Requesting guidance

[JonathanR]

Hi Mike,

That which holds the center of consciousness tends to be identified as the I

Looking right now is it possible to find a 'that which holds consciousness' or is this also a thought?

Is it possible to notice consciousness being held? What is doing the holding? Look right now and tell me?

Go and fetch a piece of fruit. Hold this in your hand and notice all the sensations, weight, texture, color, fragrance and so on.

That fuit is undeniably held. But what about 'the centre of consciousness'?

There is a constant movement and flux of consciousness of sense objects and thoughts and behaviors; all impacting upon each other and passing/taking the parcel of I from one to another.

That is the illusion of 'I' but is there a real one somewhere, behind the scenes, controlling events with intention?

love

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

Looking right now is it possible to find a 'that which holds consciousness' or is this also a thought?
Is it possible to notice consciousness being held? What is doing the holding? Look right now and tell me?

It is a thought. I cannot find that which holds consciousness. Sometimes I know I am conscience (moments of reflexivity or meditation) other times I am conscience without being conscience of it (don't know it, like getting lost in a task or an argument etc...). As we discussed before there is sensing and the thoughts that are very close to them (welded) but I now can spot as separate to the sensing. But when I am conscious of consciousness (know I am conscious) there is still a feeling/belief of an I. A thought that there is an observer. I used to say there was a feeling of there being an I, but whenever I tried to track that down it could not be found. That feeling/thought of there being an observer is very strong. When I look closer it appears as narrating. If I ask if that narrating is coming from somewhere and go looking for its source then I am looking elsewhere for an observer. The narrating and the thoughts just come, they just be. often they are somewhat guided by (or better to say connected to) an intention that is prevalent but even that is just another thought. I cannot see that there is anything making the thoughts. The thoughts just are, just as the consciousness of senses are experiences in themselves.

or is this also a thought?

Yes, I think so. Like as if this thought process mixed with feelings create a cleverly crafted illusion. Very hard to shake off that illusion though.

Go and fetch a piece of fruit. Hold this in your hand and notice all the sensations, weight, texture, color, fragrance and so on. That fruit is undeniably held. But what about 'the center of consciousness'?

When I use the term the Centre of Consciousness I am referring to that which is most strongly in my consciousness (weather it be a sense object, a thought, or a behavior). I accept that the act of turning that experience into a 'I' (a self) is an illusion.
Holding the fruit, I can feel sensing experiences and along with that there is some thought processes (examples of those thought processes are the narrating's directing the exercise and putting the experience into words). The experience that I am conscious of represents that which is the center of consciousness - how does that relate to an I, you ask? I think within that the narrating is what 'feels' most like the illusion of the 'I'. Yes I think it is the thought process that is welded to the sense experience - or any other narrating process that is acting like an observer - that relates to the illusion of an 'I'.
When I hear the narrating it is very real. Even if it is not in words, just pure sensing experiences then the 'feeling' of sensing is like an observer receiving the experience. But I know that sense experiences and the thoughts are just there, not created but it doesn't feel like that.

There is a constant movement and flux of consciousness of sense objects and thoughts and behaviors; all impacting upon each other and passing/taking the parcel of I from one to another. That is the illusion of 'I' but is there a real one somewhere, behind the scenes, controlling events with intention?

As discussed before when I try look behind the curtain - looking at that which feels/seems like an I - then the thing that originally felt/seemed like an observer then transforms into the observed (an object) and then I follow the merry-go-round chasing the new sense of observer that is looking at the object I just turned into an object - and on and on and on....

What I'm left with after all of that is a defo sense that the narrator seems real and seems like an observer - very hard to let go that illusion.



With love and gratitude Jon,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi Mike

. Yes, I think so. Like as if this thought process mixed with feelings create a cleverly crafted illusion. Very hard to shake off that illusion though.

. What I'm left with after all of that is a defo sense that the narrator seems real and seems like an observer - very hard to let go that illusion.

Its good that it is seen as an illusion. But perhaps it is not necessary or even possible to 'let go' of it? Who or what could do the letting go?

Its interesting that you say thought processes mixed with feelings. Do you notice how these feelings tend to work together with the thoughts to give a sense of 'me' or 'l'?

Look at such feelings. Are they sensations felt in or around the body,? Notice them if possible.

Do these sensations add up to or create a separate self? Do thoughts create an actual self?

If so where is that self? Look around to see if you can find the entity that thoughts and feelings suggest.

Love

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

Its good that it is seen as an illusion. But perhaps it is not necessary or even possible to 'let go' of it? Who or what could do the letting go?

