realizing selflessness

[whoknows]

Next morning. Starting from the top of your message.

Jealousy is not a problem. Impatience is not a problem. Frustration is not a problem.

I think what this might mean is that such things arise, and the combination of bodily sensations and thoughts that one might label “jealousy” or “impatience” or “frustration” can simply be observed, and if the content of the thoughts is not taken as true or important, well, no big deal. It’s just some sensations and thoughts. Yeah?

Then you said this:

They are the current doorway.

“Doorway” as in “way to notice selfing happening”?

And then this:

Do not turn them into evidence that awakening has not happened.

This is challenging and intriguing.
Is the idea here that awakening has already happened?
Sure doesn’t seem like it, certainly not from the relative perspective.
But do you mean from an absolute perspective, where timelines are meaningless and “selves” who are said to experience such things don’t actually exist?
Or are you saying something more like: “Try on the idea that awakening has already happened and that what are called ‘jealousy,’ ‘impatience,’ and ‘frustration’ can still arise and can be seen as just fine, no big deal, part of the wonder of it all”?

Where is the one who is behind?

Yeah, OK. So, the “person” who is supposedly “jealous” — the one whom these stories are being told about — is she even real? Take a look.

while there is seeking, there is dissatisfaction with the status quo; but satisfaction cannot be produced on demand. The move is not to become satisfied, but to see the present construction of dissatisfaction.

OK. Right. It's constructed of sensations plus stories.

Back to what I was focusing on last night:

You ask whether there is something in particular standing in the way. The most obvious pattern is this:

You keep expecting the seeing to do something for you.

Relieve frustration.
End impatience.
Produce peace.
Stop seeking.
Confirm arrival.
Make ordinary life feel acceptable.
Give you the satisfying moment of “finally.”

Yes.
And thoughts arise: Those expectations seem perfectly reasonable based on all the stories I’ve heard.
But then counter-thoughts offer: Maybe the issue is how those ideas are, inevitably, misunderstood. It’s not that “I” will feel peace; it’s that recognizing the illusory nature of the “I” means there’s no creation of non-peace. It’s not that “I” will stop seeking but that it will be seen that there never was an “I” who could seek.
Am I on the right track here?

So when no self is found, thought says:

“So what?”

’Fraid so.
And, let’s see . . . that’s because — Oh, right, you said it:

That “So what?” is the selfing. It asks, “What benefit do I get from this?”

My brain is now singing the refrain of a country song from about 25 years ago: “I wanna talk about meeeee.”
The “self” is awfully self-centered and needy for something that doesn’t even really exist! Sheesh.

Look there.

Where is the I that should receive the benefit?

OK, that’s where I left off last night before finally trying to sleep. I was thinking something I didn’t quite have the energy to formulate or the stamina to try to type on a phone (I never did master thumb-typing like the high school kids I used to teach), something like this:
I know that the “correct” answer is that this “I” can’t be found. But it feels so real and, perhaps most importantly, so prone to suffering that I wanted to think more about why it seems to be there or what it seems to be made of.
It has slipped away a little since last night, but the petulant, suffering mind was going, “But . . . But . . . I don’t want these patterns of thoughts and sensations anymore!”
Yeah, “I” don’t want them . . .
Well, maybe I can’t do anything more with that right now. Moving on:

So the “block” is not hidden. It is this exact insistence:

“Seeing should feel different from this.”

Say that sentence slowly:

Seeing should feel different from this.

Feel the body.

That contraction is the gate.

Not something to remove. Something to see without obeying.

This morning, there’s not so much emotion around “Seeing should feel different from this” as there was yesterday. Maybe there’s a little less selfing going on around that now, which is nice. But that also means it’s not such a good opportunity to examine that particular bout of selfing. But I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of future opportunities!

But going back to “Something to see without obeying.”
Right. As I was falling asleep last night, I was thinking about a distinction Angleo DiLullo made between the kinds of thoughts that just seem like the productions of the random-thought-generator and the thoughts that seem more like “mine” — like “I” am thinking them or like they’re real and important. So, yeah, I think there’s not too much selfing going on "here" these days around what seem like the random burblings of the mind, but some thoughts feel more real, more “me,” more like they need to be — well, maybe not “obeyed” but at least given a royal audience.

Where is me?

Right. Need to keep examining that, especially when suffering indicates that there’s some heavy-duty selfing going on.

Look again.
..and look at what exists as looking happens. (they looking includes thoughts but not what they are about what they are about is a distraction from the looking.)

Not sure I know what this means. Will return to it.

Now need to get some work done.

Thank you, vince, for accompanying me through this!

[vinceschubert]

Next morning. Starting from the top of your message.
Jealousy is not a problem. Impatience is not a problem. Frustration is not a problem.
I think what this might mean is that such things arise, and the combination of bodily sensations and thoughts that one might label “jealousy” or “impatience” or “frustration” can simply be observed, and if the content of the thoughts is not taken as true or important, well, no big deal. It’s just some sensations and thoughts. Yeah?

