Would be grateful for a guide

[Alexw]

I can't think of one example where I'm aware of more than one thing at a time

So, when you listen to music you cant see the tree in the park and at the same time be aware of the wind in your face?
Being aware is not the same as thinking about things. Yes, you can only think one thought at a time, but while you think you still see, hear, feel... don't you?
Thinking is also not the same as attention. Awareness itself is without direction, it simply is. "Out of" awareness arises attention, which is essentially a contraction. You are aware of sound or a sensation. This is still not a thought, but it is a contraction/focussing of awareness - out of a contraction objects may arise. They are thought based.
Awareness is free, uncentered and open - it may contract into attention, which is perfectly fine - a thought may arise about the contraction - may be fine or problematic... Does this match the way you perceive?

Of course, unlike missions in duality in which I don't stop until I reach the goal, the situation here is that I don't see the goal and that any attempt to reach it or "do" anything just takes it further away, so mostly I feel like I'm fumbling in the dark.

Yes, very true. You don't see the goal as the one that is looking is itself the goal. The eye cant see itself, right?
So why not stop these "attempts to reach or "do" anything"? Why not do nothing?
What do you think "do nothing" means? Does it mean to remain in a stasis? Sitting in meditation all day without moving? Watching TV all day? Not going to work?
Or does it mean to simply witness, to silently observe and to do nothing (as the observer) and to see how everything gets done anyway?
The way out, the exit, from belief is seeing it clearly. If necessary again and again until it drops. It is not enough just to think "Ah ok, I understand, this is a belief. So now... DROP!"... as it may arise again in an hour and then you get frustrated... Thought is not necessary in this task of getting rid of beliefs - it is only required to identify a belief as a belief, but thats where we stop. So, have some trust that simple, clear attention is enough for clear seeing and for an eventual change in thought patterns. You are practicing this anyway, so that is great.

I can't show this "me" that's writing these words since as you said, it's only a bunch of conditioned beliefs, some conceptual structures - there's no way to show it, but that doesn't mean these beliefs and structures don't exist or have any effects. Indeed they are what make up the character required to generate these words. Now, is this character what I am? My intellect and intuition points otherwise, but I'd be lying if I'd say this is known beyond a shadow of a doubt.

OK, good! No way to show it, except in the conventional way of normal day to day life. Sometimes I am (believe to be) the body, sometimes I am an opinion, sometimes I am hate, sometimes I am joy...
But: You are talking about this character as if he would really exist... does the character write these words? How? Is this "character" more than just a momentary selection of percepts?

Upgraded to the max in my book is for example someone with the ability that you mentioned to remain continuously lucid in the waking state, in the dream state and in the transition between them. I have a higher probability to break the world record in running a marathon than ever achieving this (and I'm not even a runner...)

Yes, because you believe that the character can achieve that. He cant!
The lucidity is not owned by anyone. It is what you are, not what a character has as a property.

Lest it would appear that I'm far wiser than I really am, the above are only tiny and rare flickers of understanding in an otherwise dark landscape where I'm usually to be found

I like your description... everything is perceived "while there is no real perceiver anywhere"...
When you perceive a dark landscape is the perceiving gone? Or is it still here? Just perceiving darkness instead of light?
Is there really an I to be found in this dark landscape? Or again just perceiving?

[placebo8]

So, when you listen to music you cant see the tree in the park and at the same time be aware of the wind in your face?

If I'm not thinking of anything specific I guess there's an enjoyment of the music, the scenery and the wind so long as I don't concentrate on one of them, but that seems rare. I think what usually happens is that my attention shifts from being aware of enjoying one thing while the others are in the background to enjoying another and then the previous sensation goes to the background.

Yes, you can only think one thought at a time, but while you think you still see, hear, feel... don't you?

My wife would attest that in my case, this isn't so... :-) When I'm thinking about something, most sensations go unnoticed unless they turn to demands for attention.

Awareness is free, uncentered and open - it may contract into attention, which is perfectly fine - a thought may arise about the contraction - may be fine or problematic... Does this match the way you perceive?

What I can speak of is an alternation between attention and thought. Free uncentered open awareness is something I can't honestly say is part of my repertoire. It's always awareness of something. When I get to meditate, I try to be aware of awareness, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right.

Thought is not necessary in this task of getting rid of beliefs - it is only required to identify a belief as a belief, but thats where we stop. So, have some trust that simple, clear attention is enough for clear seeing and for an eventual change in thought patterns. You are practicing this anyway, so that is great.

I'm practicing but admit I might lack trust. For one, I feel there's still mostly ignorance and identification with the belief in a self. I suspect perhaps this body/mind configuration requires a much stricter and intensive regimen in order do dissolve or at least be forced to spend more time practicing. On the other hand, this desire to see the truth isn't going away so I'm keeping at it regardless of temporary identifications and beliefs in setbacks this character has.