Interesting, then that brings up the question of what is the thing to be done to realise there is no 'I'? In ‘not letting go’ then what? Just seeing..... if so how? I get it that 'letting go' indicates a decision, but the whole process here is that there in no 'self' to make that decision. So a thought wonders if the process is for the thinking Mic to keep coming back to reminding that there is no 'I', no 'self' to make decisions, no thinker. And eventually it becomes clear, becomes transparent?
The 'letting go' idea was attractive because there is the belief that there is a part or a thought that is attached to the 'I', or a part that is fearful to having no 'self'. Anyway that is a long way off. The mind is still at the phase of getting tied up in knots.

Its interesting that you say thought processes mixed with feelings. Do you notice how these feelings tend to work together with the thoughts to give a sense of 'me' or 'l'?

When I am not in a reflective phase then there is just the thing that is happening - the activity, the thought, the feeling and that is consuming my consciousness. When I am reflective then the assumption of 'I' is apparent. The interaction between thoughts and feelings is a dynamic process where that which represents the 'I' is in flux, ever changing. A persistent belief, but one that is maintaining itself through the feelings and thoughts.

Look at such feelings. Are they sensations felt in or around the body,? Notice them if possible.

Yes they are noticed. The sensation in my chest represents the 'I', or feels like that is me. When I go to look at the sensation, then it is the observing process that represents the 'I'. When I look at the observer (taking a meta position) then I may find either a vague floating sensation along my back, or I may find a narrator or a combination. In looking at that then the sense of 'I' scoots off elsewhere.

Do these sensations add up to or create a separate self? Do thoughts create an actual self?

Belief (or an invisible assumption) in a separate self. Belief/assumption in an actual self. Is it real, well I enter this process on the premises that it is a mere illusion, yet the belief holds on fast.

If so where is that self? Look around to see if you can find the entity that thoughts and feelings suggest.

This seems to be the repeating question. As written above, the thought narrates, or the body feels, then another part of Mic looks (lets call that the observing), then the thought or sensation shifts. That sequence can sometimes strengthen the idea that there is no self, sometimes not.

Thanks Jon,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

Its good that it is seen as an illusion. But perhaps it is not necessary or even possible to 'let go' of it? Who or what could do the letting go?
Interesting, then that brings up the question of what is the thing to be done to realise there is no 'I'? In ‘not letting go’ then what?

Maybe letting go does and can happen but not by 'a person', 'me'?

In speaking of a need to let go there is still a subtle idea of a 'someone' that must 'do' this.

Just seeing..... if so how? I get it that 'letting go' indicates a decision, but the whole process here is that there in no 'self' to make that decision. So a thought wonders if the process is for the thinking Mic to keep coming back to reminding that there is no 'I', no 'self' to make decisions, no thinker. And eventually it becomes clear, becomes transparent?

That could go on for a long time. Why not bypass thinking ABOUT all this completely and take a look? Is there such a thing as a 'self' that is 'me', 'I'? If there is it should be possible to find this one.

Is there a thinking Mic? Or are there thoughts that 'say' this?

When I am reflective then the assumption of 'I' is apparent.

That's good. Anything that exposes that this always has been an assumption

The sensation in my chest represents the 'I', or feels like that is me. When I go to look at the sensation, then it is the observing process that represents the 'I'. When I look at the observer (taking a meta position) then I may find either a vague floating sensation along my back, or I may find a narrator or a combination. In looking at that then the sense of 'I' scoots off elsewhere.

Good work man. Looking is the key.

As written above, the thought narrates, or the body feels, then another part of Mic looks (lets call that the observing), then the thought or sensation shifts

Is it another part of Mic that 'looks', or just looking happening?


love

Jon

[Treelife]

Maybe letting go does and can happen but not by 'a person', 'me'?
In speaking of a need to let go there is still a subtle idea of a 'someone' that must 'do' this.

Yes that is the exact point was trying to make.

That could go on for a long time. Why not bypass thinking ABOUT all this completely and take a look? Is there such a thing as a 'self' that is 'me', 'I'? If there is it should be possible to find this one.

So with every thought or sensation that references an experience of an I, then to look for the I that it suggests. Like if there is an experience that X is happening to me then who is the me it is happening to? For that to be a regular practice, is that the process? To go beyond using a thought to remind all the other thoughts (or whatever) that there is no I/self and to actually look for the alleged I/self..?

Is there a thinking Mic? Or are there thoughts that 'say' this?

