Thread for Biggles

[jowate]

Hi S,

When attention is directed to thought, there is an awareness of thoughts as transparent, ephemeral, yes. I think the seemingly opaque nature of some thoughts is just secondary thought added to primary thought! Thinking gives certain thoughts more weight... So there is bare arising/sensation of thought just as there is bare arising of sound... The experiencing is to do with more thought being added to that primary thought or sound - secondary evaluations etc or judgement or fear - a proliferation of thought and consequent emotion etc..

Good observations. I like ‘I think the seemingly opaque nature of some thoughts is just secondary thought added to primary thought!’ – exactly so!

Could awareness be positively suspicious or take at least some thoughts seriously? Not really, it's thought added to thought that does that... How does awareness view thoughts - does it evaluate or judge? It doesn't evaluate - but there is an inherent wisdom/knowing.... So there is a knowing that all thoughts are ephemera etc but that some thoughts seem to align more with reality?

Have a closer look at this ‘inherent wisdom/knowing’. Can you definitely say that awareness ‘knows’ that thoughts are ephemera, or is that another conceptual projection? And that some thoughts align more with reality? Is this ‘known’ outside of mental activity?

Spent a while on this, feeling a bit blank... A sense of self being my body? The right answer is no, that's just another thought.... Experientially... Do I have a sense of self and body as synonymous? The same thing? Right now, at this moment? Fingers on key board, wrists on desk, breath entering nostrils.... Self and physical sensations synonymous?... No.

:-)

Okay, yes, will consider that one.... Not me thinking there is a self entity.... Cos there aint no self entity... Thinking thinking it! "I" am a thought.... Being thunk by thinking....Which doesnt seem to have anything better to do than make life incredibly bloody complex....

So it would seem! So what is left of the belief that ‘I’ am the thinker?

As for Hamlet – well, great that we can learn from (and avoid) his example!

T.x

[Biggles]

Hi T.....

Have a closer look at this ‘inherent wisdom/knowing’. Can you definitely say that awareness ‘knows’ that thoughts are ephemera, or is that another conceptual projection? And that some thoughts align more with reality? Is this ‘known’ outside of mental activity?

Awareness seems synonymous with love. But also with a wisdom/knowing. To say that some thoughts align more with reality is a concept and once removed from awareness.... But just as there is the loving/sameness/equality aspect to awareness - all rises in/as awareness..... isn't there also the discriminating aspect? I mean, before concepts, - the direct, intuitive non judging knowing that say, relatively speaking, what A says is leading him up the garden path and what B says is intelligent and articulate?... I guess a thought comes up and it is not separate from awareness... But there is still a direct seeing of what it is - ephemeral or nonsensical or useful - in a non conceptual intuitive way?

Self and physical sensations synonymous?... No.

Noticed the slight anxiety which arose on seeing the "No" in red and magnified in size! Felt like there was a commitment to something here!

So what is left of the belief that ‘I’ am the thinker?

Thoughts arise.... Is there a thinker there? A me thinking them? Response to this question - more thought, e.g. well sometimes it seems that way cos there's been a belief in me as the thinker for over fifty years so it's not surprising blah blah blah... then the thought "another thought"..... So is there a me thinking these thoughts?.... Beginning to have a sense of why the Santa Clause and Batman analogies are used a lot... A kind of puzzlement when I ask myself the question... Yes, but okay is there a me thinking these thoughts?... Seems easier to say "No me there" in respect to bodily sensations... Thoughts coming and going... Typing this... About to rush off and do a class... thoughts about the class... Taking five minutes here.... Direct experience... Thoughts seem like any other objects in awareness... Stones, sounds, pain in back.... Made of same stuff.... And the seeming I which thinks these thoughts? Located between the temples? Another thought........ If the "me" is seen,it can't be the seer....
S x

[jowate]

Hi S,

Awareness seems synonymous with love. But also with a wisdom/knowing. To say that some thoughts align more with reality is a concept and once removed from awareness.... But just as there is the loving/sameness/equality aspect to awareness - all rises in/as awareness..... isn't there also the discriminating aspect? I mean, before concepts, - the direct, intuitive non judging knowing that say, relatively speaking, what A says is leading him up the garden path and what B says is intelligent and articulate?... I guess a thought comes up and it is not separate from awareness... But there is still a direct seeing of what it is - ephemeral or nonsensical or useful - in a non conceptual intuitive way?