But: You are talking about this character as if he would really exist... does the character write these words? How? Is this "character" more than just a momentary selection of percepts?

As long as cause and effect are believed in, it is apparent that without the process that constitutes the system called "this character", no words would have been written, therefore the character is the cause of the words. Realising no objects really exist (or even time for that matter) would obviously evaporate any notion of cause and effect, I believe (or perceive a belief) that I'm light years from this level of realisation.

The lucidity is not owned by anyone. It is what you are, not what a character has as a property.

I'm not sure I understand in what sense lucidity is what I am when I feel as the equivalent of a sleepwalker - while dreaming or awake.

When you perceive a dark landscape is the perceiving gone? Or is it still here? Just perceiving darkness instead of light?
Is there really an I to be found in this dark landscape? Or again just perceiving?

In theory, it makes no difference what is being perceived. In practice it's more challenging. I heard a quote once that there's a simple test to see whether you're really liberated or you're just fooling yourself, and that test is to ask yourself if it would still be OK if you had to live with the current experience forever, no matter how "bad" it is. The huge collection of experiences to which I'd currently answer "definitely not" is an indication to me that there's still a long way to go.

[Alexw]

I think what usually happens is that my attention shifts from being aware of enjoying one thing while the others are in the background to enjoying another and then the previous sensation goes to the background.

Yes, this is how most people seem to function... What I found helpful is to try to be aware of this happening and mindfully include some pauses of the constant focussing on objects into your daily routine. Let all channels of experience fully open up and don't place your attention on only one of them. This equals non-dual, non-conceptual awareness - no objects to be found, just simple openness, simple perceiving.

My wife would attest that in my case, this isn't so... :-) When I'm thinking about something, most sensations go unnoticed unless they turn to demands for attention.

Sounds familiar :-)
Thats a conditioned reaction and leads to hearing only selective statements like "Dinner is ready!" but not "Please empty the dishwasher!" First this is done on purpose (honey I didn't hear you), but be careful, it can become a habit thats out of "your" control ;-)

What I can speak of is an alternation between attention and thought. Free uncentered open awareness is something I can't honestly say is part of my repertoire. It's always awareness of something. When I get to meditate, I try to be aware of awareness, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right.

Well.. how do you do it when you are meditating? Can you please describe this process?

I'm practicing but admit I might lack trust.

Yes... trust is not much different to a belief, exactly the thing we try to see through, but as you know very well it has certain powers. Can you really achieve anything without a certain trust that it will work out?

I feel there's still mostly ignorance and identification with the belief in a self.

Please write down the 3 to 5 most obvious situations when this identification with the belief in a separate self happens.

After doing that, try to see if these situations have something in common... is there a common thread that links them? What is the glue?

As long as cause and effect are believed in, it is apparent that without the process that constitutes the system called "this character", no words would have been written, therefore the character is the cause of the words

Cause and effect are not the problem, are they? In our normal daily lives we have to live with cause and effect, no problem.
But when you look at the process of thinking about and writing a text on a computer then you can find many things that are quite different to the idea that "I am writing a post in LU."
Now that you are reading this... look at who is reading... are your eyes reading this? Is the brain understanding this? Are the thoughts that pop up "in your head" when reading this in any way controlled by you, by this character that you believe you are?
When you write, try to be aware of how the words find their way onto this screen. When these fingers type words, are you in charge of the movements? Are you in charge of what you have just written?

I'm not sure I understand in what sense lucidity is what I am when I feel as the equivalent of a sleepwalker - while dreaming or awake.

Lucidity has many different aspects. There is the absolute aspect, where there is only lucidity/clarity and then there are many relative aspects. You can only progress in the relative realm of things and make seeming progress until it is seen that there was no one there to really make any progress at all...
In a dream, does it matter how much progress the dream-character makes? The only thing that makes a real difference is the knowledge that you are not this character, that you are the dream(er) itself. Then the character does not really matter so much anymore. You still cant escape the dream, but why would you anyway, you are all that is, so where would you go?

In theory, it makes no difference what is being perceived. In practice it's more challenging.

No, its exactly the other way round.
In theory - in thought - it makes a difference, in reality it doesn't.
Maybe this is the case as when you are "practicing" you are still theorising... Practicing is not a mind game, it doesn't require thought to define or form a practice. You only really practice when you are not doing any practice. Let life flow and observe in silence - that is practice and after a certain mental understanding (which you have) it is the only practice that will transform the flower into a fruit. The tree does not have to practice intentionally to bear fruit does it? Be like the tree.

[placebo8]

I think what usually happens is that my attention shifts from being aware of enjoying one thing while the others are in the background to enjoying another and then the previous sensation goes to the background.

Yes, this is how most people seem to function...

Which is why the belief persists that there's lot of work ahead in order to function differently.

