Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

Why not make this brave step and throw everything you know over board and start afresh? Start fresh by looking at what is...

You are right, I'm not here to discuss philosophy, but to try and see. It appears my attempts at seeing by using thoughts to map out at least where to look have not achieved much, and could never achieve much considering the "place to look for" is where looking is from. I don't think this is just some logical derivation from reading non-dual texts - for a brief moment there's an actual glimpse of this, but thought and the self-belief quickly take over.

If you ask me what is, then all that can be said is the knowledge of sensations, knowledge of thoughts, knowledge of thoughts about thoughts. Whose is that knowledge? It can't be mine, since "mine" is a thought about thought but not the knowing of thought about thought - and yet this knowledge is here, happening, being.

And then, I'm back to judgement. "Yes, I sort of get it... but it's like seeing small patches of sky through very dirty sunglasses on a very cloudy day. Surely there must be a better view..."

Perhaps it appears that I'm unwilling to throw away everything I know, and maybe there's an unconscious resistance somewhere - I wouldn't know, but that's not how I feel. I don't even feel it's a question of courage (I accept the fact that the self will be no more when this is seen and for all practical purposes, it will die - I will die) and yet I still want to proceed but feel the obstacle is just total cluelessness on my part on what more needs to happen for the pieces to finally fall into place - and not for this self, but without this self.

[Alexw]

You are right, I'm not here to discuss philosophy, but to try and see. It appears my attempts at seeing by using thoughts to map out at least where to look have not achieved much, and could never achieve much considering the "place to look for" is where looking is from.

Yes, agree, lets look and put philosophy aside for a while.

When you look... how does that exactly work?
Please sit down and put some object in front of you. Relax. Look at it.
Now, when I say "look at it" this brings up the idea that there should be a "you" doing something - a you looking at something out there... Does this feel about right?
But now try to really only focus on this moment - try to find the you that is looking - after a while go even deeper and try to find the looking itself. Is there really a looking happening? Do you have to do anything for seeing to be there?
You might say, yes, obviously looking is happening, I see the object, so I must be looking at it! But ignore this idea, ignore what "looking" is meant to be like, ignore the idea that looking is something that you do...
When experiencing this moment without all the thought-made trimmings... What is really there? Is looking happening? Is anything happening?

Alex

[placebo8]

Please sit down and put some object in front of you. Relax. Look at it.

I started doing this. Just like while trying to meditate, eventually thoughts spring up. "This is boring", "no realisation is going to occur", "give this up already". It's not like it's like this all the time, I mean, on some level while this is happening it is recognised as just being thought occurrences, similar to the object that appears, both just engaged in the same being-ness, but not really belonging to anyone in particular, and then the identification with the thought or looker relaxes, but like I mentioned before - the identification is still the major player.

Now, if the trick is just to continue practicing, then that's what I'll do. Just wish I'd have some indicator regarding what the optimal practice is. Too much investment will get me lost in obsessive interest in "getting it" which will miss the point. Too little and it won't be registered or noticed. I'm mostly concerned that I'm not doing enough though.

[Alexw]

When looking at the object try to find the looker, the observer. What can be said about this observer?
Are there certain physical sensations present that feel like an observer? Is there a certain feeling of "me", of "I exist", that might be responsible for the looking?
Please describe everything that seems to qualify as an observer, as this subject that looks at an object. Also describe what else is present in this experience.
Surely, if you can see the object in front of you then there should be someone/something that looks at it, no?

Only one prerequisite:
You have to DO it!
Not just think about it and wonder if it might really be worthwhile... You have to Look and REALLY try to find this looker.
If you don't look in earnest you don't have to look at all, but then the looker will never be allowed to dissolve...

[placebo8]

Only one prerequisite:
You have to DO it!
Not just think about it and wonder if it might really be worthwhile... You have to Look and REALLY try to find this looker.
If you don't look in earnest you don't have to look at all, but then the looker will never be allowed to dissolve...

I'm being as earnest as I know how. Of course, it could be that I'm fooling myself and the attempt isn't really earnest, but then there's not much I can do about it until this too is noticed.

Perhaps it's just not in the cards. In any case, I'll continue to search for the looker according to your suggestion and will gladly update if there's any significant insight.

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

I didn't want to imply that you are not doing your best, sometimes it just feels like you are looking on a thought based level, that you are rather thinking your way to an answer instead of simply looking...