If there is a Mic then it is way to simplified to reduce it to a thinking versus non-thinking Mic. I was just using 'thinking Mic' as a figure of speech to reference thought process - language get in the way in this game, hard to not use words like 'I' or 'me' or 'self' when referencing 'my' thoughts, feelings, experiences, actions etc...

The sensation in my chest represents the 'I', or feels like that is me. When I go to look at the sensation, then it is the observing process that represents the 'I'. When I look at the observer (taking a meta position) then I may find either a vague floating sensation along my back, or I may find a narrator or a combination. In looking at that then the sense of 'I' scoots off elsewhere.
Good work man. Looking is the key.

Is this a useful process to repeat as a regular exercise?

Is it another part of Mic that 'looks', or just looking happening?

I want to say that another part of Mic 'looks', but I guess that is the wrong answer. I don't conceptualize Mic as one self, but I tend to conceptualize Mic as many selves - experience him as multiple personalities, thought processes, processes of experiences. I'm guessing that is something worth looking at. My experience is that I experience a sensation in my neck, which can trigger a narrating, which may trigger an internal argument.... and if I take an observing (reflexive) position then all those things seem like different entities - albeit the sense of I shifting among them.
So to look and see if there is a 'neck sensation' happening, 'narrating' happening, 'counter narrating' happening, 'observing' happening. I'll work on that but I do feel I'm missing something. As I read that last sentence I have just written I wonder who is the I that feels something is missing, and what is the feeling (were is it sensed) or is it a thought. In trying to answer as I write, the feeling is a tightness in my chest that a thought suggests is frustration and inadequacy with another thought suggests 'I' may never get the handle on this. There seems to be an assumption (or a belief) that implies a unified I that is in this process or in this experience. I'll work on this for another while. Jon please keep the pointers and exercises coming.

With Thanks,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi M,

There seems to be an assumption (or a belief) that implies a unified I that is in this process or in this experience. I'll work on this for another while. Jon please keep the pointers and exercises coming.

I'd like to do that. The exercises often reveal what's going on a lot faster than trying to explain or discuss things, even though the latter is sometimes necessary too. Don't think I'm in any way ignoring what we have been talking about but I would like you to return to the hearing exercise again, please?

In fact we could look at other senses and these can be revealing too. Seeing, smell, taste, touch. It's possible to explore each of these in turn. The thing to do is to look to see if, (regardless of what thoughts may 'say' about this) there is 'someone', 'I' that 'experiences' sensations, or if the sensation is simply happening? Also, again, is it that there is 'a body' experiencing experience ... or just the raw experience?

So relax and spend a little time noticing whatever is heard. A mediatational approach or in fact any great effort is not required and may complicate the matter.

Is there a self anywhere in the experience of hearing? Take a look. Don't rely on thinking about it.

Is it possible to find the self that experiences experience, or is this idea an interpretation, a conceptualisation?

Does 'a body experience' the hearing? What is actualy happening?

love

Jon

[Treelife]

Don't think I'm in any way ignoring what we have been talking about but I would like you to return to the hearing exercise again, please?

All good Jon.

Is there a self anywhere in the experience of hearing? Take a look. Don't rely on thinking about it.
Is it possible to find the self that experiences experience, or is this idea an interpretation, a conceptualisation?

In the experience of hearing there is the sounds, pure sounds. Very close to that, so close it is almost (but not quite) synonymous is an ‘agent’ or perhaps a thought process that is busily filtering and organising the sounds. It is obviously doing a job of filtering in what is aspects of the sound I hear – the sound of my breathing, the very distant rumble of traffic, the ringing sound from inside my own ear, it is possile but difficult to deactivate that. There is also a thinking process that is categorising and making sense out of the sounds – my wife is talking, my son is showering, the dog needs to be put out soon, I don’t like that dam dog, I miss my other son, where did I leave my phone, back to sound again...... A lot of activity in this very dynamic thinking process (filtering, categorising, drifting thoughts). Then there is the physical sensations that react to the sounds – or perhaps react to the thoughts related to the sounds, or maybe a synthesis of them all, who cares. And of course related to all of this is the observing experience, that just observes and tracks all this activity (this tends to need to be consciously turned on to be active), this also gets pulled into thought processes.
I could find myself placing any of these processed into the ‘I’ role but NO, there is NO identifiable ‘I’ ‘self’, yet it is my experience that hearing is not just hearing , it connects into all the other stuff. The ‘just hearing’ is the sound that exists in my consciousness.

Does 'a body experience' the hearing? What is actually happening?