Let all channels of experience fully open up and don't place your attention on only one of them. This equals non-dual, non-conceptual awareness - no objects to be found, just simple openness, simple perceiving.

I find this task extremely difficult to accomplish. It's even easier for me to forcefully stop thinking than to be aware of all sensory input simultaneously. By the way, what I mean by "forcefully stop thinking" is getting to a highly alert state where I squash any thought before it develops, but I feel this takes a lot of effort so it seems to go against the general advice of "letting things happen".

Thats a conditioned reaction and leads to hearing only selective statements like "Dinner is ready!" but not "Please empty the dishwasher!"

No doubt I'm not free from selective hearing, but I was referring to times when I'm really concentrating on something. This is not limited to home, and is sometimes an advantage, for example when I'm working on a problem, no amount of noise will disturb my concentration or change my focus as I'm oblivious to it.

I try to be aware of awareness, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right.

Well.. how do you do it when you are meditating? Can you please describe this process?

Well, whatever I try always involves making an effort in order to stop the noise, that magnet-like attraction of attention and identification with whatever thought comes up, but basically I try and defocus by focusing on raw being - looking at the fact that I am aware without being aware "of something" other than the awareness. I find this hard to keep up for too long. Other times, I try to actively stop thoughts as I previously explained, other times I notice thoughts and sensations and try and grok what is it that perceives them, what is the perception and who does it belong to. Other times, I just sit and enjoy zoning out and not having to do anything in particular for a while. I know there are many varieties of techniques but can't say I stick with anything in particular.

Can you really achieve anything without a certain trust that it will work out?

Ultimately, no. This reminds me of the induction problem in philosophy, i.e what justification do we have in believing some pattern will continue to occur? The answer "because it worked so far" is really just a restatement of the problem - why should we trust that something that has worked so far will continue to work?

I can see how this and other intractable philosophical problems disappear when all separation is seen as illusion. Practically speaking though, it is easier to trust a practice for which measurable improvements can be noticed and one for which there can't be. Trusting that eventually it will be clearly and continually seen that it's a fictional character writing these words is difficult as there are no milestones on the way.

Please write down the 3 to 5 most obvious situations when this identification with the belief in a separate self happens.

It would be easier to list when it doesn't :-) but ok, here several cases, some more extreme than others (to save time trying to formulate it in a more non-dual accuracy, it is written from the character's point of view):
1. After interactions I find threatening (rare), I can get lost in entire scripts of dramatic developments where I am the major star of dreamed up nonsense that has nothing to do with the probable outcome. It can even occur after the threat is gone.
2. I drive to work, trying to be in the moment and be aware of the thoughts and then find myself at some point, perhaps minutes later waking up from autopilot and realising I was thinking about other things.
3. If a new unrecognised ache or problem appears, I do my best to worry about what it might be a sign of
4. Getting angry and frustrated at repeated situations that are not to my liking, especially mistakes that repeat themselves (such as being talked into something I didn't really want)
5. When trying to achieve something that is at the limit of my will power, then there's the identification with an "in here"/mind that can somehow overcome the "out there"/matter, and the corresponding satisfaction if "I" won or disappointment if "I" lost.

These are some examples, but there's no need to take extreme instances since most of the day is about being the character and identifying with a separate self: I am the good listener, I am the caring father, I am the loving husband, I am the expert engineer, I am the entrepreneur, I am the frustrated seeker, etc, etc. if this belief isn't kept in check it continues unnoticed, which is the default state.

The thread that links them all? I'm tempted to say that would be the background awareness the occurrences appear on but I'm not convinced. I see the actual glue or mechanism that makes identification seem natural to be a self sustaining pattern of survival mechanisms, learned beliefs, memories, pattern recognition, thought and self reflection. How awareness turns into "pattern awareness" or "self believing pattern" is beyond me.

Now that you are reading this... look at who is reading... are your eyes reading this? Is the brain understanding this? Are the thoughts that pop up "in your head" when reading this in any way controlled by you, by this character that you believe you are?

My eyes bring the information to my brain. Does my brain understand this? Well, considering that if it were damaged there would be no understanding then I'd have to say yes - the processing done by the brain enables understanding the concepts and formulating a reply. Do I have any control pf this process? That depend's who this "I" is. If this "I" is the mechanical operation of the brain then I doubt there is any control, only the illusion of control. If the "I" is something else then the question remains what is it other than another concept produced by the brain. There is however the all-inclusive perception that knows the concept of "brain", the concept of "I" and all possible experiences and concepts. What this perception is when the brain is dead is another thing that's beyond me, but it's extremely late now and I'm not thinking straight :-)

When you write, try to be aware of how the words find their way onto this screen. When these fingers type words, are you in charge of the movements? Are you in charge of what you have just written?