I was asking you a few days ago:

When looking at the object try to find the looker, the observer. What can be said about this observer?
Are there certain physical sensations present that feel like an observer? Is there a certain feeling of "me", of "I exist", that might be responsible for the looking?
Please describe everything that seems to qualify as an observer, as this subject that looks at an object. Also describe what else is present in this experience.

I would have expected something like this as an answer:
Ok.. I am sitting down with a cup in front of me... I can see the cup. It is separate from me. There is a certain pressure behind my eyes. It seems to be inside of my head. It feels a little bit as if the looking is coming from this place, but I am not 100% sure.. The cup itself is only a cup when the thought "cup" appears, labelling the object. Otherwise its just "made of" colours in certain shapes. There seems to be a certain distance between "me" and this "cup"... When looking to find "distance" it cant be done - this is confusing etc etc....

The example above is what I would call "looking" - it describes what is being observed in this moment. It doesn't matter if it sounds a bit strange, not logical - what we need to look at is what IS happening and not what SHOULD be happening. Otherwise one could just answer to the above: No, no separate looker can be found - full stop!
Even this might be true, it doesn't help anyone. This statement, if it comes from thought only, is not worth anything.
So... Could you please have another go at the questions and really look. Please simply note what you find, no matter if it sounds a bit strange or illogical..

Alex

[placebo8]

I didn't want to imply that you are not doing your best, sometimes it just feels like you are looking on a thought based level, that you are rather thinking your way to an answer instead of simply looking...

Honestly, at this point I don't know whether I'm doing my best, or what that even means... heck, I have no idea what I am let alone what "my best" is... Yes, that habit of filtering everything through thought is second nature, and it's thought by which I understand that what I'm looking for can't be found in thought - but that's as far as the ride goes. Don't really know how to continue from here other than just try to watch sensations and thought and wait until something clicks...

I would have expected something like this as an answer:

Ok, but I warn you it's going to generate some dreadfully boring reading, but here goes:

I took the first thing that I spotted - a pair of scissors with orange handles. Placed them in front of me and just sat and looked at them. Ok. Scissors. Great. Now what? Let's locate where they are. Well, I see them, that should mean they're not behind me. Then I see this is a thought. Then I think that this thought is a happening that I'm aware of, just like the scissors. The "in front of me" is a thought about this happening - which itself is another happening. I start to feel drowsy (long day at work). I then notice how this drowsiness diminishes the ability to notice what I tried to focus on. I wonder where consciousness is disappearing to now, when a thought occurs that now there is consciousness of diminishing noticing. I wonder if this implies diminishing consciousness considering that at this pace there will soon be no noticing and no inputs. I make another attempt to notice the presence and "here and now" being-ness of the scissors. After some time I take a look at the watch. Ten minutes have passed. Nothing really to write home about. A thought passes that spending more time on this will just yield more of the same. I identify with the thought and call it a day.

Amnon

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

Well, great - this is a good start, even you might not think this is the case :-)

I took the first thing that I spotted - a pair of scissors with orange handles. Placed them in front of me and just sat and looked at them. Ok. Scissors. Great. Now what?

Haha... yes.. now what..?

Please get these scissors again and put them in front of you.
Please note what exactly is present when looking at them. What is present in seeing when looking at these scissors?
Don't make an "attempt to notice the presence and "here and now" being-ness of the scissors" - this is just an idea. What is a presence? What is here and now being-ness? They are all concepts that you wont find in this experience! Or can you find presence? Can you find "here now being-ness"?
Leave these ideas behind and simply note what you find. What is really here?
Is there a consciousness of anything? Are you looking at these scissors? Are you doing this looking? What exactly has to be done so looking happens? Anything? Is looking a "doing"? Something that requires a certain activity on your part at all? If you think so, then please describe this activity of looking. How is it experienced? Is there a focus of attention that you can move at will? How so? How does "looking" really work?

[placebo8]

Well, these scissors have received more attention than they ever dreamed of... I don't mean to be difficult, but I feel there's no new information to be added. What is this looking? It's just the noticing of whatever is in focus at the moment. It doesn't tell me anything about the noticer or about the thing being noticed - it's just what is taking place, which is then followed by another thing taking place, namely a thought saying "come on, there has to be a better way to pass the time than looking at scissors".

Are you doing this looking? What exactly has to be done so looking happens? Anything? Is looking a "doing"? Something that requires a certain activity on your part at all? If you think so, then please describe this activity of looking. How is it experienced? Is there a focus of attention that you can move at will? How so? How does "looking" really work?

Am I doing this looking? No, but I'm identifying with the thinking that accompanies it about how the looking is not teaching me anything.