Then you said this:
They are the current doorway.
“Doorway” as in “way to notice selfing happening”?

And then this:
Do not turn them into evidence that awakening has not happened.
This is challenging and intriguing.
Is the idea here that awakening has already happened?
Sure doesn’t seem like it, certainly not from the relative perspective.
But do you mean from an absolute perspective, where timelines are meaningless and “selves” who are said to experience such things don’t actually exist?
Or are you saying something more like: “Try on the idea that awakening has already happened and that what are called ‘jealousy,’ ‘impatience,’ and ‘frustration’ can still arise and can be seen as just fine, no big deal, part of the wonder of it all”?
Where is the one who is behind?
Yeah, OK. So, the “person” who is supposedly “jealous” — the one whom these stories are being told about — is she even real? Take a look.
while there is seeking, there is dissatisfaction with the status quo; but satisfaction cannot be produced on demand. The move is not to become satisfied, but to see the present construction of dissatisfaction.
OK. Right. It's constructed of sensations plus stories.

Back to what I was focusing on last night:
You ask whether there is something in particular standing in the way. The most obvious pattern is this:

You keep expecting the seeing to do something for you.

Relieve frustration.
End impatience.
Produce peace.
Stop seeking.
Confirm arrival.
Make ordinary life feel acceptable.
Give you the satisfying moment of “finally.”
Yes.
And thoughts arise: Those expectations seem perfectly reasonable based on all the stories I’ve heard.
But then counter-thoughts offer: Maybe the issue is how those ideas are, inevitably, misunderstood. It’s not that “I” will feel peace; it’s that recognizing the illusory nature of the “I” means there’s no creation of non-peace. It’s not that “I” will stop seeking but that it will be seen that there never was an “I” who could seek.
Am I on the right track here?
So when no self is found, thought says:

“So what?”
’Fraid so.
And, let’s see . . . that’s because — Oh, right, you said it:
That “So what?” is the selfing. It asks, “What benefit do I get from this?”
My brain is now singing the refrain of a country song from about 25 years ago: “I wanna talk about meeeee.”
The “self” is awfully self-centered and needy for something that doesn’t even really exist! Sheesh.
Look there.

Where is the I that should receive the benefit?
OK, that’s where I left off last night before finally trying to sleep. I was thinking something I didn’t quite have the energy to formulate or the stamina to try to type on a phone (I never did master thumb-typing like the high school kids I used to teach), something like this:
I know that the “correct” answer is that this “I” can’t be found. But it feels so real and, perhaps most importantly, so prone to suffering that I wanted to think more about why it seems to be there or what it seems to be made of.
It has slipped away a little since last night, but the petulant, suffering mind was going, “But . . . But . . . I don’t want these patterns of thoughts and sensations anymore!”
Yeah, “I” don’t want them . . .
Well, maybe I can’t do anything more with that right now. Moving on:
So the “block” is not hidden. It is this exact insistence:

“Seeing should feel different from this.”

Say that sentence slowly:

Seeing should feel different from this.

Feel the body.

That contraction is the gate.

Not something to remove. Something to see without obeying.
This morning, there’s not so much emotion around “Seeing should feel different from this” as there was yesterday. Maybe there’s a little less selfing going on around that now, which is nice. But that also means it’s not such a good opportunity to examine that particular bout of selfing. But I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of future opportunities!

But going back to “Something to see without obeying.”
Right. As I was falling asleep last night, I was thinking about a distinction Angleo DiLullo made between the kinds of thoughts that just seem like the productions of the random-thought-generator and the thoughts that seem more like “mine” — like “I” am thinking them or like they’re real and important. So, yeah, I think there’s not too much selfing going on "here" these days around what seem like the random burblings of the mind, but some thoughts feel more real, more “me,” more like they need to be — well, maybe not “obeyed” but at least given a royal audience.
Where is me?
Right. Need to keep examining that, especially when suffering indicates that there’s some heavy-duty selfing going on.
Look again.
..and look at what exists as looking happens. (they looking includes thoughts but not what they are about what they are about is a distraction from the looking.)
Not sure I know what this means. Will return to it.

Yes, mostly. But keep shaving off the hidden observer.

Jealousy, impatience, frustration are not a problem means:

They arise as sensation, thought, image, contraction, heat, pressure, story, mood.

The problem is added when thought says:

“This means I’m not awake.”
“This shouldn’t be here.”
“This is mine.”
“This must be fixed before liberation can be real.”

So yes, when the content of the thoughts is not taken as true or important, the whole thing is less solid. But don’t make “just observe it” into a new watcher-position. More accurate:

Jealousy is happening. Sensations are happening. Thoughts are happening. No owner of them is found.

“They are the current doorway” means exactly this: they reveal selfing in real time. Not theoretical selfing. Hot selfing. The kind that says:

“Why not me?”
“I’m behind.”
“I should be further along.”
“I want this suffering pattern gone.”

