The Gate

Hi JV,

Okay this point below is important...

That’s the kind of shift we are looking for. We can still talk in terms of conventional reality -- but there is a knowing that this is just a way of speaking, not the way things really are.

I know that the knowing isn't there, that it hasn't stuck, that the moments of seeing haven't resulted in a paradigm shift. There was a sustained period of clarity and positive emotion right at the start of the process and it made me wonder ever since if something has been seen through but habit has obscured it. But I honestly don't have this sense of a knowing that shifts things irrevocably. And those I talk to who have been through it do confirm that this sense is incontrovertible.

So, pressing on...

1/ Can “I” see something or miss something?
2/ What is it that “returns to the same place”?
3/ Is “I” on a journey?

1/ Looking about this earlier in the day as 'I' wait to see what is behind my daughters cry about something. Things are just seen, they are no proof of an I seeing them. When that question was phrased I am resorting to a convention, an abstraction.

2/ again the use of 'I' is a shorthand for similarity in experiences, in this case it is a moment in looking when the senses have been acknowledged, awareness feels less crowded by veils of abstraction and yet there's the sensation of still being caught...I'm trying to resist going into metaphors here.

3/ no, with even the smallest scrutiny the idea of the 'I' being on a journey is seen to be a construct, a habit of making sense of the world by imposing a narrative.


Is the above what you mean by "really looking"?

Best

LV

OK great, I can see you are making an effort here. Let’s keep the focus really tight. Let’s look at this:

You say

“2/ again the use of 'I' is a shorthand for similarity in experiences, in this case it is a moment in looking when the senses have been acknowledged, awareness feels less crowded by veils of abstraction and yet there's the sensation of still being caught...I'm trying to resist going into metaphors here. “


Can you unpack this – describing from the direct sensations involved:

What is it that ‘acknowledges’ the senses? Is there something separate from a sense arising that acknowledges it? In other words can you find two things going on: a sense arising and a (separate) acknowledgement of it by some other thing? Look closely.

Look at awareness like space. You can have an empty room or you can cram the room full of stuff. Is the space itself ever affected by the absence or presence of things? Similarly, turn attention from the ‘stuff’ (the contents of awareness) to the ‘space’ of awareness itself – is awareness ever crowded? Or is ‘crowded’ just a metaphor to describe a sensation – a sensation that is itself just another arising in awareness?

What is the ‘sensation of still being caught’ like? Describe it to me as if it were an ailment and I was a doctor trying to figure out what’s wrong.

Is there some ‘thing’ that can be caught – can you find this thing or is this just a mental abstraction based on a sensation?

Try to look really forensically to figure out what’s going on here.

I'll answer these as immediately as I can to keep the intensity up.

There are no two things in acknowledging awareness but there is a habit of commenting on awareness, a subconscious habit of noting what is being seen accompanied by the thought/fear that without this running commentary the experience isn't happening at all. It is hard to describe how this is countered, a video by Joey Lott on direct experience helped where he talks of the no effort required to just sense. You say the same thing in a previous post.

So to be forensic. Sitting here at keyboard. Seeing black and white and grey and orange shapes in front, more colours and shapes peripherally. Thought that this act of naming is ahold in gme back.

Stillness, looking, feeling.

Looking for the feeling of being caught, it is an idea, an expectation that something will be revealed. A sense of anticipation in the chest. Coupled with less articulated doubts, it won't happen for you, this can't be it, there's something hidden from you which you're too...stupid/inadequate/unaware to see...behind this a less 'personal' thought/knowing...this is all there is, what is in awareness is all there is. Had this same experience a few days ago walking. Not a Damascan moment but felt significant.

Re-reading your post the image of space helps, then immediately the thought 'How can I get into that space, how can I experience tht space' realise intellectually that this impulse to 'get' awareness is getting in the way.

Back to being aware, to relaxing into the awareness tht is there, to ...what?..every time I
think of a verb I'm activating something which is about not being active

Back to this awareness, surrendering to the space.

Best

LV

There are no two things in acknowledging awareness but there is a habit of commenting on awareness, a subconscious habit of noting what is being seen accompanied by the thought/fear that without this running commentary the experience isn't happening at all.