What exactly has to be done so looking happens? A request from Alex to do so... :-) Once looking takes place it is simply registered - there is nothing that needs to be done. However, in order for it to continue, the right set of circumstances to keep the attention on it are required (motivation, alertness, free time etc.)

Is there a focus of attention that I can move at will? Yes, there is a focus of attention - this is what enables differentiating the scissors from my wallet or a sandwich. Can I move it at will? I can't really answer that without addressing whether there is such a thing as a will, or an I for that matter. Sometimes I feel both exist, sometimes it feels as though I exist but my will doesn't exist, and very rarely it feels as if none exist.

[Alexw]

I feel there's no new information to be added.

Hmmm... well... lets have a look...

1)

What is this looking? It's just the noticing of whatever is in focus at the moment. It doesn't tell me anything about the noticer or about the thing being noticed

Ok... then please find this "noticing". I agree with you that there is no information about "the noticer or about the thing being noticed", but is there a "noticing" at all? Or is "taking notice" already a taking note of a thing - which would imply this is a thought about looking?

2)

Am I doing this looking? No

Great!

3)

but I'm identifying with the thinking that accompanies it about the looking

When you say that you identify with these thoughts, then there should have been a self/I present before the thought arises so this I can later on identify with this statement, right? Is this how it works?
When you look at these scissors again, please note how at first there is simply the "looking"... then suddenly a reaction arises, in this case a judgemental thought... There would have to be a controlling entity, a self, an I, there somewhere to initiate this thought? There should also be an I present so there is someone here to identify with something, with this judgement, no? If there is nothing there then how can there be identification?

Please do this looking exercise again, but this time when looking at the object, be aware of this empty space that arises when looking happens, remain in this empty gap and look for the one that makes the next activity happen. Wait for a reaction to arise, a thought, maybe a change of focus to another percept... Look for the one that controls the focus and/or the thought based reactivity... This should be the one that identifies with an opinion, right? Otherwise it would be just an opinion, a simple statement... this wouldn't mean that there is any identification happening, would it?

Is there a focus of attention that I can move at will? Yes, there is a focus of attention - this is what enables differentiating the scissors from my wallet or a sandwich.

Really? The focus of attention can do that?
What have you found when doing the exercise above? What can attention do/not do?

Alex

[placebo8]

but is there a "noticing" at all? Or is "taking notice" already a taking note of a thing - which would imply this is a thought about looking?

I'm not sure that noticing or focusing equates to a thought about looking - I see and experience it as a contraction of the set of things being dealt with (the set of things I am conscious of) to a small "area of interest" thereby increasing the capacity to deal with that particular area. The "I am focusing on this" appears to be an afterthought that adds "me" to the picture but I don't think it's the focusing itself - just thought about the focusing.

When you say that you identify with these thoughts, then there should have been a self/I present before the thought arises so this I can later on identify with this statement, right? Is this how it works?

Identifying with these thoughts simply means recognising the continuity of this mind/body process and taking this self-sustaining mental structure to be what I am, and its preservation and interests as my own. While this mental construct's only "power source" is the consciousness of it, I don't see myself as it's source but as what was created. So in answer your question, there doesn't have to be a real "I" to have a feeling as though there is, all it takes is consistent pattern recognition of the self structure and a "power source" of consciousness - the anchor of "what is" - to make it believable. I realise I'm regressing to theory again here but I have no other way to express what "identifying with thoughts" feels like.

There would have to be a controlling entity, a self, an I, there somewhere to initiate this thought? There should also be an I present so there is someone here to identify with something, with this judgement, no? If there is nothing there then how can there be identification?

Since it's just a process - nothing is initiated by it - all the thoughts/events that make up this process are caused by other thoughts and events - there's no "me" that controls them other than the illusory "me" created by identification. My understanding of identification is that of breathing life into a story and then forgetting where the story gets its life from and thinking it always had it. But again, I feel I'm missing the point - this might be good theory and even sit well with my gut feeling, but still mostly conflicts with everyday experience.

Please do this looking exercise again, but this time when looking at the object, be aware of this empty space that arises when looking happens, remain in this empty gap and look for the one that makes the next activity happen. Wait for a reaction to arise, a thought, maybe a change of focus to another percept... Look for the one that controls the focus and/or the thought based reactivity... This should be the one that identifies with an opinion, right? Otherwise it would be just an opinion, a simple statement... this wouldn't mean that there is any identification happening, would it?