That is the doorway because the me is vivid there.

About “Do not turn them into evidence that awakening has not happened”:

No, I’m not asking you to believe awakening has already happened from some absolute perspective. And not asking you to try on a consoling idea.

I’m saying: jealousy, impatience, frustration do not prove anything except that jealousy, impatience, frustration are appearing.

The thought “this proves I’m not awake” is extra.

It is a conclusion. A story. A measurement.

Look at it like this:

Frustration appears.
Then thought says: “This means I still haven’t got it.”

That second move is selfing.

Not because frustration should vanish, but because frustration is being recruited into the identity-story: my lack, my failure, my timeline, my awakening.

You asked whether you’re on the right track with:

It’s not that “I” will feel peace; it’s that recognizing the illusory nature of the “I” means there’s no creation of non-peace. It’s not that “I” will stop seeking but that it will be seen that there never was an “I” who could seek.

Yes. Good. But don’t polish it into doctrine.

More immediate:

Non-peace is not a problem until thought says, “This is happening to me and it must stop.”

The sensations may still be intense. Crying may still happen. Anger may still happen. Tiredness may still happen. But the extra layer — someone is trapped in this — is what gets inspected.

And this is the key:

“I don’t want these patterns of thoughts and sensations anymore!”

That is not an I having a pattern.

That is the pattern.

The I is not behind the resistance. The I is part of the resistance-thought.

So when that sentence appears, don’t answer it. Don’t soothe it. Don’t argue with it.

Break it open:

“I” — word, image, felt center?
“don’t want” — contraction, push-away, ache?
“these patterns” — memory, fear of repetition, future-image?
“anymore” — demand, exhaustion, timeline?

Where is the owner of the demand?

Not found.

About thoughts that seem mine:

Yes. That’s where to look.

Random thought: “banana wallpaper spaceship.” No problem.

Royal-audience thought: “I am not seeing it.” Suddenly: gravity, importance, identification, tightening.

Don’t try to ignore those thoughts. They are perfect. When a thought demands a royal audience, bow slightly and inspect the throne.

What makes this thought feel like mine?

Usually:

a body contraction,
a familiar emotional tone,
a story about K,
a felt location behind the eyes,
a sense of urgency,
a future consequence,
a demand for action or conclusion.

Now the last bit:

“Look at what exists as looking happens.”

It means this.

When looking happens, don’t focus on what thought says the answer is.

Look at the actual ingredients of the looking itself.

For example, ask:

Where is me?

Then thought may say:

“Well, there’s no me, obviously.”
or
“There must be some kind of me because suffering feels personal.”

Ignore the content for a moment.

What exists as looking happens?

Maybe visual field.
Maybe pressure behind eyes.
Maybe thought-words.
Maybe a searching sensation.
Maybe silence.
Maybe frustration.
Maybe a mental image of the body.
Maybe a subtle leaning forward.

Those are actual.

The content of thought — the explanation — is a distraction from the looking.

So the pointer becomes:

As looking happens, what is actually present?

Not what is concluded.

Present.

And right now, the cleanest place to keep looking is:

What makes this thought feel like mine?

Take the next royal-audience thought and examine its crown.

[whoknows]

Thanks for your quick reply, vince. Wasn't expecting a reply until your "tomorrow."
Very tempted to go through this carefully right now, but really do need to do some work.
Glad to have your message for later in my "today."

[whoknows]

So yes, when the content of the thoughts is not taken as true or important, the whole thing is less solid. But don’t make “just observe it” into a new watcher-position. More accurate:

Jealousy is happening. Sensations are happening. Thoughts are happening. No owner of them is found.

Ah. Yes. No owner.
The “ownership” idea is helpful. Still need to internalize that one.

“They are the current doorway” means exactly this: they reveal selfing in real time. Not theoretical selfing. Hot selfing.

Yeah. Got it.

Frustration appears.
Then thought says: “This means I still haven’t got it.”

That second move is selfing.

Not because frustration should vanish, but because frustration is being recruited into the identity-story: my lack, my failure, my timeline, my awakening.

Thanks for spinning this out some more.
I’m trying to figure out whether the thoughts were actually saying, “This jealousy, frustration, impatience means I still haven’t got it.”
It seemed more like they were saying, “I still haven’t got it, and seeing that other people have got it makes me feel jealous, frustrated, impatient.”
I’m not sure where to go with that.

You asked whether you’re on the right track with:

It’s not that “I” will feel peace; it’s that recognizing the illusory nature of the “I” means there’s no creation of non-peace. It’s not that “I” will stop seeking but that it will be seen that there never was an “I” who could seek.

Yes. Good. But don’t polish it into doctrine.

More immediate:

Non-peace is not a problem until thought says, “This is happening to me and it must stop.”

The sensations may still be intense. Crying may still happen. Anger may still happen. Tiredness may still happen. But the extra layer — someone is trapped in this — is what gets inspected.