OK good. So “in the seen, just the seen”. There aren’t two things in the experience (a see-er and the thing seen). There is just seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching. The “running commentary” is an add-on.

The good news is that the running commentary doesn’t need to stop. Indeed, what could stop it? Are you in control of thoughts?

The running commentary just needs to be seen for what it is – thoughts arising and passing away. No reason to engage with the thoughts. No reason to pay them attention. Just let them be.

It is hard to describe how this is countered

No reason to engage with the thoughts. No reason to pay them attention. Just let them be. “You” don’t need to do anything about them.

You have young kinds right? They play up to get attention. Sometimes even negative attention is better than none. They rile you. Thoughts are like that – they thrive on attention. Just leave them alone and they dissipate.

Thought that this act of naming is holding me back.

OK! This is an example of how thought doesn’t get it. Think of thoughts like little kids – always on the move – always trying to understand, explain, interpret, ask questions -- easily spooked, easily upset, easily over-excited, easily disappointed.
Thought is the realm of vi-jnana it is only a “divided knowing” – it is the seat of separation of “me” trying to understand “not me”. Treat thoughts like the silly kids they are. Don’t get riled by them. Don’t get pulled into their silly games. Just let them be and notice how they settle down on their own.

Looking for the feeling of being caught, it is an idea, an expectation that something will be revealed.

Yes, it’s just an idea. What thought says will be “revealed” is just like space. It’s like thought saying “I hear there’s this great thing called ‘space’ – if I can just find the ‘space’ then that’s it!” But space is all around – there is nowhere there is not space. “You” can’t find it because it is already here. There is nothing to be revealed because there is nothing hidden.

A sense of anticipation in the chest. Coupled with less articulated doubts, it won't happen for you, this can't be it, there's something hidden from you which you're too...stupid/inadequate/unaware to see

OK this is an example of thought REALLY playing up! Give it a whack. Doubt is just a thought believed. Don’t feed these thoughts. When these doubts arise, you could even say back to them “What would you know? You’re just a thought!”

...behind this a less 'personal' thought/knowing...this is all there is, what is in awareness is all there is. Had this same experience a few days ago walking. Not a Damascan moment but felt significant.

It felt significant – because it is. Learn to rely on this intuition. Turn away from thought/beliefs and toward this intuition.

Re-reading your post the image of space helps, then immediately the thought 'How can I get into that space, how can I experience tht space' realise intellectually that this impulse to 'get' awareness is getting in the way.

But this impulse is also an arising in awareness – remember awareness is like space – it doesn’t have an ‘agenda’ it doesn’t get pissed off because there’s too much going on or the ‘wrong stuff’ is showing up. How ridiculous! “You” are that space! It is never not there. It is the closest most intimate aspect of experience – it’s always “on”. Just notice that!

Back to this awareness, surrendering to the space.

Yes. Surrender is good – “holding to nothing whatever”.

Remember Trungpa said – The bad news is you're falling – The good news is there’s no ground.

Don’t be afraid to just let go.

The running commentary just needs to be seen for what it is – thoughts arising and passing away. No reason to engage with the thoughts. No reason to pay them attention. Just let them be.

Very helpful! Realised today that I basically assume the running commentary is awareness as opposed to something that happens in awareness. This is a big shift for me. Also been aware throughout day much more that I don't have to believe these thoughts, that they are, to use a phrase said many times on this site but really only believed today, 'just thoughts'.



No reason to engage with the thoughts. No reason to pay them attention. Just let them be. “You” don’t need to do anything about them.

You have young kinds right? They play up to get attention. Sometimes even negative attention is better than none. They rile you. Thoughts are like that – they thrive on attention. Just leave them alone and they dissipate.

Surprisingly apt. My relationship with my children seems to be the focus of all my practice in general and specifically this process. Had them on my own today , often a recipe for short temper and reactiveness. Much less today. Letting them be who they are and especially not making the, from a calmer perspective, mistake of getting riled. The metaphor only works up to a point though, kids don't dissipate when left alone. ( I would insert a smiley face here if I could bear them)

Thought that this act of naming is holding me back.

OK! This is an example of how thought doesn’t get it. Think of thoughts like little kids – always on the move – always trying to understand, explain, interpret, ask questions -- easily spooked, easily upset, easily over-excited, easily disappointed.

