and put in a box like a table or chairs. Experience is more primary than that. Its the raw stuff of existence as far as can be found.

I often think of the self as the centre of experience, but experience must precede anything that ocurrs in it, and the feeling of self ocurrs in it. It stands to reason that experience could stand free of self or at least that self is just one way for experience to be. Maybe I'm self limiting experience here by caging it in the notion of self with sheer habit and ignorance of the alternatives.

Ok say to yourself 'the self really does exist' a few times and then 'the self is an illusion'. Is there anything about either of those two thoughts making on more accurate than the other? What else needs to happen to establish which one of those ideas stand up to scrutiny?

The two phrases when considered like this both seem equally unconvincing. Neither gives the same feelings as, for example, 'the sky is blue'. That rings true on some way that neither statement about the self does. Both of the self statements are comprehensible but sort of neutral somehow.

Change the question to 'are their keys in your pocket right now?' the question isn't ' do keys have real existence? Have you ever carried keys in your pocket? What is the true nature of keys in pockets?'
See where i'm going with this?

Yes, this resonates. I also notice your signature! But the other part of the question that gets asked is 'has there ever [been a self]?'. 'Are there keys right now' is one question, but 'have there ever been' is another. That depends on memory which is itself a mysterious thing, not to mention the past and future which are even more mysterious.

[Hannah B-T]

I might say that the head is the center of seeing, but not the center of experience as a whole. Truthfully, experience isn't something that has a center, I don't think.

Ok. Let's put aside what you think yet again. What is found when you LOOK?

other part of the question that gets asked is 'has there ever [been a self]?'. 'Are there keys right now' is one question, but 'have there ever been' is another. That depends on memory which is itself a mysterious thing, not to mention the past and future which are even more mysterious.

ok, you got me there. But those questions can also be answered with confidence. Let's look at the nature of memory and and past and future then!

So think of a strong memory, say your first kiss. really go to town on it. In what form is that momory appearing? Is it words? Is it a picture in the minds eye as it were? If it is a picture is it moving or static? in what person is it being seen from, first person (i.e you are kissing) or 3rd person i,.e like a movie you are looking at yourself kissing someone?

Now imagine a really engaging screen kiss from a movie. really go to town on that.
What exactly is the diference between those experiences?

Now imagine the future like an appointment you have coming up. How exactly does the future appear? As words? As images in the mind's eye? is it any different to the experience of 'past' (i.e memory).

Is there any way to verify the 'past' images ever really happenned and are no less 'imagination' thatn the 'future' ones.

It's all really not that mysterious when you look at it all.
But it might be disconcerting!

[Space6006]

Ok. Let's put aside what you think yet again. What is found when you LOOK?

When I look, I don't find anything called "experience" in order to evaluate what the properties of "experience" are. I find a table, a wall, a buzzing. Or you might say shapes and colors and noises. As far as I can tell what I'm finding is a world of stuff. Not a world of experiences.

So think of a strong memory, say your first kiss. really go to town on it. In what form is that momory appearing? Is it words? Is it a picture in the minds eye as it were? If it is a picture is it moving or static? in what person is it being seen from, first person (i.e you are kissing) or 3rd person i,.e like a movie you are looking at yourself kissing someone?

I tried a few different memories, and the truth is I can't think of any that are particularly vivid. But of the ones that I can muster up, they are invariably images, and always still images. I'm noticing a propensity for them to start as first person images and then more images come up which are third person perspectives on the same image.

It's weird that they are all image based. I'm trying to think of other senses and if there are any memories associated. If I try I can remember specific tastes that I haven't had for years, or smells that I haven't smelled for years, but these don't seem like 'whole' memories as much as the visual ones do. Really the only difference is that the visual memories seem to depict a whole scene as it were, whereas the other senses seem to be very small in scope, rather than representing a whole scenario or episode. But I had never noticed before how what I was calling memories 'proper' were all visual based, or that there was any subconscious demand that the memories be whole scenes to be 'proper' and not just fragmentary sense data. Though, of course, the images are just fragmentary sense data aswell when you think about it.