OK. The ownership thing again.
The sensations are not a problem in and of themselves. I get that part, more or less.
And even the thoughts that get lumped together with those sensations aren’t a problem either, if they’re not taken to be true or important, right?
The core problem is the addition of the thought — the believed thought — that they’re “mine,” that there’s a “me” they belong to, that "I" am the owner of them. Yeah?

And this is the key:

“I don’t want these patterns of thoughts and sensations anymore!”

That is not an I having a pattern.

That is the pattern.

The I is not behind the resistance. The I is part of the resistance-thought.

So when that sentence appears, don’t answer it. Don’t soothe it. Don’t argue with it.

Break it open:

“I” — word, image, felt center?
“don’t want” — contraction, push-away, ache?
“these patterns” — memory, fear of repetition, future-image?
“anymore” — demand, exhaustion, timeline?

Where is the owner of the demand?

Not found.

Hmm, OK. That sounds right but also sounds kind of abstract and hard to do in the moment.

Royal-audience thought: “I am not seeing it.” Suddenly: gravity, importance, identification, tightening.

Don’t try to ignore those thoughts. They are perfect. When a thought demands a royal audience, bow slightly and inspect the throne.

:-)

What makes this thought feel like mine?

Usually:

a body contraction,
a familiar emotional tone,
a story about K,
a felt location behind the eyes,
a sense of urgency,
a future consequence,
a demand for action or conclusion.

Yeah, OK.

Now the last bit:

Gonna start a new post for the last bit. Need a break.

[whoknows]

When looking happens, don’t focus on what thought says the answer is.

Look at the actual ingredients of the looking itself.

For example, ask:

Where is me?

Then thought may say:

“Well, there’s no me, obviously.”
or
“There must be some kind of me because suffering feels personal.”

Ignore the content for a moment.

What exists as looking happens?

Maybe visual field.
Maybe pressure behind eyes.
Maybe thought-words.
Maybe a searching sensation.
Maybe silence.
Maybe frustration.
Maybe a mental image of the body.
Maybe a subtle leaning forward.

Those are actual.

The content of thought — the explanation — is a distraction from the looking.

So the pointer becomes:

As looking happens, what is actually present?

Not what is concluded.

Present.

And right now, the cleanest place to keep looking is:

What makes this thought feel like mine?

Take the next royal-audience thought and examine its crown.

OK, so, let’s see if I’m understanding what you’re saying here.

When the next thought arises that insists that’s it terribly important and true and must be attended to — claiming that’s it’s not just another production of the random-thought-generator but that it’s “mine” — take a good look at it:
What makes this thought feel like “mine”?

Ignore anything it might have to say about that.
Just notice what is actually present as this looking happens, maybe any of these:
the visual field, pressure behind the eyes, thought-words, a searching sensation, silence, frustration, a mental image of the body, a subtle leaning forward.

Yes?

[vinceschubert]

The core problem is the addition of the thought — the believed thought — that they’re “mine,” that there’s a “me” they belong to, that "I" am the owner of them. Yeah?

No!
If a thought comes up it is an afterthought. A reflection of the EXPERIENCE of ownership.
Ownership is experienced at a subtle level.
Look to the body for the expression of it being mine.

I’m trying to figure out whether the thoughts were actually saying, “This jealousy, frustration, impatience means I still haven’t got it.”
It seemed more like they were saying, “I still haven’t got it, and seeing that other people have got it makes me feel jealous, frustrated, impatient.”
I’m not sure where to go with that.

Yes. That distinction matters.

The thought may not have been:

“Jealousy proves I haven’t got it.”

It may have been:

“I haven’t got it. They have. Therefore jealousy/frustration/impatience are arising.”

Good. So go one step earlier.

Don’t start with jealousy.

Start with:

“I still haven’t got it.”

That is the root thought.

Now inspect it.

What is “it”?

Awakening? Liberation? Seeing no-self? End of seeking? Relief? A shift? A satisfying click?

Can “it” be found right now as anything other than thought-image, expectation, memory, borrowed descriptions, and wanting?

Now inspect:

“I haven’t got it.”

What is the I that lacks it?

Not K as conventional organism. Not the forum poster. Not the meditator. Find the actual lacker.

What is found?

Maybe contraction. Maybe a heavy feeling. Maybe an image of others “getting it.” Maybe a timeline. Maybe the sentence “not yet.”

But is there an actual one who lacks awakening?

That’s where to go.

The jealousy is downstream.

The structure is:

1. A standard is imagined.
2. Others are imagined to have reached it.
3. K is imagined not to have reached it.
4. A “me behind” is formed.
5. Jealousy/frustration/impatience arise.

So don’t try to solve jealousy. Look at the imagined ranking system.

They got it.
I didn’t.

Where is that happening?

Thought. Image. Comparison. Sensation. Story. Maybe ache.

Is there actually anyone ahead?