I tend to place it in my ears, but I could also place it in my head. But then if I move it around I can place it in my stomach or my back or the little toe on my left foot. The hearing in actually not in the body, it is just sound. But my body does have sensation ‘reactions’, like there is an identification.
Keeping all these different entities (as detailed above) is not easy. They tend to collapse into each other indistinguishable from each other forming an alleged ‘I’. But when looking for an ‘I’ within them, there is non.

Thanks Jon,
Soon,
Mike

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic

I could find myself placing any of these processed into the ‘I’ role but NO, there is NO identifiable ‘I’ ‘self’, yet it is my experience that hearing is not just hearing , it connects into all the other stuff. The ‘just hearing’ is the sound that exists in my consciousness.

Well, that is a theory, certainly. But how do you know that hearing (of sound) 'exists in a consciousness'?

How about the distant rumble of traffic? Is the traffic a product of imagination or is it actually heard?

Analysis of what is happening when sensation is experienced can yield a complex picture of events. When I ask you to look at specific sense experiences it is not so that an analysis should be made. Please approach all this as if you were about five years old. Just notice the raw sensation in the moment and forget about how or why it connects with anything else.

Notice the sensation as you sit on a chair. The feel of slight pressure or perhaps warmth of 'body' against 'chair'. Close your eyes. Making no particular effort to meditate on this or to force any special focus, just notice this raw feeling right now.

In the sensation, is there a one that senses? Is that one found in the direct experience of the sensation?

In that sensation, immediate and happening, is there 'a body', 'feeling' ?


love

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

But how do you know that hearing (of sound) 'exists in a consciousness'?

When I use the work consciousness, I am using it to mean that I experience sound/hearing. I am conscious of hearing/sound. Not experiencing sound would be not being conscious of sound.

How about the distant rumble of traffic? Is the traffic a product of imagination or is it actually heard?

The sound that is akin to rumbling is heard. The interpretation that it is traffic is a thought - or you could say imagination. Rumble in my hearing is hearing, traffic is traffic. Traffic is not hearing.

Analysis of what is happening when sensation is experienced can yield a complex picture of events. When I ask you to look at specific sense experiences it is not so that an analysis should be made. Please approach all this as if you were about five years old. Just notice the raw sensation in the moment and forget about how or why it connects with anything else.

Ok. Experiencing sensing is a focus on a raw sense - that I can do (albeit thoughts do distract). The next question that often follows is 'look for an I that is hearing...' That I don't find an 'I' in the hearing. I look elsewhere if there is an 'I' that is hearing the sound and that takes me off on the other trail described - in feeding that back to you I then find myself describing the other processes.

Notice the sensation as you sit on a chair. The feel of slight pressure or perhaps warmth of 'body' against 'chair'. Close your eyes. Making no particular effort to meditate on this or to force any special focus, just notice this raw feeling right now. In the sensation, is there a one that senses? Is that one found in the direct experience of the sensation?

I feel the chair pressing against my legs, my bum and my back. There is the sense experience. There is no 'one' residing in the sensation.

In that sensation, immediate and happening, is there 'a body', 'feeling' ?

It is immediate and happening in my legs, my bum and my back. I'm not confident I know what you mean by the question 'is there a body, feeling?' There is a physical sensation that I can feel if I put my focus on it - but only if I put my focus on it. It is a local sensation particular to those parts of my body, and the sensation is distinct from sensations in other parts of my body.
'Is there a body?' ...Well I believe there is a body, if I look I can see a body, if I try feel one I have sensations that feed the belief that there is a body.
I cannot locate a 'self' in the sensations that relate to sitting.

Thanks Jon,
Regards,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

When I use the work consciousness, I am using it to mean that I experience sound/hearing

So there is a 'self', an entity that 'hears'?

How about the distant rumble of traffic? Is the traffic a product of imagination or is it actually heard?
The sound that is akin to rumbling is heard. The interpretation that it is traffic is a thought - or you could say imagination. Rumble in my hearing is hearing, traffic is traffic. Traffic is not hearing.

What I am trying to ask, perhaps not very well, is do you believe that sensations such as hearing, touch or seeing do not actually happen here and now and cannot be experienced? This may seem like an odd question but it does have a bearing.

Ok. Experiencing sensing is a focus on a raw sense - that I can do (albeit thoughts do distract).

That is good. That is all that is being asked. The noticing of raw sensation. It is also good to notice that thoughts appear and you say 'distract'. In what way do these thoughts distract? Give me a scenario whereby there is some focus on the primary sensation and then thoughts distract? What is the pattern? How does it happen?

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,
Thanks for the prompt reply.

When I use the work consciousness, I am using it to mean that I experience sound/hearing
So there is a 'self', an entity that 'hears'?