Yes and also how these emotional reactions you list quickly move from thought to behaviour if thought is believed to be the truth. At least they do for me.

But space is all around – there is nowhere there is not space. “You” can’t find it because it is already here. There is nothing to be revealed because there is nothing hidden.

This is chiming with the intuition that I am turning to more that it's about acceptance of what is actually here, that it is in front of my nose.

. Doubt is just a thought believed.

Wow, a summary of how I spend most of my time, believing thoughts. A different definition of doubt and one that makes sense.

It felt significant – because it is. Learn to rely on this intuition. Turn away from thought/beliefs and toward this intuition.

Yes

Re-reading your post the image of space helps, then immediately the thought 'How can I get into that space, how can I experience tht space' realise intellectually that this impulse to 'get' awareness is getting in the way.

It is the closest most intimate aspect of experience – it’s always “on”. Just notice that!

That's my focus for tomorrow.

Yes. Surrender is good – “holding to nothing whatever”.

Also keep being drawn to accepting what is , right here, right now, with no resistance, no fight, no trying to fix it. Hard sometimes when you re tidying up after children and generally guiding them. But acceptance as an approach feeling appropriate.

Best

LV

– The bad news is you're falling – The good news is there’s no ground.

Great quote, would love to be a lucid dreamer and take that thought into my dream life.

Realised today that I basically assume the running commentary is awareness as opposed to something that happens in awareness. This is a big shift for me.

OK this is an important realization. Let it really sink in.

Thought isn’t where it’s at – thoughts ‘elaborate’ or ‘fabricate’ reality – pull us away into papancha or daydreaming. The trick is to remain present and completely open to what is happening now, right this moment. Thoughts pull us into past and future. Trust the 5 senses, not thoughts. Don’t follow but remain here, right now in the present. Simply be here now.

Notice the ever-present awareness that surrounds, supports and accepts everything right here right now.

Here are some other words pointing to the same thing that can bring you back (‘back’ to where you are right now) and open up a sense of the quality of simply being right here, right now. Just bring the words to mind, then notice whether there is any quality in direct experience that ‘corresponds’:

• ‘aliveness’,
• ‘awakeness’,
• ‘presence’,
• ‘spaciousness’,
• ‘openness’,
• ‘intimacy’,
• ‘heartfulness’,
• ‘sensitivity’
• ‘unconditional love’
• ‘simply being’

These are pointing to direct experience here and now, so if you can connect with what any of them point to, you may get some immediate sense of what is being got at. It’s ‘just this’, as it is – ‘nothing special’. That is, it’s not a particular ‘state’ or some kind of special ‘spiritual experience’ but simply noticing or knowing whatever is ‘here / now’ without any conceptual fixation or reification of any kind of substantial or fixed ‘entity’.

When such fixation drops away, what’s left is, as in the teaching to Bahiya, just what is seen, heard, sensed, cognised. And as the Buddha explains to Bahiya, when this is the case, there is then ‘no you in terms of that … no “you” there.’ The total simplicity and obviousness of simply being is known directly when the ‘I’ belief, the deluded view of ‘me as separate’, drops away – either apparently temporarily, or for good. What remains is the wholeness of experience just as it is, without the subject-object separation.

So spend the day playing with these words – feeling your way into them – does any one in particular resonate? If so trust that intuition and relax into the quality that it points to and simply rest there.

. Trust the 5 senses, not thoughts. Don’t follow but remain here, right now in the present. Simply be here now.

Notice the ever-present awareness that surrounds, supports and accepts everything right here right now.

Been working on this most of the day, getting into the habit of returning to the present no matter what is happening, I.e. No matter how 'complicated' or full the experience e.g. Being in the middle of a conversation, listening to the radio while driving, as well as in calmer moments. This approach is to counteract a tendency to make awareness something only accessible in precious states.

It is always available. I know that's obvious but feel the need to state the obvious to get it to sink in a bit more. It's also exciting, that it is always there, exciting that there is always a way back to something that feels true and peaceful.