Is there actually anyone behind?

Or is there a thought-story comparing characters in memory/imagination?

This is not a trick. The pain may be real as sensation. The comparison is not actual in the same way.

Try this sentence:

“Other people got it, and I didn’t.”

Feel the body.

Now break it apart:

“Other people” — images, names, stories, archived threads.
“got it” — imagined event, borrowed description, conclusion.
“I” — felt center? image of K? contraction?
“didn’t” — lack-story, future-pressure, ache.

Now: where is the actual problem, outside thought?

This is not asking for the right answer.

It is asking for the collapse of the sentence’s authority.

The sentence “I still haven’t got it” feels true because it carries emotional force. But emotional force is not truth. It is sensation plus story.

So the next clean inquiry is:

What makes “I still haven’t got it” feel true?

Not: Is it true?

Look for the felt evidence.

Tightness? Sinking? Urgency? Mental image of an awakened person? Memory of not having a dramatic glimpse? Thought that seeking still happens?

Then ask:

Does any of that prove an actual self exists who lacks awakening?

Jealousy is not the block.

“I still haven’t got it” is the current doorway.

OK, so, let’s see if I’m understanding what you’re saying here.

When the next thought arises that insists that’s it terribly important and true and must be attended to — claiming that’s it’s not just another production of the random-thought-generator but that it’s “mine” — take a good look at it:
What makes this thought feel like “mine”?

Yes. Exactly.

When a thought arrives wearing a crown — “This one is important. This one is true. This one is mine. This one must be attended to” — don’t fight it, don’t obey it, and don’t dismiss it too quickly.

Inspect it.

What makes this thought feel like mine?

Look for the evidence.

Not the content of the thought. Not what it’s about. The felt ownership.

Usually it will be something like:

A contraction in the chest.
A tightening in the face or jaw.
A felt center behind the eyes.
A sense of urgency.
A familiar emotional flavor.
A story about K’s life.
A fear of consequence.
A little command-energy: “Do something about this.”

That’s the crown.

The thought itself is just thought. But it gets believed as mine because sensation and urgency seem to certify it.

So the inquiry is:

What is the bodily signature that makes this thought feel personal?

Then:

Does that sensation actually prove ownership?

For example:

Thought: “I still haven’t got it.”

What makes it feel mine?

Maybe throat tightness, sinking in the belly, comparison images, urgency, frustration, a sense of looking out from behind the eyes.

Now ask:

Is any of that an owner?

No. It is sensation, image, urgency, thought.

So the thought is not mine. It is a thought with a familiar ownership-flavor.

That’s the seeing.

Not: “This thought is false.”

Closer:

This thought has no owner, even when it feels personal.

The royal-audience thought can still appear. Let it appear. But look at the throne.

Is anyone sitting there?


vince

[whoknows]

No!
If a thought comes up it is an afterthought. A reflection of the EXPERIENCE of ownership.
Ownership is experienced at a subtle level.
Look to the body for the expression of it being mine.

Oh, OK. Interesting.

Start with:

“I still haven’t got it.”

That is the root thought.

Now inspect it.

What is “it”?

Awakening? Liberation? Seeing no-self? End of seeking? Relief? A shift? A satisfying click?

Yes, any or all of those. Yeah, actually, all of those.

Can “it” be found right now as anything other than thought-image, expectation, memory, borrowed descriptions, and wanting?

No. Naturally, given that the “it” is something I feel like I don’t have, it seems like it’s not present except as imagination (images and words), expectation, wanting.

I wondered about “memory.” That didn’t at first seem like part of it, but when I thought about it some more, I realized that I’ve had a couple of teeny proto-glimpses — of what “This is it” might mean and of what “no picking and choosing” means — plus an occasional little sense of what it might be like to just be in the moment (freedom and appreciation), so I suppose those could be in the mix too.

Now inspect:

“I haven’t got it.”

What is the I that lacks it?

Not K as conventional organism. Not the forum poster. Not the meditator. Find the actual lacker.

What is found?

Mostly, the “I” that lacks “awakening” (or whatever) seems like a cluster of thoughts — about lack, about an imagined future, about comparison with others or imagined others — plus maybe tightness in the chest and neck and face and maybe a general feeling of heaviness or density.

The structure is:

1. A standard is imagined.
2. Others are imagined to have reached it.
3. K is imagined not to have reached it.
4. A “me behind” is formed.
5. Jealousy/frustration/impatience arise.

Right. I see that.

Is there actually anyone ahead?

Is there actually anyone behind?

I can confidently say yes, but that feels like it’s just based on thinking it through, knowing the right answer, memory of not having found an “anyone” here before. So, right, I’m probably supposed to look again right now:

Is there actually a someone who could be ahead or behind?

Well, darn, it feels like it.
“I, I, I — I am behind!” says the mind, in the manner of a spoiled toddler who needs a nap.
And here comes some crying to go with the temper tantrum of the “self.”
Frustration, anger, impatience, jealousy.