It sure feels as if there's someone that needs to make choices: Is this sentence written well? Am I making sense? Should I continue this when I'm less tired? I know this could very well be just a stream of events that has nothing to do with a belief that I'm controlling it, but does it feel like a natural stream that I'm in no way involved in? The honest answer os no... on a non-reflective everyday mode it feels like I'm making the decisions.

You still cant escape the dream, but why would you anyway, you are all that is, so where would you go?

Someone once told me that there are a few who manage to be awake in the dream,and much fewer are able to awake from the dream, hinting that escape from the dream is possible too but as at this point I'll settle for being awake in the dream, the next step (if it even exists) is irrelevant

[Alexw]

By the way, what I mean by "forcefully stop thinking" is getting to a highly alert state where I squash any thought before it develops, but I feel this takes a lot of effort so it seems to go against the general advice of "letting things happen".

Try to look at thought as simply another one of your senses, just like visual perception or hearing... You can close your eyes to avoid seeing things, you can cover your ears to reduce the noise or you can focus on not thinking to reduce thoughts... but all of that will not help and will only end with disappointment. Simply as there is no controller in the first place.
Try to avoid these un-natural practices of trying to force experience into a certain shape.

When you look at the scenery around you, there are so many objects to be seen and there are sounds happening all the time... when you think.. there are so many thoughts happening..
BUT: You don't get bothered by the objects of audio-visual perception, do you... its only thoughts that seem to be able to trick you... they seem to be special because there are thoughts about I, about identification, about my current state and my progress...
Now we try to escape this thought-prison by trying to tear down thought-made walls without realising that we use the same thoughts again to build new walls...
There will have to be a moment when you muster the trust to entertain the idea that thought can not help you, that you will have to look past thought, that you have to stop trying using thought to find a solution - there is no escape from thought-prison by again using thought. You will have to start looking for another option. But is there another option??? There seems to be no viable option as thought seems to be the only tool in your workshop... But then again... There is looking, there is listening, there is perceiving... are these tools that can be used?
What can you achieve if you simply look and don't entertain thought to gain something from this looking? Can it bring you any advantage to simply listen without the drive to get some special information out of it? Well, no, it doesn't do anything for thought, but what it does is similar to polishing a mirror. It removes wrong ideas and beliefs - not by thinking them away but by direct insight - and so the reflection of perception will become clearer - just like a puddle where the dirt has settled you will become clearer. This is important for recognising your self.
You can find out through logical deduction that there really is no separate self, that its all thought, just story, but as long as this is only a thought, not real knowledge, it wont help you. Real knowledge comes from a place that is not accessed via thinking but it is the place from where all thought springs. This place can only be reached by direct experience - it has to be seen that there is no such entity as a self.
This true self is not something that you (thought) can manipulate, grasp or come to terms with. It can not be controlled as it is self controlling. It doesn't require an external intelligence to regulate it, it is pure intelligence/energy/knowing or whatever you would like to call it.
Let this timeless power work and take a back seat. Observe and witness but don't analyse, don't measure how far you have come and how far you still have to go. Be like Mahakashyap who enjoys the "waiting" (=observing) so much that enlightenment is not even a goal anymore - when this is the case you have arrived.

In case you have never read about Mahakashyap, one of Buddha's disciples that never spoke a word:
The Buddha looked at him and said, ”Mahakashyap, you never speak – why are you laughing now?”
He said, ”It’s hilarious! I was trying to hide myself so that I wouldn’t come into the direct focus of you. And there are so many who are desirous of enlightenment, of truth, of the ultimate, that I thought, ‘Let all of them reach it; I can wait. This waiting is so beautiful.’ But I had to laugh because I’m the first to have entered the world of enlightenment – and I never asked about it.” Buddha said, ”It is because you never asked about it. You in fact even dropped the desire for it. You were coming closer to it, you even became afraid that it might happen, so you were hiding in corners, you would never ask a question. And I knew that it was going to happen to you first – before anyone else – because these are the qualities that are needed. Unknowingly you fulfil all the conditions. And don’t be angry with me; I have nothing to do with it. You are solely responsible for what has happened.”

[placebo8]

Try to avoid these un-natural practices of trying to force experience into a certain shape.

Ok, I will as they're not really effective anyway. One question though speaking non-dualisticly, isn't "un-natural" an opinion? - Ultimately, can there really be anything un-natural considering whatever happens is exactly how it's supposed to happen (otherwise it wouldn't happen in the first place)?

BUT: You don't get bothered by the objects of audio-visual perception, do you... its only thoughts that seem to be able to trick you...

But almost everything I experience is filtered through thought, including objects of audio-visual perception. This happens so quickly and automatically that I learned to forget that anything exists before thought. I'm slowly trying to undo the many years of misperceiving.

You can find out through logical deduction that there really is no separate self, that its all thought, just story, but as long as this is only a thought, not real knowledge, it wont help you.

I've been painfully aware of this for years.

