The Gate

I did the exercise again and have a couple of things I'm unsure about:

Are you outside of that field?
Are you within the field?
Can you find a division between you and the field?

Here, am I still supposed to be looking at the blackness see when eyes are closed? because there is much experience, such as sensations labelled 'feet' for example, that certainly appears to be outside of that field

Please note how all experience has to take place IN the field.
Feel and know yourself as this boundless field.

again not sure if I'm supposed to be looking at the whole field of experience or just the blackness that occurs when eyes are closed

Is there a boundless field when the eyes are closed other than the field when the eyes are open?
Is there actually any difference between open and closed eyes?

I seem to be able to find a more definable boundary when eyes are open than when they are closed. I can't precisely see/define the edges but they certainly appear to be there

There is the unmanifested and the manifested.
Both are there in great harmony at the same time.
Can you sense the transparency of all this?

Does unmanifested and manifested mean the same thing as unconditioned and conditioned? if so does this mean they're both there at the same time because they're the same thing?


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

Does unmanifested and manifested mean the same thing as unconditioned and conditioned? if so does this mean they're both there at the same time because they're the same thing?

They are the same in the sense of night and day, left and right, black and white.
Like two sides of the same coin. You might know the symbol of Yin and Yang,
these two black and white fishes in a round circle.
Yin and Yang are both at the same time.

Is there a boundless field when the eyes are closed other than the field when the eyes are open?
Is there actually any difference between open and closed eyes?

I seem to be able to find a more definable boundary when eyes are open than when they are closed. I can't precisely see/define the edges but they certainly appear to be there

Ok. Then look at these very edges.
Can they be seen by just looking?
Looking at without the interference of reason/thought?

Please note how all experience has to take place IN the field.
Feel and know yourself as this boundless field.

again not sure if I'm supposed to be looking at the whole field of experience or just the blackness that occurs when eyes are closed

When the experience of the blackness and blankness is clearly sensed
it is the whole field of experience when the eyes are closed.
Of course there is more then the blackness to the eyes.
There are sounds, sensations, etc.
Where do they occur and to whom?

Are you outside of that field?
Are you within the field?
Can you find a division between you and the field?

Here, am I still supposed to be looking at the blackness see when eyes are closed? because there is much experience, such as sensations labelled 'feet' for example, that certainly appears to be outside of that field

Look closely.
Why is the sensation labelled ‘feet’ outside the field?
Can it be that labels are not contained in the field?
Look at the sensation felt without naming it.
Are you aware of it?
So how can it be outside of awareness?

Can you find a center?
Can a boundless field have a center?

i struggled with this. although I understand there can be no centre if there are no boundaries, I kind of felt as though I could pinpoint a central point to the black field (roughly)

Very good.
Then look at this very center,
look really close and honest:
Does it have a gender?
Does it belong to a certain nation?
Does it belong to a certain religion?
Does the colour of your skin affect it?
Does it have a certain profession?
Is it rich or poor?
Is it affected by experiences of childhood?
Is it affected by any sort of partnership?
Is there a history, a past to the center?

Who are you?



Warmly

nina

Nina,

Can they be seen by just looking?
Looking at without the interference of reason/thought?

no, they cannot be identified

There are sounds, sensations, etc.
Where do they occur and to whom?

They occur nowhere and to no-one

Look closely.
Why is the sensation labelled ‘feet’ outside the field?
Can it be that labels are not contained in the field?
Look at the sensation felt without naming it.
Are you aware of it?
So how can it be outside of awareness?

it is not inside or outside the blackness, but this is what I didn't understand. When I look, the blackness that is seen when eyes are closed is not the entire field of awareness, it is just something occurring within it (even if it appears to take up the whole of it). so 'blackness' and 'awareness' are not interchangeable, and the sensations etc are occurring beside the blackness, also as aspects of awareness, rather than occurring within the blackness. for the exercise below, for example, the central point in the blackness was not the same as the central point in awareness

Does it have a gender?
Does it belong to a certain nation?
Does it belong to a certain religion?
Does the colour of your skin affect it?
Does it have a certain profession?

all no

Is it rich or poor?

cannot be either

Is it affected by experiences of childhood?
Is it affected by any sort of partnership?
Is there a history, a past to the center?

all no

Who are you?