Obviously, this is a bunch of thoughts and sensations, some combinations of which we label as emotions, and which somehow congeal to seem like “me.”

The pain may be real as sensation. The comparison is not actual in the same way.

The sensations, on their own, don’t even feel like “pain,” just discomfort, but, yeah, actual discomfort.

Puzzling this part through: The comparison seems actual, in the sense that it's an actual thought. I know that the fact of thoughts arising counts as “direct experience” for the purposes of the explorations at LU, but the content of them doesn’t. But . . . why not? I’ve been accepting this premise, but now I’m not sure why. Something that seems to give rise to suffering, or to actually be suffering, certainly seems “actual.”

Try this sentence:

“Other people got it, and I didn’t.”

Feel the body.

Now break it apart:

“Other people” — images, names, stories, archived threads.
“got it” — imagined event, borrowed description, conclusion.
“I” — felt center? image of K? contraction?
“didn’t” — lack-story, future-pressure, ache.

Now: where is the actual problem, outside thought?

This is not asking for the right answer.

Um . . . It’s painful (when it’s all lumped together)? It makes me cry? I feel weighted down, stuck? Maybe there’s no “actual problem” “outside thought,” but there’s thought. Again, I’m struggling with a central premise here, one that I’ve been taking for granted and that has maybe made sense to me before. Why isn’t it an “actual problem” if it’s based on thought?

(Need to do some work, and this seems like a good place to pause, and maybe you'll even see this before your “tomorrow.”)

[whoknows]

P.S. Correction: Oops, that was supposed to be:

Is there actually anyone ahead?

Is there actually anyone behind?

I can confidently say NO (not yes).
(But part of me is saying yes.)

[whoknows]

Afternoon sit:

This is it; stay here:
seeing (no seer needed or found);
hearing (no hearer needed or found);
feeling bodily sensations (no feeler needed or found);
thinking (no thinker needed or found);
and a couple of times, noticing any of the above happening (no noticer needed or found).
Cycled around which sense was focused on, with the inevitable interruptions of thoughts.

Then focused on the experiences most apt to be associated with self/perceiver/thinker/doer:
feelings in face and head,
seeing (from point of view of eyes),
and (realized a little later that this should be added) thoughts,
which seem to arise . . . where?
Observed that more closely.
Image-thoughts seem to be located right in front of face, perhaps because they seem to obscure vision.
Language-thoughts maybe seem to be located in mouth and back of throat, as if being spoken?
Wondered if that's always the case.
Went on alert for next thought to arise, so it could be examined for its apparent location.
But of course that has the pleasant effect of calming the thoughts down.

(Didn’t examine this during the sit, but initiation-of-action thoughts might feel located somewhere else, and maybe there are other categories with different apparent locations.)

[vinceschubert]

This is it; stay here:
seeing (no seer needed or found);
hearing (no hearer needed or found);
feeling bodily sensations (no feeler needed or found);
thinking (no thinker needed or found);
and a couple of times, noticing any of the above happening (no noticer needed or found).
Cycled around which sense was focused on, with the inevitable interruptions of thoughts.

Then focused on the experiences most apt to be associated with self/perceiver/thinker/doer:
feelings in face and head,
seeing (from point of view of eyes),
and (realized a little later that this should be added) thoughts,
which seem to arise . . . where?
Observed that more closely.
Image-thoughts seem to be located right in front of face, perhaps because they seem to obscure vision.
Language-thoughts maybe seem to be located in mouth and back of throat, as if being spoken?
Wondered if that's always the case.
Went on alert for next thought to arise, so it could be examined for its apparent location.
But of course that has the pleasant effect of calming the thoughts down.

Good. This is clean looking.

And the important part is not the conclusion “no seer/hearer/thinker found”. That can become a memorized refrain.

The important part is the fresh looking each time.

Seeing: is a seer actually there?
Hearing: is a hearer actually there?
Thinking: is a thinker actually there?

Not remembered answer. Present search.

Now the next refinement:

Don’t get too fascinated by mapping thought-locations.

It’s useful — but only if it serves the inquiry. Otherwise the practitioner becomes a subtle phenomenologist cataloguing experience.

The question is not mainly:

Where do image-thoughts appear?
Where do language-thoughts appear?
Where do action-thoughts appear?

The sharper question is:

Does apparent location create an owner?

Image-thoughts seem in front of the face. Good.

Is there a thinker there?

Language-thoughts seem in mouth/throat. Good.

Is there a speaker there?

Initiation-of-action thoughts may seem elsewhere. Good.

Is there a chooser there?

That is the cut.

Also look closely at location itself.

When thought seems in front of the face, what is actual?

Maybe visual dimming.
Maybe a mental image.
Maybe pressure around eyes.
Maybe a spatial thought: “in front.”
Maybe the sense of face as reference point.

But is in front of face directly found, or is it constructed from sensation + image + label?