Let this timeless power work and take a back seat. Observe and witness but don't analyse, don't measure how far you have come and how far you still have to go. Be like Mahakashyap who enjoys the "waiting" (=observing) so much that enlightenment is not even a goal anymore - when this is the case you have arrived.

Doing something doesn't work, doing nothing doesn't work. All that seems to be left is to practice observing to the degree I can manage it and wait until my number comes up either for enlightenment or for passing away without it.

I've also read a similar Zen story to the one about Mahakashyap and understand the moral behind it. As I mentioned once, there's a pesky thought of "yes, it's nice but this is the sort of thing that happens to other people, it's not in my cards". Perhaps this ego is stronger than I thought, but I'd do anything necessary to destroy it (while still living...)

[Alexw]

Ok, I will as they're not really effective anyway. One question though speaking non-dualisticly, isn't "un-natural" an opinion? - Ultimately, can there really be anything un-natural considering whatever happens is exactly how it's supposed to happen (otherwise it wouldn't happen in the first place)?

Yes, you are right, there is no unnatural practice in the practice itself - there is only thinking that deviates from the practice, from what is really happening. I would define this belief of how a practice should be as unnatural as it simply is only a story, not reality. Its like doing one thing, but believing you are doing something different. Its not natural to perceive something, which means it is already your current actuality, and then entertain thoughts that try to mould this experience into something that it is not - to reject it and to try to find a better experience... When a thought arises, trying to quench it is not necessary, it has happened already so accept it, see it and let it pass. Thats all you have to "do".

But almost everything I experience is filtered through thought, including objects of audio-visual perception. This happens so quickly and automatically that I learned to forget that anything exists before thought. I'm slowly trying to undo the many years of misperceiving.

Yes, it can be a deeply integrated process, but what was once established can also be dismantled... stay at it.

Doing something doesn't work, doing nothing doesn't work. All that seems to be left is to practice observing to the degree I can manage it

Doing nothing really is the same as witnessing. See that the real you is never doing anything - it only witnesses - that is its nature. Water doesn't have to do anything to be wet, does it? Its exactly the same with the witnessing/perceiving.

[placebo8]

Its not natural to perceive something, which means it is already your current actuality, and then entertain thoughts that try to mould this experience into something that it is not - to reject it and to try to find a better experience...

Well, I guess one could also say it's not natural to believe in a separate existence in the first place, but then again I'm sure Is-ness is not worried about it and any perceived un-naturalness is also naturally occurring in it. It's like I asked before: Why bother trying to wake anyone up if it's all as it is supposed to be? I guess the answer would probably be because doing so is also how it's supposed to be, until it is otherwise - and then that is what is supposed to be. I can see how a non-dual understanding would bring with it an undefeatable equanimity. All that is left is for me to accept that I won't get it and that's how it's supposed to be. That's a tough one though... :-)

When a thought arises, trying to quench it is not necessary, it has happened already so accept it, see it and let it pass.

I don't really quench it after it arises. If I'd have to define it I'd say this "practice" is more of a "heightened concentration on nothing", and any time a hint of "anything other than nothing" starts to stir (even before the thought content is recognised) concentration is quickly returned to "nothing". But I agree, apart from maybe as a party trick in a neurologist convention, I doubt this is very useful.

Yes, it can be a deeply integrated process, but what was once established can also be dismantled... stay at it.

I will, but I'll try not to obsess over it.

I enjoy this correspondence and would be happy to continue it unless you feel it has served its purpose. I see the nature of the guidance is to help point the clueless in the right direction, but I feel I've been given every possible pointer and still looking everywhere except where the source of it all is, so just want to make it clear that if you're at your wits end, I won't be offended or insulted. Honest. :-)

[Alexw]

If I'd have to define it I'd say this "practice" is more of a "heightened concentration on nothing", and any time a hint of "anything other than nothing" starts to stir (even before the thought content is recognised) concentration is quickly returned to "nothing"

Is it possible to concentrate on nothing? Maybe what you are really doing is concentrating on concentration… A focused awareness on awareness itself, which is not objective…
Suddenly an object is perceived, it arises out of non-conceptual aware being and it falls back into the same non-conceptual silence. Does the object ("anything other than nothing") disturb the concentration (aware presence)? If not, then how about not worrying about the arising "anything other than nothing", observing it, letting it pass and then returning to "concentration on nothing"?

How does this concentration that you are concentrating on feel like? Does it have any qualities? Is it wide and open? Not touched by the objects that arise “in it”?
When the “I”, the ego, arises, does it also arise out of this silence and eventually returns to it? When you concentrate on "nothing" (when you are aware of awareness), is it ever not available right here/now?

I enjoy this correspondence and would be happy to continue it unless you feel it has served its purpose.

I am happy to continue unless you would like to stop it, or you can also opt to talk to another guide.
Let me know what you feel is right.