I can't find anything that I am and never will. it has been obvious from the first time i really looked into this that there's no separate self to be found, but i continue to look and look in the hope that eventually this will come in the form of some ultimate revelation, but I'm not even sure what I'm doing it for anymore. it's as though I'm waiting for the mind to fully accept 'it', but accept what? what is there to accept? why am I continuing to look? when I asked myself 'who am I' just then, and looked as hard as I could, the mind just started throwing all the rationalisations it has come up with at me, one by one - 'you're shifting the attention', 'you're everything you think of as you taken as one', 'you're the do-er', 'you're the body', and the more I ignored them the more the mind just kept desperately throwing them at me, hoping something would stick. one even said 'you're some of these things'. what kind of rubbish is that? it's as though the seeking itself has become a defence mechanism against no-self - making me think there's something more to be seen, something to be gained if I just continue looking. I guess I'm just frustrated at my own desire to keep seeking despite knowing there's nothing to be found


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

it is not inside or outside the blackness, but this is what I didn't understand. When I look, the blackness that is seen when eyes are closed is not the entire field of awareness, it is just something occurring within it (even if it appears to take up the whole of it). so 'blackness' and 'awareness' are not interchangeable, and the sensations etc are occurring beside the blackness, also as aspects of awareness, rather than occurring within the blackness. for the exercise below, for example, the central point in the blackness was not the same as the central point in awareness

Yes, blackness and awareness are not interchangeable.
The noting of the blackness and the blankness was just a point of reference
in the context of the experiment;
to note the difference between ‘black-blank’ and when eyes opened ‘light-colours’.

Who are you?

I can't find anything that I am and never will. it has been obvious from the first time i really looked into this that there's no separate self to be found, but i continue to look and look in the hope that eventually this will come in the form of some ultimate revelation, but I'm not even sure what I'm doing it for anymore. it's as though I'm waiting for the mind to fully accept 'it', but accept what? what is there to accept? why am I continuing to look? when I asked myself 'who am I' just then, and looked as hard as I could, the mind just started throwing all the rationalisations it has come up with at me, one by one - 'you're shifting the attention', 'you're everything you think of as you taken as one', 'you're the do-er', 'you're the body', and the more I ignored them the more the mind just kept desperately throwing them at me, hoping something would stick. one even said 'you're some of these things'. what kind of rubbish is that? it's as though the seeking itself has become a defence mechanism against no-self - making me think there's something more to be seen, something to be gained if I just continue looking. I guess I'm just frustrated at my own desire to keep seeking despite knowing there's nothing to be found

Wow, what a marvellous realisation!

The mind has got used to the role of being the controller.
The greatest fear of the mind is to loose control;
that it might get mentally disabled or whatever awful stuff might happen.

By looking really close it might become clearer that there was never
anything the mind was controlling.
Control is a mere fiction.
However loosing control is like jumping from a cliff into the unknown to the mind.
But is it really so?
When the mind just continues to give it clues about reality –
what about when it now just ends there?

There are thoughts, conclusions, convictions and they all crave to be believed.
As long you do believe them you’re trapped in their story.

The me carries a mysterious momentum and tends to keep recreating itself out of nothing.
Again and again, until it is really seen clearly enough.
Until you realize the momentum of the self has run out of fuel.

There’s some amount of struggle with the momentum of the idea of the self.
Like a doll on a leash, it can lead you around.

To see this mechanism as a mechanical process is all that has to be seen…

Isn't it a great fun?

Warmly

nina

Nina,

Isn't it a great fun?

Yes, but also frustrating at times!

All of the above is understood, I will just keep noticing what the mind comes up with and looking to see whether it can really be found. I'm not sure I'll have access to wifi for the next few days, so won't be able to respond on here, but nonetheless I'll keep at it

Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk

All of the above is understood, I will just keep noticing what the mind comes up with and looking to see whether it can really be found.

Very nice.

Now we may have a look at the difference between attention and awareness.
Notice how and when attention is happening.
What is attention?
How does it get established?