Same with thought in the throat.

There may be subtle subvocal sensation. Tongue, jaw, throat, breath, mouth. Fine. But is there an actual little voice-owner in there? Or just sensations plus word-thought?

This line is especially useful:

“Going on alert for the next thought has the pleasant effect of calming thoughts down.”

Yes. But don’t chase the calming.

The calming is a side effect. The inquiry is:

Was the next thought chosen?
Was the calming chosen?
Was attention going on alert chosen?
Is the one who is alert found?

Because being on alert can become another subtle watcher:

“I am now waiting for the next thought.”

So look there too.

What is waiting for the next thought made of?

Stillness.
Tension.
Anticipation.
Subtle forward lean.
A thought saying “next thought.”
Maybe quiet.

Where is the waiter?

Not found.

So the next sit can be very simple:

Seeing happens — seer?
Hearing happens — hearer?
Thought happens — thinker?
Attention waits — waiter?
Action begins — chooser?

And each time, don’t settle for the verbal answer.

Look at the place where the owner seems to be.

Head. Eyes. Face. Throat. Chest. Hands. Intention. Attention.

Find only sensation, image, thought, movement.

No owner.

Now consider a next step...
At what point do you not need to look because you know that you (wont) find a do-er?
Now this is important... We are not invoking a memory or an intellectual reminder that we wont find a controller.
Instead we search for a feeling of awe that could be a discovery that these things can happen without even knowing how they occur.

vince

[whoknows]

Before I got your most recent post, I’d been working on responding to the part of your earlier post that I hadn’t responded to before, but the steam has gone out of that, and I’m not sure there was going to be much of interest for you to respond to there anyway. I did get the message that when a thought arises that pretends to be important, true, and “mine” — such as “I still haven’t got it” — the idea is to inspect it to see what gives it its felt sense of being “mine” (not its content).

You might be glad to hear that my question about why the content of thoughts is somehow less “actual” than sensations doesn’t feel particularly pressing now.

So, moving on to your most recent post, re: my afternoon sit:

Yes, got it: Look afresh each time to see if there’s actually a seer, hearer, feeler, thinker.

And, yeah, looking for the apparent location of thoughts did feel mainly like an entertaining scientific investigation. So I appreciate your suggested follow-up inquiries: Does this apparent location of thoughts create an owner? What is actual in that location? How is that supposed location constructed?

And this is interesting:

What is waiting for the next thought made of?

Stillness.
Tension.
Anticipation.
Subtle forward lean.
A thought saying “next thought.”
Maybe quiet.

Where is the waiter?

I appreciate this distillation:

Seeing happens — seer?
Hearing happens — hearer?
Thought happens — thinker?
Attention waits — waiter?
Action begins — chooser?

And each time, don’t settle for the verbal answer.

Look at the place where the owner seems to be.

Pondering this:

At what point do you not need to look because you know that you (wont) find a do-er?
Now this is important... We are not invoking a memory or an intellectual reminder that we wont find a controller.
Instead we search for a feeling of awe that could be a discovery that these things can happen without even knowing how they occur.

Regarding awe, I have long been in awe of the mere fact of consciousness. What the heck is it??? Why does it even exist??? Well, and awe of everything — awe that anything at all exists, rather than nothing. Why? How? (It creeps me out even thinking about it.)

Now, the doer . . . Hmm . . . The idea of a doer actually seems weirder to me than the idea that’s it all just cause and effect, with consciousness along for the ride — I mean, weirder rationally speaking. But in college, having figured that out, I found it too freaky to not believe in free will, and I made the conscious decision (ha! — I guess, more precisely, I observed it happening) to quit thinking about that issue and to continue to believe in free will. So I guess the big and awe-some shift for me would be to enter back into that understanding that of course it’s all just cause and effect and to accept what freaked me out forty years ago, that there’s no chooser here, and also the great mystery of consciousness. What is it? Why does it exist? How does it exist?

[whoknows]

Late-night sit:

Seeing is happening. Is there a seer?
Thinking is happening. Is there a thinker?
Etc.
(Actually looking each time.)

Noticed that looking for seer, hearer, feeler felt kind of tedious. Really did try to look for a seer behind the eyes, for a hearer between the ears or maybe in the places where the mind says the sounds are coming from, for a feeler I’m not sure where. But felt like I was going through the motions, like it is no longer surprising or interesting that there is perceiving with no perceiver.

But looking for a thinker or doer was more engaging. I found it interesting to think, “Is there a thinker of these words?” which seemed like more of a mystery than the inquiries about perceiving (and has an amusing meta aspect), or to inquire “Is there a shifter of attention from hearing to seeing?”

[whoknows]

Two observations:

(1) This morning, feeling overworked from a big project I’ve had for the past week and with a deadline today and a lot still left to do, I ended up also having a personal thing to attend to that took time and energy, which is the kind of situation that can make me pretty miserable and grumpy, and it occurred to me to notice the “hot selfing.” It seemed like even having the thought that I could observe this, and doing so only rather briefly and superficially, was enough to lighten up the emotional load a bit and enable me to be more helpful to someone else in a way I wanted to be. That was nice.