I'll try and convey the difficulty of the above task by the internal chatter that goes on during the process:

"Ok let's look at this set of keys. Try to be aware of an empty space"
"Hmm... what empty space?"
"I don't know - just keep looking"
"Should I have noticed a gap already?"
"Well, maybe if you'd shut up for a second you'll notice a gap"
"Ok, it's been a few seconds already - still no gap. Are we doing this right?"
"Hey, wait a minute! - isn't this last thought a reaction Alex requested to notice?"
"Uh, I guess so."
"Did I control it?"
"Hah - wishful thinking - I don't control anything around here..."
"You're now identifying with a story"
"So what? tell me something I don't know, like how to break free of it"
"Ok, let's look at the keys again"
"Hold on, a WhatsApp message - maybe it's important"
"Oh come on. we're not going to make any progress if we keep getting interrupted"
blah blah etc. etc.

[Alexw]

I realise I'm regressing to theory again here but I have no other way to express what "identifying with thoughts" feels like.

Why do you think that is the case?
There are many similar stories that we invent... that there is a separate self suffering, that there is a consciousness perceiving, the list is endless... But they all have one thing in common: You wont find any of these objects that you talk about in real, direct experience. "Identification", "I", even "awareness" is just a story, an interpretation of what seems to happen based on your acquired knowledge of "how things are" (or are meant to be). When a young child looks at the world then there is no question about how and why things are as they are - there are not even things - there is just what is. No need to define, judge, interpret. But since then we have acquired a huge amount of interpretations of how all these percepts seemingly fit together (or rather how they oppose each other). The problem is that now there are layers and layers of dust on top of this pure experience - every percept has to be compared, judged and interpreted - otherwise it is "useless". But for who? And why would it have to have a use?
We depart on this spiritual path because we believe we can find something, but there really is nothing to find, it is already here, it is only covered with so much dust (interpretation) that the basic experience is completely overlooked. It is nothing complex, it is as simple as it gets, but thinking adds complexity and this is where we get lost.

You simply have to look at your keys - don't making a huge thing out of it. I am not asking you to find a pink unicorn hidden in a secret space somewhere inside the object. I am sure you can do better than just come back with a chain of thought...

Maybe have a look at this: When "identifying with thoughts" happens then look at what is happening in direct experience - there are normally certain physical sensations present that make this story of identification more believable. Seeing these sensations as "simply sensations" is a first step to defuse all this identifying. Looking at the reactions that arise from buying into the story is another step and the final blow can be dealt with looking at the empty space (this gap) in between the initial event and the reaction...

Anyway, what would make your effort of inquiry easier is taking on the position that everything you seem to know is simply a conditioned interpretation - not the truth. When thought comes up with stories about identification, a separate self, even consciousness, then I am sure you can find a certain doubt about this story being really true. A doubt that will make you want to find out, but not by again using your database of conceptual knowledge, but rather by using direct experience (and yes, I know, you will have to use again an interpretation of what you have found otherwise we wont be able to communicate, but I am sure you will find the right words).

[placebo8]

But since then we have acquired a huge amount of interpretations of how all these percepts seemingly fit together (or rather how they oppose each other). The problem is that now there are layers and layers of dust on top of this pure experience

and yet I should believe that somehow a miracle will happen and all these layers will magically be seen through by just me trying a little harder?

It is nothing complex, it is as simple as it gets, but thinking adds complexity and this is where we get lost.

The fact remains that it remains elusive and is seen only by a minute fraction of humanity, so its being the epitome of simplicity does not do anything to help make it easy to see by those operating in dualistic complexity.

I am sure you can do better than just come back with a chain of thought...

Why? If there's anything I've noticed, it's the total reactivity occuring non-stop in my daily life. Events (both body/mind and what seems external to it) cause thoughts cause emotions cause other thoughts. I see it and notice the happenings in real time, like some comentator on a sports event. "Event registered", "Reactive thought starting", "Mood change", "Thought about possible outcomes", "Feeling of anxiety" etc. This noticing doesn't bring with it some epiphany, but just more reactive thoughts.

Maybe have a look at this: When "identifying with thoughts" happens then look at what is happening in direct experience - there are normally certain physical sensations present that make this story of identification more believable. Seeing these sensations as "simply sensations" is a first step to defuse all this identifying.

In my case, physical sensations usually go unoticed when "identification" takes place. Ususally I just get lost in thought, oblivious to what's going on. One encouraging exception to this is a condition where for years full fledged panic attacks would follow after extreme physical effort. This situation was greatly improved when I learned to cut the spiraling out of control of emotions by taking the physical sensations following the effort at face value, focusing only on them and simply refusing to give in to an interpretation that would start a vicious cycle of reaction. Not as easy as it sounds...