[placebo8]

Is it possible to concentrate on nothing? Maybe what you are really doing is concentrating on concentration… A focused awareness on awareness itself, which is not objective…

You know those reflex testing games, the type where you have to respond as quickly as possible after some event occurs and there's that intense concentration until the event occurs? I'd say it's similar to that only that the event to respond to in this game is the beginning of attention narrowing down on thought (any thought) and the response is to quickly focus back on just being alert.

Suddenly an object is perceived, it arises out of non-conceptual aware being and it falls back into the same non-conceptual silence. Does the object ("anything other than nothing") disturb the concentration (aware presence)? If not, then how about not worrying about the arising "anything other than nothing", observing it, letting it pass and then returning to "concentration on nothing"?

I'd have to say yes - it does disturb the concentration in the sense that it replaces it. A sense of "something" is identified with, be it "this is hard work", "my legs hurt", "I forgot to buy milk", "I'm not getting it" or any other thought/belief that veils what it is that is actually happening. In this situation this belief can't be observed because I'm too busy believing it.

How does this concentration that you are concentrating on feel like? Does it have any qualities? Is it wide and open? Not touched by the objects that arise “in it”?
When the “I”, the ego, arises, does it also arise out of this silence and eventually returns to it? When you concentrate on "nothing" (when you are aware of awareness), is it ever not available right here/now?

It doesn't feel much like anything while it lasts and there are no objects that arise in it because there is an intent that they do not rise. When thought returns then it is perceived as a period of mental effort, which why I tend to believe this practice isn't really productive in terms of non-dual insight.

I am happy to continue unless you would like to stop it, or you can also opt to talk to another guide.
Let me know what you feel is right.

I'd be happy to continue, and the guide is not the problem here :-)

[Alexw]

I'd say it's similar to that only that the event to respond to in this game is the beginning of attention narrowing down on thought (any thought) and the response is to quickly focus back on just being alert.

What would be the goal of this practice? To remain in a thought-less state "forever"?
Why not allow thought to arise - one after another - and then return to the non-conceptual, alert, state of being?
By practicing the way you are, you act like the wall of a dam - the water collects behind it and once the dam breaks (you stop concentrating) then you are flooded with thoughts. It's better to slowly turn the raging river into a calm creek than stopping the river with an artificial wall, which won't hold back the water for too long anyway...

I'd have to say yes - it does disturb the concentration in the sense that it replaces it. A sense of "something" is identified with, be it "this is hard work", "my legs hurt", "I forgot to buy milk", "I'm not getting it" or any other thought/belief that veils what it is that is actually happening. In this situation this belief can't be observed because I'm too busy believing it.

Yes I know what you mean, but you wont be able to force yourself into a state of constant concentration. You can only return back to openness, to awareness, again and again - turning this process into a natural happening, which automatically turns the raging river of thought into a gentle little stream. Let life work its magic.


Maybe also have another look at the one that is seemingly concentrating, that is trying to control thought and that still wants to "get it"... Lets go back to direct experience... When you look, hear, think or feel.. Is the looking or thinking itself an object?
In terms of language, is it a noun or a verb?

We generally believe that there are things out there and refer to them using nouns. Now imagine that we don't have any such nouns anymore, that all that we have as language are verbs. A tree becomes something like "treeing" and "I" becomes "selfing"...
When you look at this experience happening, e.g. the experience of concentrating, would you say that there is a real, unchangeable I present that is doing the concentrating or is this "I" empty of inherent existence? Maybe it is only present as an ever changing process called "selfing"?
This might open a new door... An opportunity to see things in a different light. It opens the door to the understanding that this I does not exist as a specific, objective entity, but it also means that at the same time it does not "not exist"- it means that this "I" is empty - it only exists as an ever changing process, not as a static subject or object - it "exists" as this process called "selfing".

When you look at this experience, what do you find? A permanent, separate I that is trying to control a process of concentration or only this process of selfing (that is inherent in the process of concentration) that creates different, mirage-like versions of a separate self..? A self that seems to come alive for a few moments and then changes again to another kind of self... the want to know self, the concentrating self, the happy self, the spiritual self...

Can you find any other traces of a self that are not only selfing processes? Is this selfing anything else but thought?
Are you a thought? Or are you observing thoughts?

[placebo8]

What would be the goal of this practice? To remain in a thought-less state "forever"?

I guess it's a sort of experiment to try and see what I am when there is no thought, since I've been so accustomed to associate myself with what is being thought. The fact that there's just nothing when there's no thought (like in deep sleep) only seems to prove the ego's claim that without it, nothing exists. I guess my goal in this practice is to see how "nothing exists" is a verb and is the case whether the ego is there or not. As I said, it isn't very fruitful.

Why not allow thought to arise - one after another - and then return to the non-conceptual, alert, state of being?

