has awakening happened (or not)

[franksinatra]

I don't know. I feel these questions are not really helping. I am just overthinking things. My brain feels like it's exploding and I have a sense that liberation is not achieved by a lot of thinking. I know what the right answers to your questions are but I feel it's not getting me any 'further'.

[franksinatra]

I don't know. I feel these questions are not really helping. I am just overthinking things. My brain feels like it's exploding and I have a sense that liberation is not achieved by a lot of thinking. I know what the right answers to your questions are but I feel it's not getting me any 'further'.

[Matthew]

Okay good. Thanks for your honesty!
There is indeed a vital difference between thinking about and looking at.
Thinking about means always creating something. Something new.
What we also don't do here is looking FOR something. Which would mean to look for something which is not present.
We only ever look AT things. At things as they are.
We only look AT what is here now, what is already here now.


How do you look at thought. Very simple.
You can bring up a thought with the content "tree". A thought about "tree".
Either the word, or an image of a tree.


In the same way you can bring up a thought about "me".
To make this easier, you can also say "I" or "me" loudly many times. Or just as a thought, many times.

Please do this.
Maybe with eyes closed.
"I.. I.. I.." or "me.. me.. me.."
When it is right there, you can observe it like a hawk and investigate:

Does "me" react?
Can "me" do anything?
Can "me" ever become anything else than the thought "me"?
Is there something special about the thought "me" as opposed to other thoughts? Except for the content?


Please answer these four questions individually!
Looking forward to your reply

[franksinatra]

Thanks for your patience :-)

"I.. I.. I.." or "me.. me.. me.."
When it is right there, you can observe it like a hawk and investigate:

Does "me" react?

First there was this impulse of the body to point at me. So apparantly also the body identifies with 'me'.

Furthermore. When I say 'tree'' out loud. It's just a word. When I say 'I' out loud it is also just a word but I feel also some kind of heaviness as if it feels like more than a word. So there is a physical response and a feeling respons to the word 'I'
After a while saying the word I gets lighter but I also feel tired...

And than it just sounds like a really strange word. (btw I have been using the dutch word 'Ik' instead of 'I')

Can "me" do anything?

The word me of I can not do anything
However I can do anything.

Can "me" ever become anything else than the thought "me"?

The word me not of course. But the word also has a emotional and/or mental impulse or charge relating to this being or this body and therefore it is still more than just a word.

Is there something special about the thought "me" as opposed to other thoughts? Except for the content?

The word is not more special than other words. But the thought of 'me' triggers various impulses and that is what makes it special.

[Matthew]

No patience required :-)
We're just exploring, which style of investigation fits here.

So yeah. The idea that sensation has itself meaning, that it even has anything to do with "I" is a sticky one.
To see this for what it is, let us start with an especially nice little excercise.
If you have done things like that before, please have a completely fresh look. Do not rely on learned stuff.
The learned is only a thought story about the past. Look only ever at what is here now!


Please find a quite place and a quiet moment.
Sit or lay down, close your eyes and relax. Relax.

Can you attend to sensation only? Not minding thought babbling about this and that, not minding thought labelling sensation?
Thought might say that "I am lying here" or "My body is lying here" or "A body is lying here".
But could this be known from pure sensation?

Thought might tell that there is a soft pressure against the back.
But does pure sensation tell anything about "pressure" or "back"?

Upon arriving there, please have a look at these questions:

Can it be known, how tall the body is?
Does the body have a specific size?
Does the body have a specific shape?
How many toes do you have?


Have fun!

[franksinatra]

Wow, that's insightful.
When I just attend to sensing, I can't sense shape nor size of the body. When I am really just sensing I can't even sense for sure that there is a body. When I get quiet for a long time and go inwards and let everything else fall away all I sense deep down is a smal point.

And about the toes: I can't really sense that there are seperate toes, only when I consciously move the toes I sense that there are some toes, somewhere between 3 and 7 per foot ;) But if I don't move them I can't really sense them seperately.

[Matthew]

Really good!


I want you to "go in there" again.

So there is a physical response and a feeling respons to the word 'I'

What is this "physical response" and "feeling response"?
Does pure sensation tell anything about that?

How is it known, that the word "I" has something to do with a "physical response"?
From sensation? Or from thought?

relating to this being or this body

Does "I" relate to "body", to sensation?

Have a close look at sensation like before with the size of the body:
Is there an "I" in sensation?

[franksinatra]

What is this "physical response" and "feeling response"?
Does pure sensation tell anything about that?

How is it known, that the word "I" has something to do with a "physical response"?
From sensation? Or from thought?

There is just a sensation. (It's getting smaller though). And it is not known that the sensation has anything to do with the response. So it is an assumption, a thought.

Does "I" relate to "body", to sensation?

Have a close look at sensation like before with the size of the body:
Is there an "I" in sensation?

No, I does not relate to body / sensation.
And in sensation there is just sensation. Nothing more. So there is no I in sensation.

[Matthew]

So this is clear. Sensation just is. Sensation is sensation.

First there was this impulse of the body to point at me. So apparantly also the body identifies with 'me'.

So where does the finger go. To the body. To an appearance labelled "body".

In the same way as you looked at sensation, look at the seen.

Does the pure seen in general tell anything about "me" or "not me"?

Does an appearance labelled "body" itself tell anything about "me"? Where does this idea come from?

Is there a "me" in the appearance "body"? If so, what does it look like?

[franksinatra]

Does the pure seen in general tell anything about "me" or "not me"?

Does an appearance labelled "body" itself tell anything about "me"? Where does this idea come from?

Is there a "me" in the appearance "body"? If so, what does it look like?

No, the pure seen is an object or appearance. It doesn't say anything about me or not me

The labelling of an appearance as body is a thought. That doesn't say anything about me.

There is just a body. There cannot be a me in the body.

[Matthew]

So what about this little "me". Seems it cannot be found, eh? :)

But the thought of 'me' triggers various impulses and that is what makes it special.

Is that true?


Where else could an "me" be hiding?
Is there an "I" in seeing?
Where is "Ik" in seeing?

[franksinatra]

But the thought of 'me' triggers various impulses and that is what makes it special.
Is that true?

NO, that's not true (I thought that was true but it's not)

Where else could an "me" be hiding?
Is there an "I" in seeing?
Where is "Ik" in seeing?

I or me cannot be seen nor sensed. So 'me' has got nowhere to hide ;)

So there is no I or me, except for the thought of it.

[Matthew]

What then is supposed to realise something here?

What is supposed to go through a gate?

[franksinatra]

There is no one or no thing to realise something or to go through a gate. And there obviously is no gate.

[Matthew]

How does it feel to see this?