Yes, awareness, wisdom/knowing, love – all present and correct! The ‘discriminating aspect’ before concepts is from one point of view simply ‘knowing’ and from another ‘intimacy / love’. All of these pointers refer to each other.

Notice when a ‘spaciousness’ arises – there’s quite obviously no-self, no boundaries, clarity, direct ‘knowing’. When this sense of pure presence or pure experiencing is ‘present’, are whatever concepts that may arise being bought into as a story of self or other?

Contemplate this first, look directly and get a sense of it, before you read the next bit.


If this is being seen directly, ‘no self or other’, notice that the conceptualising mind can subsequently extrapolate, e.g. in terms of ‘this is undeluded’ or ‘this is deluded, this is buying into a story’ or whatever.

I.e. in the light of the clarity of direct knowing, further intelligent conceptualisation – you might say ‘illumined’ by direct experience of openness – can happen. So there is a direct seeing/knowing, and then there is an ‘intelligent ‘illumined’ conceptualisation’ which is also just another arising seen/known.

All of this is fine, it’s just how-it-is: the point is, is it clear that one aspect is direct experience and the other is conceptualisation about or from direct experience?

Self and physical sensations synonymous?... No.

Noticed the slight anxiety which arose on seeing the "No" in red and magnified in size! Felt like there was a commitment to something here!

Oops, sorry about that! I just enlarged it to emphasise that I liked what you wrote there – particularly the ‘no’ at the end.

So is there a me thinking these thoughts?.... Beginning to have a sense of why the Santa Clause and Batman analogies are used a lot...

Could you expand a bit on what you’re seeing here?

Direct experience... Thoughts seem like any other objects in awareness... Stones, sounds, pain in back.... Made of same stuff.... And the seeming I which thinks these thoughts? Located between the temples? Another thought........ If the "me" is seen, it can't be the seer....

And so … where does this leave ‘you’???

T.x

[Biggles]

Hello T....

Notice when a ‘spaciousness’ arises – there’s quite obviously no-self, no boundaries, clarity, direct ‘knowing’. When this sense of pure presence or pure experiencing is ‘present’, are whatever concepts that may arise being bought into as a story of self or other?

Contemplate this first, look directly and get a sense of it, before you read the next bit.

Kind of anxious day but have just sat down for half an hour with the first bit of your post above.... And thoughts died down... just a sense of a stillness, sadness, happiness all coming and going... Experiencing without much mental chatter and no, not buying into the self or other story.....

If this is being seen directly, ‘no self or other’, notice that the conceptualising mind can subsequently extrapolate, e.g. in terms of ‘this is undeluded’ or ‘this is deluded, this is buying into a story’ or whatever.

I.e. in the light of the clarity of direct knowing, further intelligent conceptualisation – you might say ‘illumined’ by direct experience of openness – can happen. So there is a direct seeing/knowing, and then there is an ‘intelligent ‘illumined’ conceptualisation’ which is also just another arising seen/known.

All of this is fine, it’s just how-it-is: the point is, is it clear that one aspect is direct experience and the other is conceptualisation about or from direct experience?

Ah yes, good thanks, can see the difference.......

S: Noticed the slight anxiety which arose on seeing the "No" in red and magnified in size! Felt like there was a commitment to something here!

T: Oops, sorry about that! I just enlarged it to emphasise that I liked what you wrote there – particularly the ‘no’ at the end

No,it was useful.... Made me wonder why I am not confident in my direct experience, why I don't quite believe that seeing, why I preferred a little, black unassuming no to a big red confident one....

S: So is there a me thinking these thoughts?.... Beginning to have a sense of why the Santa Clause and Batman analogies are used a lot...

T: Could you expand a bit on what you’re seeing here?

I'd read stuff from guides on here or in "Gateless Gatecrashers" to effect - "Hand in front of you is real, computer in front of you is real - but is the self real?" I didn't quite get that cos it all seemed equally unreal in a way, labels pointing to the indescribable... But I guess skilful means were being used just to point out that the self is a deeper level of unreality in a way if you can say such a thing.... a fiction.... the label is pointing to something which isn't really experienced.... Or something... Bit of confusion here maybe...