Now imagine a really engaging screen kiss from a movie. really go to town on that.
What exactly is the diference between those experiences?

Visually they are the same kind of thing. The only difference is the details of the images, which is incidental. The only way I can tell the difference between memories and a movie is that there's this idea that one of them happened to me and one of them didn't. I want to be able to say that this is based on some feeling or signature that really exists, but all I can find are the contents of thoughts. "This really happened" "this didn't". I would like to know what prompts these different thoughts, but I can't figure it out. I want to say I feel like I just know, but when I ask about that feeling (where is it etc) I can't bring anything in as evidence. There must be something I'm missing.

Now imagine the future like an appointment you have coming up. How exactly does the future appear? As words? As images in the mind's eye? is it any different to the experience of 'past' (i.e memory).

Once again it only feels like a projection of the future 'proper' when i'm having mental images. I can imagine what something might feel like or taste like in the future, but these seem like trifles not fully fledged notions of the future. I mean, when you asked me to imagine the future, I would never reflexively start imagining sounds or tastes, but would always go to images and perhaps never consider the other senses to paint that picture unless specifically prompted.

Also, I can remember the taste I haven't had for years, and I can imagine having it again next year, and there's no difference between those at all. Its the same taste on the 'mind's tongue'. The only difference is the context in which those sensations arise: what I'm thinking about when I conjure them.

Is there any way to verify the 'past' images ever really happenned and are no less 'imagination' thatn the 'future' ones.

Not just based on the images. There's just this sense of being convinced, but again, I'm not able to figure out what that sense is coming from. The only thing I can find is the contents of thoughts but it doesn't feel like that would be enough. I want to say that there's some way besides just the words I think that I'm convinced of things. It's like there's some passive state whereby things can be considered true of false that doesn't have any way of being broken down. Trying to describe it is like trying to describe the color yellow to a blind person.

It's all really not that mysterious when you look at it all.
But it might be disconcerting!

This is new stuff for me. Liking it.

[Hannah B-T]

I don't find anything called "experience" in order to evaluate what the properties of "experience" are. I find a table, a wall, a buzzing. Or you might say shapes and colors and noises. As far as I can tell what I'm finding is a world of stuff. Not a world of experiences.

Perfect.This is the direction Xain was going with you. In the end language fails, every time, but where it is useful is illuminating where the mind is sticking to a particualr story as 'real truth'. Like 'there is a thing called experience'. When you look closer even that doesn't work.
And even 'stuff' can be deconstructed- but that's beyond the scope of this inquiry at the moment.

I'm noticing a propensity for them to start as first person images and then more images come up which are third person perspectives on the same image.

I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking 'wait a minute', if that image is 'me' then how can the perspective change? I'm just making this up as I go along! :)

whereas the other senses seem to be very small in scope, rather than representing a whole scenario or episode.

Liking the detail here. Yes most reports are the visual sense is by far the strongest/more convincing.

The only way I can tell the difference between memories and a movie is that there's this idea that one of them happened to me and one of them didn't. I want to be able to say that this is based on some feeling or signature that really exists, but all I can find are the contents of thoughts.

Yep. I can see that seeing this is somewhat weird for you. As I said, weird is good, go with the weirdness :)

I would like to know what prompts these different thoughts, but I can't figure it out. I want to say I feel like I just know, but when I ask about that feeling (where is it etc) I can't bring anything in as evidence. There must be something I'm missing.

No, I don't think you are. Just check their aren't any body sensation in the mix here, the phrase 'I FEEL like I just know' may be a pointer.

What if the self really only existed as a thought? An interpretation, a shorthand to 'process sensory data' as you put it? How amazing would that illusion be to finally see clearly operating?! How beautiful!
Smoke and mirrors.

Not just based on the images. There's just this sense of being convinced, but again, I'm not able to figure out what that sense is coming from. The only thing I can find is the contents of thoughts but it doesn't feel like that would be enough. I want to say that there's some way besides just the words I think that I'm convinced of things. It's like there's some passive state whereby things can be considered true of false that doesn't have any way of being broken down.