Because the "non-conceptual, alert, state of being" is extremely rare, to the point where I start questioning whether it was just imagined. This specific mind/body process almost always believes the thoughts to be its thoughts, the sensations to be its senations, the frustration of not being able to just be as its frustration. This belief in this is stronger than the knowledge that it is all (including the belief itself) just happenings in awareness, as awareness.

You can only return back to openness, to awareness, again and again - turning this process into a natural happening, which automatically turns the raging river of thought into a gentle little stream. Let life work its magic.

Perhaps at a certain point there's a deep realisation that it wasn't me doing any of it, but I'm not at that point yet. The way it is mostly seen is that life won't work it's magic without my help because it never has done so before. It's funny - in a way I feel like I'm stuck in some twilight zone between duality and non-duality. I know that unless I do something about it, nothing will change and at the same time it is understood that things are being done while an ego/false belief then claims responsibility, credit or blame.

When you look at this experience happening, e.g. the experience of concentrating, would you say that there is a real, unchangeable I present that is doing the concentrating or is this "I" empty of inherent existence? Maybe it is only present as an ever changing process called "selfing"?

Yes, there is no way to pinpoint a specific "I" as it is made up of many thoughts, memories, feelings etc. that create a mirage of a separate entity by the recognition of continuity through what is perceived as time - this is what "an ever changing process called "selfing"" means to me. There are two reasons why this understanding is not enough in my case:

First, from a logical perspective, the only thing that is required to believe in something is noticing the pattern, and not the stuff the pattern is made of. Requesting someone to show their "I" is similar to a request to "see" the force of gravity. It can only be seen by the consistency of it's effects, but does that make it any less real?

The other reason is that if for instance something occurs that brings up anger, then the immediate feeling of "I'm angry!" is what takes place, and never "angering happening to no-one".

The combined logical and emotional process above make it difficult to see the consciousness that enables both.

Can you find any other traces of a self that are not only selfing processes? Is this selfing anything else but thought?
Are you a thought? Or are you observing thoughts?

I know they're all selfing processes, including those that claim they're not. I know they are all made from and contained within the infinity which they spring out from but can never fathom. I also know that this very sentence is a thought and thus not truth but at most a pointer to it, and yet I am still grasping at something, simultaneously at some level observing this grasping, yet having to admit the grasping and the implicit belief in the one doing it is still much stronger.

[Alexw]

from a logical perspective, the only thing that is required to believe in something is noticing the pattern, and not the stuff the pattern is made of. Requesting someone to show their "I" is similar to a request to "see" the force of gravity. It can only be seen by the consistency of it's effects, but does that make it any less real?

Yes, very similar indeed.
Asked to show me your I you show me processes. You will never be able to show me the same process or even a solid, permanent entity, ever.
Asked to show me gravity you will pick up a stone and let it drop to the ground, you will say "Here, that is the proof for gravity!" But with this proof, you have not shown me gravity, you have shown me a process. An activity - not an entity.
Did gravity decide to pull the stone towards earth? When you say "I don't like this person!" - did you decide to state this opinion?
Gravity exists as a process only - the I exists as a process only (selfing).
When you leave earth and enter space - gravity first is reduced and then vanishes.
When you leave the belief of an I behind - then selfing first is reduced and somewhen it vanishes.
See any parallels?

Just like with gravity - to understand it - you can only look at the process, not at the entity (as there is no such thing). You can only look at the effects that this supposed "entity" has on its environment. So what you will achieve is an understanding of the process, not of an entity.

With selfing, most of the effects of this process are wrong beliefs, aversions and desires - they are simply the different aspects of the selfing mechanism. It also happens that even after you have seen through the illusion of a separate self, that desire and aversion still arise even there is no belief in an I that could have these aversions... Strange, isn't it?
This will lead to doubts about the initial seeing, about the realisation of the emptiness of the self. Why do I still desire, why do I still get annoyed and react with anger, why do I suffer if I have seen through this separate self? Maybe I have not seen at all? These sort of thoughts will come up simply because daily life - including all these judgements about good and bad experiences - still happens as it always did. So what to do?
Look! Look at these processes. When aversion or desire happens, look at what it is made of. There will be a certain physical sensation. Look into the sensation - does the sensation know anything about desire or aversion? Or is it simply a sensation like any other physical sensation? There is maybe no "aversion" encoded in the sensation at all...
Now a reaction happens - a thought "I don't like that!". Just like you said:

if for instance something occurs that brings up anger, then the immediate feeling of "I'm angry!" is what takes place, and never "angering happening to no-one".

You can now also look at the thought and the (idea of a) combination of thought and sensation which we normally label "emotion". The emotion seems to be made of this combination - sensation and thought... But are they really a solid pair combining into a specific emotion? Or is there simply a sensation happening, then a thought happening and nothing else that could be found otherwise that would really turn them into aversion or desire? If there is no link to be found - nothing that links the sensation and the thought - then.. does anger or aversion even exist at all? Or is there only a neutral sensation and then a thought popping up stating this or that..?