S: Direct experience... Thoughts seem like any other objects in awareness... Stones, sounds, pain in back.... Made of same stuff.... And the seeming I which thinks these thoughts? Located between the temples? Another thought........ If the "me" is seen, it can't be the seer....

T: And so … where does this leave ‘you’???

I guess it leaves "me" as a thought or abstraction...

"Me" and "my" are thoughts superimposed on direct experience. Feels like I've got everything I need to work on in that sentence....

Thanks for doing this and your clarity by the way.... Knots are definitely being unravelled....
Little puzzled (though genuinely not upset or too envious) why others/friends have got the point so quickly and it seems to be taking a (relatively) longer period for penny to drop with me...
And then, of course, I deconstruct that sentence - another thought etc etc

S x

[jowate]

Hi S,

Ah yes, good thanks, can see the difference.......

Good!

No,it was useful.... Made me wonder why I am not confident in my direct experience, why I don't quite believe that seeing, why I preferred a little, black unassuming no to a big red confident one....

Ok everything big and in red from now on :)

T: Could you expand a bit on what you’re seeing here?

I'd read stuff from guides on here or in "Gateless Gatecrashers" to effect - "Hand in front of you is real, computer in front of you is real - but is the self real?" I didn't quite get that cos it all seemed equally unreal in a way, labels pointing to the indescribable... But I guess skilful means were being used just to point out that the self is a deeper level of unreality in a way if you can say such a thing.... a fiction.... the label is pointing to something which isn't really experienced.... Or something... Bit of confusion here maybe...

I find that way of talking about it a bit imprecise. ‘Real’ is indicating ‘genuine’, i.e. actual experience. Direct experience is indubitably direct experience – it’s ineffable, but experiencing is undeniably taking place. The ‘self’ on the other hand is not a ‘genuine’ experience, it’s a mere mental imputation. Yes, so just as you put it in the last couple of sentences.

Knots are definitely being unravelled....
Little puzzled (though genuinely not upset or too envious) why others/friends have got the point so quickly and it seems to be taking a (relatively) longer period for penny to drop with me...
And then, of course, I deconstruct that sentence - another thought etc etc

Yes, knots are unravelling … you’re doing well (we’re only on page 2 of this dialogue, after all!)

Look at it this way: you have the point already. You are clear that no lurking ‘self’ thing is to be found when looked for. You’re also clear that sensations, thoughts and feelings that are ‘representing’ as ‘self’ are not.

There is some prevarication in admitting that the non-existence of this self-entity is known. Thoughts keep popping up and saying ‘yes but..’ or ‘look at me!!!’ Just notice that they are always just arising as habit-energy without the slightest self-willing or self-effort. And ‘you’ can’t do a thing about them. They are smoke-screen. Blow the smoke away!

Know that it is known.

T.x

[Biggles]

Hi T.....

Direct experience is indubitably direct experience – it’s ineffable, but experiencing is undeniably taking place. The ‘self’ on the other hand is not a ‘genuine’ experience, it’s a mere mental imputation.

And doesn't seem to even point to a particular experience... Is a "me" ever actually experienced? A thought of me is, I guess... It does all seem to be about literalism, not being fooled by labels... And as regards a previous post where you made the disctinction between "direct experience" and "conceptualisation about or from direct experience".... think I've been equating awareness with certain positive states of mind - e.g sense of spaciousness, radiance, happiness etc.... And awareness does sort of seem to have these attributes but these are conceptualisations after the experience? THere is just awareness of experience as it rises - happiness, pain in back, depression, the thought "I don't get this" etc... And that seems seamless... But how can a feeling of depression and the awareness of that feeling be seamless

Yes, knots are unravelling … you’re doing well ..... Look at it this way: you have the point already. You are clear that no lurking ‘self’ thing is to be found when looked for. You’re also clear that sensations, thoughts and feelings that are ‘representing’ as ‘self’ are not.

This really helps.... So much of this seems to be about confidence.... Trusting experience over thoughts about experience...

There is some prevarication in admitting that the non-existence of this self-entity is known. Thoughts keep popping up and saying ‘yes but..’ or ‘look at me!!!’ Just notice that they are always just arising as habit-energy without the slightest self-willing or self-effort. And ‘you’ can’t do a thing about them.

Which seems reassuring... Let them play and mutter as they will.....

They are smoke-screen. Blow the smoke away! Know that it is known.