Just gently and kindly contemplate on this 'sense of being convinced'. This is a fruitful area. What exactly makes certain images and words SEEM realer/more truthful than others? Does that mean they ARE? how would it be possible to step out side that subjective interpretative process and verify that?

This is new stuff for me. Liking it.

I can see the curiousity has been engaged. Fab, keep curious

x

[Space6006]

No, I don't think you are. Just check their aren't any body sensation in the mix here, the phrase 'I FEEL like I just know' may be a pointer.

Just gently and kindly contemplate on this 'sense of being convinced'. This is a fruitful area. What exactly makes certain images and words SEEM realer/more truthful than others? Does that mean they ARE? how would it be possible to step out side that subjective interpretative process and verify that?

This is coming up almost as a dead end. Is there maybe a way you could rephrase these pointers?

I suppose the past images really are just imagination. As you say, if sometimes the images appear in the third person, it's clearly the case that these images are being reconstructed in the mind's eye rather than being photographs stored verbatim and resurrected upon 'remembering'. It's just that alongside the images there's sometimes an assumption that they really are more like photographs, even sometimes when the images are third person, which obviously doesn't make sense when you think about it.

And besides this, whether they're photographs or not, the images are fundamentally similar as experiences. Its the BELIEF that they're more like photographs that have been taken by the mind that feeds the notion that memories are somehow more real. There's a belief that this memory image is a preserved piece of reality, and a trust in that idea. (Even though I know that even memories which one is 100% convinced are accurate can be false).

Now, this 'belief' ... what is that? What is it's signature? What is a belief and how does it manifest itself besides in thoughts? I believe that this memory is a snapshot of a real past. How do I know I believe that besides by deference to the words I'm writing and thinking? I still can't figure it out. Is believing something really just certain words coming up in thoughts? The words "memories are basically snapshots of real things that happened" appear in thought, but then there's a separate affirmation of this sentence. Is that affirmation nothing more than the subsequent phrase "that was true"? It doesn't seem like there are always such subsequent phrases every time there's a belief in something. Those words don't actually always appear.

I vaguely feel a sensation in my chest and throat when considering these things, but these are the sensations that always seem to appear when I self consciously examine the self. It's almost as if I feel some kind of force or spirit thrumming in those areas.

[Hannah B-T]

Ok let's take this away from any analysis again. There is this movement back to analysing in the last response.

Go for a walk this weekend with some nature, like a park-

Just drop these questions in like a stone into a pool whilst observing what is going on.

Is a self required/evident for the wind to move the trees?
Is a self required/evident for water to flow?
Is a self required/evident for that bird to sing and move?
Is a self required evident for that dog to run for that stick?
Look down, is a self required/evident for those legs to be moving?
Look at another person in the park, is a self required/evident for that body to be moving and speaking?

Just sit and contemplate, let those questions sink in. Use whatever is going on around, just be curious like a young child, as if you'd never seen any of this stuff happening before.

what bubbles up to reply to me?

xx

[Space6006]

Okay, when I'm outside later I'll do the exercise properly.

For now, I'm in my bedroom, and there's no self evident in the books on that shelf; no self evident in the clothes in the basket, no self evident in these typing fingers moving (they just do what they do). The fingers moving are as innocent here as the books on the shelf: they just do what be they do. There's a fundamental similarity between the fingers moving and the books sitting and that is, from this perspective, as viewed, they just do what they do and no self can be seen or heard or whatever being involved in them.

There's nobody else around right now but if there were there wouldn't be any self evident in them any more so than there would be with moving trees or water. You don't need to posit an extra thing called a self or experiences in the rushing water or the crepitating trees or other people and no such thing is evident when viewing them.

But I understand that this should be conducted properly as you instructed and how this would make an important difference. Just posting this for the sake of momentum and letting you know where I am. A foretaste. I'll do it properly on the way to work.