Looking at the reactions that arise from buying into the story is another step and the final blow can be dealt with looking at the empty space (this gap) in between the initial event and the reaction...

I can understand what you mean by the second step, but this gap thing is beyond me at the moment.

Anyway, what would make your effort of inquiry easier is taking on the position that everything you seem to know is simply a conditioned interpretation - not the truth. When thought comes up with stories about identification, a separate self, even consciousness, then I am sure you can find a certain doubt about this story being really true.

I can do this, but this leaves nothing to hang on to, not even your recommendations or suggestions since they aren't true either. I'd say I'm left with only knowing that I don't know anything, but even that statement wouldn't be true.

[Alexw]

I can do this, but this leaves nothing to hang on to, not even your recommendations or suggestions since they aren't true either. I'd say I'm left with only knowing that I don't know anything, but even that statement wouldn't be true.

Yes, a statement is only true or false as long as you agree to operate between these boundaries. But reality is not true or false, it doesn't change anything if there is an agreement that a rose is red. When you look at a rose you have a lot of knowledge attached to this looking, but the looking itself, the seen, is not affected by it. The concept "red" doesn't even touch the real experience of "red", does it? Now you might say, ok, it is not the same, but at least it is a good approximation. But I am saying: There is absolutely no point at all where the concept "red" even touches the real experience. This simply is the case as the concept "red" is a thought - thus an experience of a thought - whereas the seeing itself is not in any way related to what thought might say about it.
The problem is we believe that our thought structures at least provide a good approximation of experience - but they don't!
This doesn't meant that reality has to physically look different than it does right now, it only means that all of our ideas of things, objects, subjects, separation, agency, you name it... are all just a story that we have commonly agreed on. But it doesn't make it true just because the majority agrees on it.

I know there will be many logical arguments that might come up... if there are no objects, no separation, then how is it possible that I can be run over by a car? The simple answer is that your idea of "no separation" is wrong and thus the above question arises. The question is asked from the point of view of a separate entity, it is asked from separation and is targeted at its opposite, non-separation. Its like looking for infinity from the standpoint of being a finite being. How should that ever work?
The issue is that thought can not go there - it can not work outside of relativity. Yes, you can think about something that is not relative, but you again think about it in relative terms. It is perfectly useless.

So where do we go from here?
Well, there is one path that leads back into the map and then there is another one that leads into the territory. When you operate in the map only, then you will miss most of the real scenery, but when you operate in the territory then you can really enjoy the scenery and in case you get lost you can always refer back to the map. The map doesn't have to be given up, it becomes a tool, but it is not mistaken for reality any longer.

The only way out of the map is seeing the map as a map and not mistaking it for the real thing.
Seeing the map as a map can be done by inquiring into these concepts, ideas, beliefs and stories that have been accumulated. This can only be done by using your 5 senses - a true and honest realisation can only arise from precieving - the appropriate translation into thought will follow automatically.

[placebo8]

The concept "red" doesn't even touch the real experience of "red", does it? Now you might say, ok, it is not the same, but at least it is a good approximation.

No, I wouldn't say it's an approximation - I agree that the concept "red" has absolutely nothing to do with the experience of "red". As you mentioned, there are many questions and logical arguments which I think that even asked from a relative perspective would help to point to the absolute, but I'll refrain from philosophical queries as I think it won't be very productive.

Seeing the map as a map can be done by inquiring into these concepts, ideas, beliefs and stories that have been accumulated. This can only be done by using your 5 senses - a true and honest realisation can only arise from precieving - the appropriate translation into thought will follow automatically.

Well, it seems I'm at an impasse - Everything you have written is understood intellectually and my logic says that it is all consistent with all other pointers to Truth that I've gathered over the years and decades and yet, just as with previous pointers I've encountered, the main effect is to convince me that I'm probably not ready, that "seeing" is something that happens to others and that I should just let it go for now. Yes, this is probably another story I'm weaving but recognising this doesn't contribute anything to dispel it, so it doesn't matter whether it's a story or not. There's some part in me that takes some consolation in the fact that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter...

I really don't wish to waste your time on a lost cause - if you think there are other avenues to explore I'd be happy to try them. If you think I should take some time to just continue to contemplate the things we discussed, or if you think I should take a more intensive retreat just to focus on this then it's also something I'm willing to try. Whatever you feel is right...