Beneath concepts, beneath labels to direct experience, trusting that....

S x

[jowate]

HI S,

And as regards a previous post where you made the disctinction between "direct experience" and "conceptualisation about or from direct experience".... think I've been equating awareness with certain positive states of mind - e.g sense of spaciousness, radiance, happiness etc.... And awareness does sort of seem to have these attributes but these are conceptualisations after the experience?

Awareness is not just there for positive states of mind – it’s ‘there for anything’ and reflects pleasure, pain, horror, beauty, just as it is. Yet, so to speak (very much so to speak), even thought it’s not any kind of thing or object, it can be recognised … by itself, in direct experience … that it ‘has’ qualities such as openness, no-thing-ness, clarity, total intimacy.

THere is just awareness of experience as it rises - happiness, pain in back, depression, the thought "I don't get this" etc... And that seems seamless... But how can a feeling of depression and the awareness of that feeling be seamless

Can you find any ‘line’ or distinction between a feeling and the awareness of that feeling?

They are smoke-screen. Blow the smoke away! Know that it is known.

Beneath concepts, beneath labels to direct experience, trusting that....

So do you trust that? Is there any doubt left that this is simply how things are?

T.x

[Biggles]

HI T,

Yet, so to speak (very much so to speak), even thought it’s not any kind of thing or object, it can be recognised … by itself, in direct experience … that it ‘has’ qualities such as openness, no-thing-ness, clarity, total intimacy.

Yes. Your last bit affirms a confidence in my experience... It's as if these labels, the qualities you mention, describe this experience of awareness and chime with "my" experience - and there is a sense of relief and relaxation.

Can you find any ‘line’ or distinction between a feeling and the awareness of that feeling?

There seems to be a distinction, a different flavour, between getting lost in sadness say, (the feeling rettrieved in memory) and being aware of the sadness as it presents itself....

S: Beneath concepts, beneath labels to direct experience, trusting that....
T: So do you trust that? Is there any doubt left that this is simply how things are?

Coming home from swimming on bus feeling very alive, thoughts very clear... Trying to think really loudly - but nobody else notices... Nobody else can hear "my" thoughts.... And so though everybody and everything seems very vivid and alive, some sense of separateness... Me and them.... Them thinking their thoughts, me thinking mine.... Trying to get beneath that and see it as just thoughts arising... Awareness aware of thoughts, aware of colour, physical energy... Dont quite get there...

So tonight I sit and stay with direct experience.. Visual sense, hearing, thoughts rising....

Is there a me? Sense of me, yes... What is it? ... Memory of my face.... Particular visual sensations - of clothes and hands - consistently perceived throughout day.... A me seems to be there... The constant use of the words "I" and "me"... And my name being used... A kind of knee jerk belief kicks in so quickly... Fooled by consistency of perception or something... Or memory of consistent perception!

Back to direct experience... and a sense of aliveness, of being, of energy and vitality ... which can be mistaken for "me".. Why attach a "me" to this... It kicks in so quickly...

And it is also as you said in a previous post....

There is some prevarication in admitting that the non-existence of this self-entity is known. Thoughts keep popping up and saying ‘yes but..’ or ‘look at me!!!’

Just patience I guess in seeing these as, as you say, habit energy.... Which "I" cant do anything about... And if "I" cant get it, "I" cant understand it - then... back to just experiencing and being....

Confidence is deepening though it seems to take time but when my observations are affirmed, there is a confidence that this indeed is how things are, things are being seen the right way up...

Sx

[jowate]

Hi S,

Can you find any ‘line’ or distinction between a feeling and the awareness of that feeling?

There seems to be a distinction, a different flavour, between getting lost in sadness say, (the feeling rettrieved in memory) and being aware of the sadness as it presents itself....

There seems to be – but is there a distinction in direct experience? Where is the boundary? Is awareness ever not totally inseparably one with what’s arising? Really look.

In any case, is awareness ‘you’? Is the feeling labelled ‘sadness’ you? You as an entity, a substantial ‘thing’?

Coming home from swimming on bus feeling very alive, thoughts very clear... Trying to think really loudly - but nobody else notices... Nobody else can hear "my" thoughts.... And so though everybody and everything seems very vivid and alive, some sense of separateness... Me and them.... Them thinking their thoughts, me thinking mine.... Trying to get beneath that and see it as just thoughts arising... Awareness aware of thoughts, aware of colour, physical energy... Dont quite get there...