[Hannah B-T]

Great, look forward to hearing more. Stay playful with it.

x

[Space6006]

Okay so I did the task on my way to work and unfortunately being outdoors didn't really produce any different results to being In my bedroom. One thing that I have to say I noticed was that there is no self 'over there', in any thing, but there is something over HERE that won't go away: emotions. It doesn't matter if there's a tree or water or someone else, it's all coloured by pretty strong emotions, which for me are almost always unpleasant. That is what cant be described or accounted for by just looking at the world around me. Those emotions are HERE.

But I don't know what any of this has to do with the self. All I know is that I feel like I am here looking out at a world that is different from what I am. And my emotions only seem to be getting stronger and more distracting and ever present the more I conduct self enquiry. I've began suffering more than before for some reason. The sense that I can't escape this puzzle is starting to bear down on me and I now think about little else other than this, which I think is causing me pain. I don't want to stop because I don't think this will just go away now that curiosity has been piqued.

It's almost harder now to conduct self enquiry because it's so easy to be swept up by the painful emotions. If I try to get curious about that emotion, it just intensifies and nothing fruitful comes of it. I don't think I'm capable of enquiry into painful emotions because I just get bogged down in them and have to resort to distraction instead by thinking positively. But it seems to me that distracting myself from pain by thinking happy thoughts is just another way to get caught up in the behaviour pattern of grasping and aversion that is the root of my problem here: delusion about the nature of what is really going on.

I would love to answer your questions more directly, but when considering nature around me the only thing that really bubbled up was how isolated it felt to be 'over here' whilst all that other stuff was going on so easily and peacefully around me.

[Hannah B-T]

Those emotions are HERE.

Great honest looking, if thats what it feels like, then fine, that's what it feels like. No use pretending otherwise.

But I don't know what any of this has to do with the self. All I know is that I feel like I am here looking out at a world that is different from what I am. And my emotions only seem to be getting stronger and more distracting and ever present the more I conduct self enquiry. I've began suffering more than before for some reason. The sense that I can't escape this puzzle is starting to bear down on me and I now think about little else other than this, which I think is causing me pain. I don't want to stop because I don't think this will just go away now that curiosity has been piqued.

This may read as a problem but actually I am really excited to hear you talk like this.
This is the bit all those lovely awakening stories don't talk about so much.

this is SUCH a common way things unfold, honestly. It has here. It's almost like all those ways of dealing with life that involved believing in a real self start to wobble, and shit starts to get much more raw and real as it were.
It's not pleasant, but it's ok, and it will pass.
You are right to say not stopping now is the way forward. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle as it were. The inner child is starting to have a tantrum that how dare Santa and fairies not be real... but fortuntely there is no fixed time frame, things can slow down a bit if needed.

If I try to get curious about that emotion, it just intensifies and nothing fruitful comes of it. I don't think I'm capable of enquiry into painful emotions because I just get bogged down in them and have to resort to distraction instead by thinking positively. But it seems to me that distracting myself from pain by thinking happy thoughts is just another way to get caught up in the behaviour pattern of grasping and aversion that is the root of my problem here: delusion about the nature of what is really going on.

I know it can feel like this. But we can look at this and try and find some fresh avenues without things getting totally overwhelming.

First thing- Emotions cannot kill you. I know that sounds like a ridiculous thing to say, but sometimes it gets to the point of needing to state this. No matter how awful or intensely painful an emotion has ever been up till now, it has passed and life has gone on.

Second thing- don't bite off more that you can chew. When things are massively intense is not the time to do inquiry. When the body and mind are well rested, relaxed is the time to consider doing inquiry at the moment.
Practices to get the body and mind well rested and relaxed may need to come back into the picture for a bit, that is fine.

but when considering nature around me the only thing that really bubbled up was how isolated it felt to be 'over here' whilst all that other stuff was going on so easily and peacefully around me.

I used to feel during this stage as if there was literally a 2 foot block of glass or ice between me here and the world.
Then I realised this wasn't new, it was just i'd stopped taking it as a given and ignoring it, and had started to wonder if it had to be like this.
Which was a good thing.

I just want you to focus on a couple of pointers, as I said, very gently when you feel able at the moment, don't push it.

Is there anything 'here' that needs protecting? From what?