There is mostly always something catching our attention:
Job, family, advertisements, news, noises, colours – and inwardly there is the
ongoing stream of thought or emotions which may equally call for attention.

Please note here whether there is a difference between attention and awareness.

What is the relation of attention towards an attended object?

What is the relation of awareness towards what is’ awared’?

Who is ‘doing’ the attention?
Is it done actively, deliberately?

Who is ‘doing’ awareness?

Is it done actively, deliberately?

Warmly

nina

Nina,

What is attention?
How does it get established?

Attention isn't really anything, it's just whatever is in awareness. It seems to be borne out of the mind's desire to attach to things. If I jus let everything be and don't focus on anything 'deliberately' then within a few seconds the mind will grab onto some part of experience by itself.

Please note here whether there is a difference between attention and awareness.

in direct experience there doesn't seem to be, attention is just awareness with the belief that there's a me controlling that awareness

What is the relation of attention towards an attended object?

the attention is the attended object

What is the relation of awareness towards what is’ awared’?

awareness and what is awared are the same

Who is ‘doing’ the attention?
Is it done actively, deliberately?

in direct experience no-one can be found that's 'doing' the attention, but I just can't imagine ever be able to see this clearly. no matter how many times I look and see there's no-one doing it my mind gets no closer to accepting that there's no more of a 'me' in the careful, 'deliberate' behaviour than there is in the behaviour that is habitual and automatic. if i deliberately pay attention to things, and carefully watch whatever happens in the process, I cannot find anything other than an extremely strong sense of deliberateness, of choosing to do pay attention and then consciously enacting it, but this is enough to stop me from seeing it clearly

Who is ‘doing’ awareness?

Is it done actively, deliberately?

no-one is 'doing' awareness. this is much easier to accept than the idea there's no-one 'doing' attention.


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

There is a definite difference between attention and awareness.
And it is essential to notice the difference in our exploration.
It is a rather crucial point.
I’m hitting on this because you once mentioned your deliberate movement
of attention as a source of doing.
So it is necessary to realize the difference between attention and awareness.


Attention is the moving out of awareness, or consciousness.
However awareness is always there and remains always the same,
untouched by what is seen within.

Attention cannot look at awareness; same as the eyes cannot see themselves.
Awareness is like the TV-screen, it doesn't get influenced by the movie which it shows.
Attention is like the watching of the movie.
And awareness is the ground, the foundation.

Attention is acting within the field of duality:
Black and white, day and night, left and right, big and small, up and down,
in and out, beautiful and ugly, thin and fat –
and the countless colour shades in between these opposites.

All this can be noticed by attention.
All this is seen as it is as an actual fact.
It is the world of our physical body with its senses.
The brain is also part of the physical body.

You can shift your attention from here to there,
or you can withdraw it to a certain amount.
However there is an active interference.

The background in which all this is happening is just awareness.
It is always the same, timeless; because ever in the now.
It doesn't know any opposites as it is the metal of the coin with its two sides.
It is the substance, and at the same time it is nothing of all that.


All the last exercises were just to face this background in which awareness is happening.

( :

warmly

nina

Nina,

Sorry again for taking so long to reply. I am travelling and there is rarely reliable wifi.

Attention is the moving out of awareness, or consciousness.
However awareness is always there and remains always the same,
untouched by what is seen within.

I think I'm getting attention mixed up with awareness again. What I meant by the last post was that, when I look, there is only ever-changing experience, nothing more, and whatever is completely outside of attention is not part of experience, so attention and experience are kind of the same thing. If there's no-one paying attention, then in a way there is no attention, only whatever's in experience, including the experience of 'paying attention'.

Attention cannot look at awareness; same as the eyes cannot see themselves.
Awareness is like the TV-screen, it doesn't get influenced by the movie which it shows.

The thing I'm wondering is if awareness cannot be accessed by mind/attention, or in other words can't be found by looking, then how am I supposed to access it? Because at the moment I can't notice the difference between attention and awareness because I have no idea what awareness is, and no way to find it. It feels like all I can do is attempt to conceptualise it, which is only taking me further away from it. If awareness cannot be found by looking, then how am I supposed to connect with it? Everything within experience changes, and there's nothing else there. And so the only thing I can do is to try to think/form an idea around something that never changes, which I realise is not going to help. So I'm kind of stuck for what to do, and wondering why I'm looking when what I'm looking for cannot be found.

Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

Sorry again for taking so long to reply. I am travelling and there is rarely reliable wifi.

Perfectly OK.
You had mentioned that so it’s good to know. Thanks for letting me know!

I think I'm getting attention mixed up with awareness again. What I meant by the last post was that, when I look, there is only ever-changing experience, nothing more, and whatever is completely outside of attention is not part of experience, so attention and experience are kind of the same thing. If there's no-one paying attention, then in a way there is no attention, only whatever's in experience, including the experience of 'paying attention'.

Yes, exactly.
The difference is very subtle, and it can also just be a matter of terms.
Somehow the words are interchangeable and it’s difficult to communicate these
things on the level of terms.

Let’s try it with an example:
You try to be attentive, let’s say on your breath, and then suddenly your attention moves into thoughts.
Then you realize maybe: Oh, my attention went to thinking, it should stay on the breath.
This agency to which all this was happening was awareness – or attention itself.
It can be called consciousness, or I-am-ness, or being-ness, or presence, and all these
are just terms and namings and can’t really describe it theoretically.
Basically it is totally simple.
There is nothing extraordinary about it.
You are already most familiar with it.

Is is not the observer, as an observer implies object and subject.
Observer and observed are one and the same.
So there is no duality.

The thing I'm wondering is if awareness cannot be accessed by mind/attention, or in other words can't be found by looking, then how am I supposed to access it? Because at the moment I can't notice the difference between attention and awareness because I have no idea what awareness is, and no way to find it. It feels like all I can do is attempt to conceptualise it, which is only taking me further away from it. If awareness cannot be found by looking, then how am I supposed to connect with it? Everything within experience changes, and there's nothing else there. And so the only thing I can do is to try to think/form an idea around something that never changes, which I realise is not going to help. So I'm kind of stuck for what to do, and wondering why I'm looking when what I'm looking for cannot be found.

You cannot connect with it as your had never been disconnected!
You cannot find it as your had never lost it!
You cannot connect with it as your had never been disconnected!
( :

It is always there and in no way hidden.
It just cannot be seen in terms of the mind.
Therefore to the thinking mind it doesn't exist.
However are not your mind.
Or are you?
Come on...
The mind is there for your use and it is a marvellous tool.
But in terms of the mind can that what is looking, thinking, hearing, etc, not be seen.
So just stop looking with an inadequate tool
and look without referring to the mind and its stories and concepts.

The gem has always been there in your pocket.
Go and grab it!

Warmly
nina

Nina,

I repeated the recent exercise on the difference between attention and awareness and have some more reflections...

Notice how and when attention is happening.
What is attention?
How does it get established?

Attention is just a word for when there is increased awareness of an attended object. it's not really a thing in and of itself. However paradoxically it also has something to do with the mind. It's like the mind always wants to reach out and grab parts of experience, and separate them from the rest of experience, and attention is how this is done. Attention establishes itself on its own - it is designed to always do its job, and doesn't seem able to be switched off

What is the relation of awareness towards what is’ awared’?

there is no separation between the two. in reality there can be no interference because there's no-one/nothing to do the interfering, but with attention there is certainly the appearance of interference, whereas in awareness there is not even that. there is no interference of the mind, and no appearance of 'effort' whatsoever. it seems like if i just stop putting any effort into anything, then that state comes closest to awareness itself - as then there is nothing/no-one there, no stories or illusions, just what is and nothing more. so on reflection there is certainly a difference between attention and awareness


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

Attention is just a word for when there is increased awareness of an attended object. it's not really a thing in and of itself. However paradoxically it also has something to do with the mind. It's like the mind always wants to reach out and grab parts of experience, and separate them from the rest of experience, and attention is how this is done. Attention establishes itself on its own - it is designed to always do its job, and doesn't seem able to be switched off

Yes, exactly.

It cannot be switched off and there is also no need to switch it off – anyway;
who would be the one doing the switching?
Everything is happening in the way it its happening – but has there to be someone who claims:
I’m the doer; things are happening to me; because of me; due to me?
Is this necessary for the flow of life?