Is “Nobody else can hear ‘my’ thoughts” and the ‘sense of separateness’ following it anything more than a line of thinking happening?

Look at the thoughts (not those thoughts, the thoughts happening now) – where are they? Can they be found? Is ‘anybody’ thinking ‘anything’ at all?

Is there a me? Sense of me, yes... What is it? ... Memory of my face.... Particular visual sensations - of clothes and hands - consistently perceived throughout day.... A me seems to be there... The constant use of the words "I" and "me"... And my name being used... A kind of knee jerk belief kicks in so quickly... Fooled by consistency of perception or something... Or memory of consistent perception!

Sense of ‘me’ – what you describe is noticing how it’s constructed. It’s simply a matter of knowing it’s a construct, and nothing more substantial than that.

Why attach a "me" to this... It kicks in so quickly...

So this is noticing that the illusion is kicking in – it’s going to continue like that after the gate. The gate is the knowing, the not being fooled, the not buying into the story, even though the story is being ‘told’ again … and again …

Just patience I guess in seeing these as, as you say, habit energy.... Which "I" cant do anything about... And if "I" cant get it, "I" cant understand it - then... back to just experiencing and being....

Direct experience ‘gets it’ – it gets it now, it always gets it.

I will never ‘get it’ because ‘I’ is nothing other than thoughts convincing ‘themselves’ that they are ‘I’.

Don’t believe your thoughts!

T.x

[Biggles]

Hi T,

There seems to be – but is there a distinction in direct experience? Where is the boundary? Is awareness ever not totally inseparably one with what’s arising? Really look.

Before labelling or thought kicks in, it is all seamless. The awareness and the feeling of fingers on keyboard, the black of the keys - (before "fingers" and "black" are named) - are inseparable...

In any case, is awareness ‘you’? Is the feeling labelled ‘sadness’ you? You as an entity, a substantial ‘thing’?

Sometimes seems useful for "me" and Awareness to be synonymous.... as long as it's metaphorical.... When observed more closely, no... Ineffable.... Sadness me? No. Me an entity, a substantial thing? No.

Is “Nobody else can hear ‘my’ thoughts” and the ‘sense of separateness’ following it anything more than a line of thinking happening?

No.

Look at the thoughts (not those thoughts, the thoughts happening now) – where are they? Can they be found? Is ‘anybody’ thinking ‘anything’ at all?

Wurgh... Looking at this for ages... Feel very content and spacious... Not able to contact much thought at all... When thought comes up... ephemeral, objects in same way as noises are objects.... A me thinking the thoughts? Perhaps a vague sense or echo that thoughts are happening in my head, between my ears.... My head? My ears? Hmmm....

Sense of ‘me’ – what you describe is noticing how it’s constructed. It’s simply a matter of knowing it’s a construct, and nothing more substantial than that.

Yes, good, thanks.

So this is noticing that the illusion is kicking in – it’s going to continue like that after the gate. The gate is the knowing, the not being fooled, the not buying into the story, even though the story is being ‘told’ again … and again …

The gate is the not being fooled.. I liked that, ta.

Direct experience ‘gets it’ – it gets it now, it always gets it.
I will never ‘get it’ because ‘I’ is nothing other than thoughts convincing ‘themselves’ that they are ‘I’.

I will write more about this tomorrow or soon but been reflecting that as long as there is a referring back to "I", the point won't be got. So there is an experience of no self in direct awareness, but doubt/thought kicks in with reference to an "I" - "Did I really see that?" etc.... How to get beyond that has been the problem... Rupert Spira talked about "standing as awareness" - so with a shift in perspective, (and at risk of identifying "me" with awareness) awareness becomes primary - so a thought comes up, "Did I really see anything? Am I deluding myself?" etc.... The reference/trust is always back to awareness... "Yes but come back to direct experience and awareness, mister. It is now your primary reference..." Does that makes sense? Seems kind of exciting and way out of doubt..... Awareness primary...

Don’t believe your thoughts!

Check!

S.x

[jowate]

Hi S,

I will write more about this tomorrow or soon but been reflecting that as long as there is a referring back to "I", the point won't be got.

Ok, await further observations there.