What is this apparent boundary isolating 'me'? What is it really, in experience, what is it made of?

Is there a self to be found separate from the emotion that is experiencing it or can be harmed by it?

Let me know what is found out.
xx

[Space6006]

This may read as a problem but actually I am really excited to hear you talk like this.
This is the bit all those lovely awakening stories don't talk about so much.

this is SUCH a common way things unfold, honestly. It has here. It's almost like all those ways of dealing with life that involved believing in a real self start to wobble, and shit starts to get much more raw and real as it were.
It's not pleasant, but it's ok, and it will pass.
You are right to say not stopping now is the way forward. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle as it were. The inner child is starting to have a tantrum that how dare Santa and fairies not be real... but fortuntely there is no fixed time frame, things can slow down a bit if needed.

This is reassuring. :)

I know it can feel like this. But we can look at this and try and find some fresh avenues without things getting totally overwhelming.

First thing- Emotions cannot kill you. I know that sounds like a ridiculous thing to say, but sometimes it gets to the point of needing to state this. No matter how awful or intensely painful an emotion has ever been up till now, it has passed and life has gone on.

Second thing- don't bite off more that you can chew. When things are massively intense is not the time to do inquiry. When the body and mind are well rested, relaxed is the time to consider doing inquiry at the moment.
Practices to get the body and mind well rested and relaxed may need to come back into the picture for a bit, that is fine.

Thank you. Your words here are helpful.

I used to feel during this stage as if there was literally a 2 foot block of glass or ice between me here and the world.
Then I realised this wasn't new, it was just i'd stopped taking it as a given and ignoring it, and had started to wonder if it had to be like this.
Which was a good thing.

I just want you to focus on a couple of pointers, as I said, very gently when you feel able at the moment, don't push it.

Is there anything 'here' that needs protecting? From what?

What is this apparent boundary isolating 'me'? What is it really, in experience, what is it made of?

Is there a self to be found separate from the emotion that is experiencing it or can be harmed by it?

Let me know what is found out.
xx

1) I need protecting from pain. That is the answer that springs up.

2) I don't know if there is a boundary. There is 'me', and there is stuff which is 'not me', which would seem to necessitate a boundary somewhere. Yet this boundary isn't something I ever think about nor is it something which, when thought about, is readily available to inspect. In terms of emotions, it seems relevant that I am feeling this emotion, but that table isn't. I am feeling this emotion, but that dog isn't. There are some things which I assume are 'shared', like a table which I imagine the dog or another person in the room might be able to see; but emotions aren't shared in this way - my emotions are here and only here, somewhere private where nobody else has access. I guess I call that my 'mind'. But to answer your question directly, I can't find any boundary, and I can't tell you what it's made of.

3) It seems that there is only the emotion. Harm just seems to be happening here and now (though right now I'm not feeling pain, but just remembering how it is when it appears). I might say my body is in pain, my heart is in pain - so harm is happening to the body or the heart. But as well as this there seems to be a psychological or mental component to pain, especially emotional pain. This part of the pain I can't find any object for. And especially relating to pain of the heart, I'm not talking about a pain like heartburn, which is a more traditional kind of pain, but some kind of combination of physical and emotional pain which seems to afflict the heart. It's quite a unique sensation. With this unique heart sensation, I often will think of that as "I am in emotional pain" rather than physical pain, but maybe this emotional pain is just a certain kind of sensation in the body that takes a different label which implies more than is really there.

[Space6006]

2) I don't know if there is a boundary. There is 'me', and there is stuff which is 'not me', which would seem to necessitate a boundary somewhere. Yet this boundary isn't something I ever think about nor is it something which, when thought about, is readily available to inspect.

A little more on this point: it seems to be a pretty stark delusion. It seems obvious that there's 'me' and 'not me' but there's no obvious boundary. If the fact of the distinction is obvious, shouldn't the boundary be obvious, too? Or is it a case like we have with adults and children? Everybody knows there's a difference but you can't find the exact boundary, and any attempts to do so are inevitably arbitrary. (18, 21, etc)