So look with attention, but without any intention to change the experience. Simply look and the realisations will happen and the proper adapting will happen. Don't expect the thought to say "There is angering happening to no-one". Who cares what thought says? If it states "I am angry!", so what? Thought might state that there is a pink unicorn flying over the tree... Does this make it true? So... what do to? Don't do anything, don't try to push and pull at experience, this is just a form of selfing, let life do what it does. It will adapt and thus heal these conditioned thought structures - thought cannot heal thought. Only clear awareness can.

[placebo8]

Just like with gravity - to understand it - you can only look at the process, not at the entity (as there is no such thing). You can only look at the effects that this supposed "entity" has on its environment. So what you will achieve is an understanding of the process, not of an entity.

What I'm saying is that the entity is the process. To say the entity doesn't exist is to say that the process doesn't exist, when it obviously does. The ability to distinguish one process from another (by distinguishing the common denominator of it's effects) is in fact what defines an entity. Any entity.

Thus it appears that claiming that no "I" exists is a bit misleading. "I" is the detected common denominator of this body/mind process, just like "a line" is the detected common denominator of a set of points that make it up, and it is just as real (or rather, unreal) as they are. It's all models built upon models, which are then accepted as real because they "work", and when something works, belief tends to follow.

It also happens that even after you have seen through the illusion of a separate self, that desire and aversion still arise even there is no belief in an I that could have these aversions... Strange, isn't it?

I'd use the term "frustrating" rather than "strange" :-) Still working on seeing it as "frustration is happening" instead of "I'm frustrated"...

Look! Look at these processes. When aversion or desire happens, look at what it is made of. There will be a certain physical sensation. Look into the sensation - does the sensation know anything about desire or aversion?

I try to continuously be aware of it. As you mentioned, its a bit easier using physical sensations and I make a point of using every physical discomfort that arises as a reminder to practice exactly this, as well as some emotional discomforts such as anger or anxiety. Of course, I don't limit it to "negative" occurrences - I try to apply it across the board, it's just that it's easier to forget when engaged in something enjoyable.

You can now also look at the thought and the (idea of a) combination of thought and sensation which we normally label "emotion"

Emotion doesn't have to correspond to a thought about physical sensation or even a thought about a thought. There are some things that appear to be of a separate category to sensations or thoughts about them, such as deeper/higher-level/more complex emotions, stirred by such things as music, certain memories, a specific situation etc. Obviously they are all known, but appear to be made of different stuff than emotions that are triggered by thought.

[Alexw]

What I'm saying is that the entity is the process. To say the entity doesn't exist is to say that the process doesn't exist, when it obviously does. The ability to distinguish one process from another (by distinguishing the common denominator of it's effects) is in fact what defines an entity. Any entity.

Well.. the dictionary definition of entity is something like "something that has separate and distinct existence". Whereas a process is more of a "series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result". The controller/owner of the process seems to be this entity, but when looked for it can not be found. It is definitely a different understanding to realise that the I is simply a process that happens depending on the situation at hand - that it is a verb and not a noun - or to see it as an inherently existing entity that is in charge of these processes that seem to govern daily life.

Anyway, lets agree on the conventional understanding that there are processes happening, some are called "a tree growing", others "the wind blowing" and another one "selfing" (which is again a collection of a multitude of constantly changing processes). This is still important because before you can fight an enemy you have to know what you are up against... If there is an inherently existing thing out there then you attack the thing, if its a very changeable process then your tactics have to be somewhat different. If there are only processes/happenings that don't belong to anyone - no separate self owning them - then obviously there will also be no self that can get rid of them, right? You will have to look at how these processes are being experienced, who knows them? Unfortunately you can't find an objective knower... There is simply knowing happening which is the same as the process happening... Agree so far?
Now you want to change a process - or rather: a process is happening that has as its goal to change other processes. This could also be written as: There are thoughts happening that have as their aim the change of other thought processes. The issue is that the process can not change other processes, all it can do is provide some energy for looking to happen. The looking itself is not the process - it is what sees the process happening. This looking is the only "thing" that can change processes. So use the process as a signal for looking to happen, but not as a tool to change the situation - don't use it to push or pull at experience - use it only in a passive way. The only active component in this whole happening is awareness, the perceiving itself. Seeing a process that doesn't work properly (like selfing) in clear awareness will expose it to the bright light that will eventually dissolve it. Noting else can dissolve the process, no process, no thought can do that. Only awareness can.

Let me know if you want to have a go at this technique by looking at a specific "negative occurrence" that is known to cause anger or aversion. Try to find a real-life statement that is sure to generate anger/aversion and usually provokes a certain reaction. Maybe something that makes you angry enough to burst out with some kind of defensive or angry statement. See what you find and lets proceed from there.