Yes I take your point. It seems there is an inherent assumption (a core belief) that there is a 'self'. Will track this into the future.

What I am trying to ask, perhaps not very well, is do you believe that sensations such as hearing, touch or seeing do not actually happen here and now and cannot be experienced? This may seem like an odd question but it does have a bearing.

I am not 100% clear I understand this question, and I acknowledge that language and understanding in not the easiest in this domain. I think you are asking if it is possible to experience sensation (hearing) in its raw form independent of anything else - including independent of a 'self'. The answer that arises to mind it that it is possible, the experience of hearing can stand alone. Am I coming close to answering the question you intended? If not please can you offer some more clarification.

It is also good to notice that thoughts appear and you say 'distract'. In what way do these thoughts distract? Give me a scenario whereby there is some focus on the primary sensation and then thoughts distract? What is the pattern? How does it happen?

There is the experience of filtering, interpreting and narrating what is being received by the sense - thus it is no longer pure sensing. And then it is just a skip and a hop away from stories that can depart completely away from the sense experience.
As I look at the screen I can see the visual image of light and shapes on the screen. Then close to that experience of just seeing there is the experience of filtering & interpreting - where/what I see, the shapes are not just colored lines but they become words, they have meaning, the knowing that I am on a website, a website that is about awakening, & the meaning expands from there into the story. With intention it can bring it back to just seeing, but there is a tendency for filtering/interpreting/thinking etc to be dominant.
As I listen to music in this moment, I can connect with the sound of the sounds I am hearing. The music is now quite pleasant and an emotional connection is emerging - sensations in the body and a feeling of subtle movement inside the body. Thoughts of a past holiday arises and this music fits that eara of my life, the story can take off from there....
Notwithstanding all this, the LU exercise has enabled insight into how the sense can stand on its own [just seeing, just hearing, just feeling].

Thanks a mill Jon,
Looking forward to the next installment.
M

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

Notwithstanding all this, the LU exercise has enabled insight into how the sense can stand on its own [just seeing, just hearing, just feeling.

What advantage do you see or understand by this insight?


love

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

Notwithstanding all this, the LU exercise has enabled insight into how the sense can stand on its own [just seeing, just hearing, just feeling.
What advantage do you see or understand by this insight?

Before starting LU the reply would have been something like this: By identifying the distinction of sense experiences (i.e. hearing) has allowed me to create more space between me and my thoughts. Between me and my feelings, between me and my impulses - an ongoing quest I have been working on for a while. It gives me more space - some more wriggle room, space for negotiation - from me and all the other internal processes. Allowing for more choice.

Now.... well a thought arises, that there is no I/me/self. Yet the idea of more space is still appealing. Perhaps the best answer available that represents an advantage is that this insight makes it more difficult for thoughts to become identified with, for the thoughts to represent an 'I', for the thoughts to graduate into a 'self'. Stuff is better able to just float (stuff meaning sensation, cognition, and behavioral experiences). Of course the feeling of, or belief in, a definable 'self' is still prevalent in my experiences, but there is also that tiny bit of internal space now.
Hymmm....that answer feels right. The statement, "I am not my thoughts" holds more observable truth than it did before. The strings of interconnectedness that held all the processes and stuff together has been loosened up to allow these different things to be seen as somewhat separate and not necessarily one big mass of 'I' experience.
Think that is the advantage that sticks out - albeit still a long way to go Jon!

Again Thank you,
Looking forward to the next one Jon,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

. Perhaps the best answer available that represents an advantage is that this insight makes it more difficult for thoughts to become identified with, for the thoughts to represent an 'I', for the thoughts to graduate into a 'self'. Stuff is better able to just float (stuff meaning sensation, cognition, and behavioral experiences). Of course the feeling of, or belief in, a definable 'self' is still prevalent in my experiences, but there is also that tiny bit of internal space now.
Hymmm....that answer feels right. The statement, "I am not my thoughts" holds more observable truth than it did before. The strings of interconnectedness that held all the processes and stuff together has been loosened up to allow these different things to be seen as somewhat separate and not necessarily one big mass of 'I' experience.
Think that is the advantage that sticks out - albeit still a long way to go Jon!

Thanks for that. Loosening up is good.

Maybe not as far as you think though?

What we are doing is taking a look, several looks, to see if it is possible to find an entity,'I' , pulling strings and making things happen, like a puppet-master.

By looking, something very curious happens.

If you imagined that there may be someone standing just behind you, but you were not really sure about this but you wanted to find out, what would you do?


Love

Jon