What is the relation of awareness towards what is’ awared’?

there is no separation between the two. in reality there can be no interference because there's no-one/nothing to do the interfering, but with attention there is certainly the appearance of interference, whereas in awareness there is not even that. there is no interference of the mind, and no appearance of 'effort' whatsoever. it seems like if i just stop putting any effort into anything, then that state comes closest to awareness itself - as then there is nothing/no-one there, no stories or illusions, just what is and nothing more. so on reflection there is certainly a difference between attention and awareness

Lovely!

Now you can just rest in peace and in the silent awareness like the screen of a TV device.
The screen is in no way affected by what it displays.
See when there is for example great agitation, anger, joy, boredom, anxiety, or whatever might appear,
if the awareness itself is affected in anyway by all that.

Does it matter?
Get in touch with the I-am-ness, or being-ness.
Is it familiar?
Is it new?
Is it something of the past?
Was it different when you were a kid, for example?
Was it different a week ago?
Is it made of time?


Warmly

nina

Nina,

has there to be someone who claims:
I’m the doer; things are happening to me; because of me; due to me?
Is this necessary for the flow of life?

No, for example when 'I' am thirsty it becomes apparent on its own, and though it feels like there is a me lifting the glass and drinking from it, it is not necessary to identify with the behaviour or have ideas about a 'me' doing it in order for it to happen

See when there is for example great agitation, anger, joy, boredom, anxiety, or whatever might appear,
if the awareness itself is affected in anyway by all that.

no, it seems that these states appear within awareness but don't affect it, because there's nothing to affect because awareness isn't really a thing. it also seems there is no way to connect with awareness, because there's no me to connect with it - the only way that I 'get in touch' with it, if you can call it that, is by doing absolutely nothing and noticing that everything is happening on its own anyway. in truth because its all happening on its own and there's no me, there's no way to affect awareness, or get in touch with it, or connect/disconnect from it


One barrier I've been looking at closely the past couple of days is the mind saying 'there is a me that can only be understood intellectually'. I've been placing this thought in direct experience to see if it holds up. But I only end up thinking that a me that could only be understood intellectually could only ever be another thought. Not sure if I've seen through i fully yet though so will keep looking at it


Beanstalk

Sorry just realised I didn't add my findings on the final questions in the last post:

it's as familiar as can be because it's just what has always been there - in a way being 'awake' or 'asleep' in the spiritual sense doesn't make any difference to how familiar one is with it, it's just that when one is 'asleep' they're seeing other things that aren't there. as such it isn't new, however realising it's all happening on its own without a 'me' does give it a slightly different feel, like a sort of emptiness.

awareness is forever in the now and can't be otherwise. it is completely impersonal and so has never really been different, it has always just existed. it also has nothing to do with time, because time exists as a concept alone. where awareness exists, time doesn't

Dear Beanstalk,

sorry for the late reply.

it's as familiar as can be because it's just what has always been there - in a way being 'awake' or 'asleep' in the spiritual sense doesn't make any difference to how familiar one is with it, it's just that when one is 'asleep' they're seeing other things that aren't there. as such it isn't new, however realising it's all happening on its own without a 'me' does give it a slightly different feel, like a sort of emptiness.

awareness is forever in the now and can't be otherwise. it is completely impersonal and so has never really been different, it has always just existed. it also has nothing to do with time, because time exists as a concept alone. where awareness exists, time doesn't

You are so beautifully clear – are there still some uncertainties?
There is not really much more to see… ( :

One barrier I've been looking at closely the past couple of days is the mind saying 'there is a me that can only be understood intellectually'. I've been placing this thought in direct experience to see if it holds up. But I only end up thinking that a me that could only be understood intellectually could only ever be another thought. Not sure if I've seen through i fully yet though so will keep looking at it

Definitely!
“But I only end up thinking that a me that could only be understood intellectually could only ever be another thought.”

Please note that any intellectual understanding can by its nature only happen in the realm of thought.
Intellectual understanding is the very ground of thought.
Nothing bad about it; it just should be clear.

Do you have some more questions?
Or anything to add?

Was there ever something like a separate self?

Warmly

nina