So there is an experience of no self in direct awareness, but doubt/thought kicks in with reference to an "I" - "Did I really see that?" etc.... How to get beyond that has been the problem...

There could be two ways of approaching this. One is to expect that ‘getting beyond’ that means doubt/’I’ thought stops kicking in for good. The other is to see / know that even if it does kick in, there’s ‘no-one doing it’ – it’s just running on autopilot.

Rupert Spira talked about "standing as awareness" - so with a shift in perspective, (and at risk of identifying "me" with awareness) awareness becomes primary - so a thought comes up, "Did I really see anything? Am I deluding myself?" etc.... The reference/trust is always back to awareness... "Yes but come back to direct experience and awareness, mister. It is now your primary reference..." Does that makes sense? Seems kind of exciting and way out of doubt..... Awareness primary...

Yes, this can be effective – well, it’s effective if it works! ‘Awareness’ and ‘direct experience’ amount to the same. So are ‘you’ doing either of them? Do they have anything to do with ‘you’ as alleged observing / doing entity?

T.x

[Biggles]

Hi T,

There could be two ways of approaching this. One is to expect that ‘getting beyond’ that means doubt/’I’ thought stops kicking in for good. The other is to see / know that even if it does kick in, there’s ‘no-one doing it’ – it’s just running on autopilot.

I don't expect it to stop kicking in after the gate... more the autopilot thing....

Said I was going to post more re. "standing as awareness".
In previous posts (separately) you said:

Is there any doubt left that this is simply how things are?
Know that it's known.

How can "I" know that it's known? Or how can there be a knowledge that it's known? Can there just be a decision? I come to this point, and with previous guide, come to an edge or a crossroads... "Well, is it seen?" And I can't say Yes but I can't say No. Want to say "How obvious. How simple. The self is like Santa Clause. Once seen that it doesn't exist, it can never be unseen". Can't seem to say that. Maybe I want crystal clear clarity.

But... with yourself and previous guide, strong sense that both of you intuit that it's known and it is doubt and prevarication which gets in the way. So, as I said in last post.... Rupert Spira talked about "standing as awareness" - so with a shift in perspective, (and at risk of identifying "me" with awareness) awareness becomes primary - so a thought comes up, "Did I really see anything? Am I deluding myself?" etc.... The reference/trust is always back to awareness... "Yes but come back to direct experience and awareness. It is now your primary reference, touchstone..." So the perspective is changed.... Otherwise, if there's always reference back to self, can't be seen...

Noticed a few months ago when I was teaching just sitting and some vipassana exercises at the Centre - the sense of confidence rising in "me" as teacher..... Obviously as teacher there couldn't be doubt or prevarication there.... Had to be confident and say confidently - "no self there" etc...

Yes, this can be effective – well, it’s effective if it works! ‘Awareness’ and ‘direct experience’ amount to the same. So are ‘you’ doing either of them? Do they have anything to do with ‘you’ as alleged observing / doing entity?

Felt a bit out of touch with whole process today.... When I first did this, it was all quite intense.. Difficult to keep intensity going after 2 to 3 months maybe... But just spent last 40 minutes meditating.... And surprised that looking came much more easily than I thought it would...

Aware particularly of physical sensations... Also thoughts and images pertaining to my day rising and falling... Thoughts of "me" sticking to memories and physical sensations.... But the physical sensations and the "me" thoughts - not the perceiver, not doing the seeing... not "me" being aware.. not "me" getting in touch with direct experience... just awareness perceiving physical sensations and "me" thoughts... they're more like the objects.. but is the awareness separate from the physical sensations, the thoughts arising... including the "me" thought... don't thinks so but need to keep looking there....

S x

[Biggles]

P.S. Walking to a class last night with a friend.... Thinking "I am S and he is J and we are separate..." And then realisation.... "That's a thought"

[jowate]

Hi S,

Is there any doubt left that this is simply how things are?
Know that it's known.

How can "I" know that it's known? Or how can there be a knowledge that it's known? Can there just be a decision? I come to this point, and with previous guide, come to an edge or a crossroads... "Well, is it seen?" And I can't say Yes but I can't say No. Want to say "How obvious. How simple. The self is like Santa Clause. Once seen that it doesn't exist, it can never be unseen". Can't seem to say that. Maybe I want crystal clear clarity.