(2) This evening I was noticing, following on an observation from yesterday, that the inquiry “Thinking is happening; is there a thinker?” — and likewise for things like “choosing” and “acting” — seems worthwhile for me right now (and more so than the parallel inquiries about the senses).

[whoknows]

Yep, another post.

Was swamped in self-important thoughts this morning, by which I don’t mean thoughts about the importance of “me” but thoughts that act like they’re important.

Woke up feeling oppressed by work tasks and what my husband and I call life-administration tasks. Read your story “Before the Line,” and while it addresses exactly what I was dealing with and makes perfect sense to me, it somehow felt, given the mood I was in, like it was giving me another thing I needed to DO to fix my suffering or forestall further suffering. Thought about going back through our thread for specific pointers about observing selfing, but that made me feel grumpy and resistant (yeah, I know, “made me” is suspect). Watched an Angelo DiLullo video about suffering that seemed helpful recently, but didn’t connect with it this time. Was mentally composing fragments of a post to you about longing for the radical grace of seeing that nothing needs to be fixed, which I know is part of all this somehow, and was getting ready to watch a video or two from a playlist I made called “Sick of Seeking.” But then it was time to leave the house.

It finally clicked that taking all the self-important thoughts seriously is the “self,” right?

Now, sitting down to type this at a Starbucks where I do my online work several days a week — and having done one annoying life-administration task on my way here, which always seems to be easier after I admit how much I don’t want to — . . . Hmm . . . Forgot where I was going with that sentence. Well, that’s enough anyway.

[vinceschubert]

Was swamped in self-important thoughts this morning, by which I don’t mean thoughts about the importance of “me” but thoughts that act like they’re important.

Yes — but sharpen it.

Taking the self-important thoughts seriously is not “the self.”

More accurate:

Taking the self-important thoughts seriously is selfing happening.

No entity is behind it. No little self is doing the taking-seriously. There is a thought with charge, urgency, contraction, importance, and command-energy. Then belief happens, or doesn’t.

So when this appeared:

“I need to fix this suffering.”
“I should go back through the thread for pointers.”
“I need the right video.”
“I want radical grace.”
“I am sick of seeking.”

The content is different, but the structure is the same:

Something is wrong now, and something must be done to get out of it.

That is the practitioner-self rebuilding itself out of distress.

And then the story “Before the Line” seemed to become another task:

“Here is another thing I have to do correctly so I won’t suffer.”

Good. That was not failure. That was seeing the hijacking happen.

The pointer became fuel for the fixer. So the real pointer was not the story itself, but the grumpy reaction to it.

“Ugh, another thing to do.”

That is hot selfing. Right there.

What is it made of?

Oppression.
Deadline-thoughts.
Life-admin thoughts.
Resistance.
Tiredness.
Tight face.
Pressure.
A demand that reality stop requiring things.

Where is the one oppressed by life?

Look there.

Not as a formal practice. Not as a new duty. Just one clean glance.

And yes, your observation about the senses is useful. Looking for a seer or hearer may now feel dry because that part is becoming obvious: seeing happens, hearing happens, no perceiver found. Fine. Don’t keep drilling where there’s no heat.
So let's say you want watermelon when you go to the fridge open the door and stand there looking but there's no watermelon in there. So you shut the fridge walk away but you still want watermelon. Do you go back and look in the fridge again? how many times are you gonna open the fridge door before you except if there's no watermelon there?
Looking for a Self can be the same how many times do you need to look before you know this? Not actually a physical entity pulling levers and running the show?

Go where the me still feels alive:

thinking — thinker?
attention shifts — shifter?
action begins — doer?
resistance appears — resistor?
task gets done — chooser?
grumpiness appears — owner?

That’s the live edge.

And with the awe: be careful. Awe is beautiful, but “What is consciousness? Why does anything exist?” can become another magnificent rabbit hole. Let's be blunt about this: how and why questions tend to pull attention into endless story. The useful question is what. What is happening now?

Not:

Why does consciousness exist?

But:

What is actually here?

Seeing. Hearing. Thought. Pressure. Wonder. Creepiness. Vastness. A thought saying “What the heck is this?”

No owner found.

Also, don’t replace self with cause and effect as a metaphysical answer. It may be rationally persuasive, but it is still a story unless tested directly.

So test action:

Hand reaches for cup.

Was the initiation chosen?

Thought says “I’ll pick up the cup.” Maybe before, maybe during, maybe after.

But can the doer be found?

This is where the college free-will freakout can finally be met, not as philosophy, but as direct experience. The fear was probably not about free will. It was about the imagined self losing its throne.

Good.

Let the throne be inspected.

No king.

Only ruling-thoughts.

vince