This is a non-existent problem. Just concepts doing their circular thing – doing doubt, in this case. Direct experience / awareness has no problem with anything and YOU are nothing but direct experience / awareness.

Look for lurking beliefs that hold you back here. Is there some tenacious holding? Is there a sense of something being protected?

Or: is there some kind of sense that if ‘you’ finally, unequivocally ‘see’ there is no ‘self’, something will be lost?

Maybe I want crystal clear clarity

If ‘I’ is nothing other than the thinking mind, could its wanting ‘crystal clear clarity’ be simply a stratagem for maintaining its place as ‘I’?

The reference/trust is always back to awareness... "Yes but come back to direct experience and awareness. It is now your primary reference, touchstone..." So the perspective is changed.... Otherwise, if there's always reference back to self, can't be seen...

Keep with that perspective. Even if there is some tendency for thinking to idenfity ‘I’ with awareness, that will drop away when it’s seen that ‘body and mind’ are just arisings in awareness, not the source of awareness or the 'aware self'.

Aware particularly of physical sensations... Also thoughts and images pertaining to my day rising and falling... Thoughts of "me" sticking to memories and physical sensations.... But the physical sensations and the "me" thoughts - not the perceiver, not doing the seeing... not "me" being aware.. not "me" getting in touch with direct experience... just awareness perceiving physical sensations and "me" thoughts... they're more like the objects..

Yes – good observations.

but is the awareness separate from the physical sensations, the thoughts arising... including the "me" thought... don't thinks so but need to keep looking there....

That’ll become clear in it’s own time – the main focus is the absence of self-entity in whatever arises in awareness.

P.S. Walking to a class last night with a friend.... Thinking "I am S and he is J and we are separate..." And then realisation.... "That's a thought"

Good one! :)

T.x

[Biggles]

Hi T,

Just concepts doing their circular thing – doing doubt, in this case. Direct experience / awareness has no problem with anything and YOU are nothing but direct experience / awareness.

Each reminder makes the seeing clearer, gives me confidence, even reminder that DE and Awareness are same thing!

Look for lurking beliefs that hold you back here. Is there some tenacious holding? Is there a sense of something being protected?

Probably.. Unsure what... A protection of the habitual, the familiar, the safe maybe... Which amounts to the self I guess.... Fear and anxiety are not half as bad as previously and not half as bad as last two Vajraloka retreats but still there a bit -and fear and doubt probably do fuel one another as you suggested a while ago... still perhaps a fear that too much energy will be released in seeing, that it will be overwhelming, fear of madness... and various lack of confidence lurking beliefs... But more and more seeing all this as thought, just thought.... When the specifics are bought into, whether it's lack of confidence, specific anxiety etc - kind of fuels it all... Just thought..

Or: is there some kind of sense that if ‘you’ finally, unequivocally ‘see’ there is no ‘self’, something will be lost?

Well, yes as above - and something will be lost viz the self! In terms of loss - perhaps a sadness that the search will be over, irrational cos going through the gate will just be another beginning...

If ‘I’ is nothing other than the thinking mind, could its wanting ‘crystal clear clarity’ be simply a stratagem for maintaining its place as ‘I’?

Yes

Even if there is some tendency for thinking to idenfity ‘I’ with awareness, that will drop away when it’s seen that ‘body and mind’ are just arisings in awareness, not the source of awareness or the 'aware self'.

Seems the gist of it and what I'm reflecting on a lot at the moment... Or looking at... Body and thought objects in awareness rather than subject/the seeing.... It was reading something similar in Rupert Spira's book about a year ago that something went click....

S: but is the awareness separate from the physical sensations, the thoughts arising... including the "me" thought... don't thinks so but need to keep looking there....

T: That’ll become clear in it’s own time – the main focus is the absence of self-entity in whatever arises in awareness.

Okay. Ta. But we had this exchanges recently which I found quite helpful.... Or is this a slightly different thing?

T: Can you find any ‘line’ or distinction between a feeling and the awareness of that feeling?

S: There seems to be a distinction, a different flavour, between getting lost in sadness say, (the feeling rettrieved in memory) and being aware of the sadness as it presents itself....

T: There seems to be – but is there a distinction in direct experience? Where is the boundary? Is awareness ever not totally inseparably one with what’s arising? Really look.

S x