Here are some other words pointing to the same thing that can bring you back (‘back’ to where you are right now) and open up a sense of the quality of simply being right here, right now. Just bring the words to mind, then notice whether there is any quality in direct experience that ‘corresponds’:

• ‘aliveness’,
• ‘awakeness’,
• ‘presence’,
• ‘spaciousness’,
• ‘openness’,
• ‘intimacy’,
• ‘heartfulness’,
• ‘sensitivity’
• ‘unconditional love’
• ‘simply being’

Working on this too most of the day. Different words connect more, feel more familiar , more true. Some feel unusual and so are intriguing, they offer a way in that awakens something new but also true, like heartfulness and unconditional love. These two particularly point up old attitudes that awareness is a cold thing and yet when I look at the world with heartfulness and unconditional love, there is no loss of clarity, vividness etc....

Have to remind myself to include senses other than sight in these experiments.

These are pointing to direct experience here and now, so if you can connect with what any of them point to, you may get some immediate sense of what is being got at. It’s ‘just this’, as it is – ‘nothing special’. That is, it’s not a ‘state’ or some kind of special ‘spiritual experience’ but simply noticing or knowing whatever is ‘here / now’ without any conceptual fixation or reification of any kind of substantial or fixed ‘entity’.

Its nothing special and yet it is revealing what a richness is in front of my nose, that there is a clarity, glowingness, love always there.

So spend the day playing with these words – feeling your way into them – does any one in particular resonate? If so trust that intuition and relax into the quality that it points to and simply rest there.

I want to spend another day on this as I am back into work tomorrow and really want to try out these words in that context.

Best

LV

getting into the habit of returning to the present no matter what is happening, I.e. No matter how 'complicated' or full the experience e.g. Being in the middle of a conversation, listening to the radio while driving, as well as in calmer moments. This approach is to counteract a tendency to make awareness something only accessible in precious states.

Yes, good. Our usual habit is to chase after thoughts – into the past and future – being distracted by imaginary scenarios that start like this . . . “What if …. If only . . . Why did . . .Why can’t . . . Maybe . . . Should . . . Could . . .“ – The new habit is to return to the source, the ‘space’ from which everything arises and to which everything returns, the ‘space’ of awareness, presence, being which is always only NOW.

It is always available. I know that's obvious but feel the need to state the obvious to get it to sink in a bit more. It's also exciting, that it is always there, exciting that there is always a way back

Yes, good. But remember that the idea of ‘returning’ to awareness is just that – an idea or metaphor. It’s like ‘discovering’ space! Space is always there – it never left. There is no ‘thing’ that gets lost and returns. You just need to NOTICE this – you don’t need to “do” anything other than look.

they offer a way in that awakens something new but also true, like heartfulness and unconditional love. These two particularly point up old attitudes that awareness is a cold thing and yet when I look at the world with heartfulness and unconditional love, there is no loss of clarity, vividness etc....

Yes – awareness is not cold like a mirror – it has qualities – it is animate, alive, intimate. You say “when I look at the world with heartfulness” . . . but is there an “I that looks? An “I” whose experience is “heartful” – or is heartfulness always already there, always already available as a dimension of awareness itself?

Think of it like this – the space in a room accepts anything that is placed there – it totally embraces any object or occurrence – it has no preferences – it is pure openness – pure receptivity.

Have to remind myself to include senses other than sight in these experiments.

Yes, try sound – notice that all sound is always already accepted as it is as it arises in awareness – the emotional response to sound is added on in the labelling of it – e.g. “bird song” = pleasant/ I like it – “car exhaust” = unpleasant/I don’t like it. But does awareness itself discriminate in this way? Does awareness have personal likes and dislikes?

The new habit is to return to the source, the ‘space’ from which everything arises and to which everything returns, the ‘space’ of awareness, presence, being which is always only NOW.

Yes, taking this on as something to build. noticing how habitual my craving of intellectual input is, can't look at the sky because I'm too busy reading all the adverts at the tram stop etc...beginning to see how endlessly rich NOW is. It's also a different type of satisfaction, not the glutting on a need for more ideas but a sort of peace and appreciation.

Yes – awareness is not cold like a mirror – it has qualities – it is animate, alive, intimate. You say “when I look at the world with heartfulness” . . . but is there an “I that looks? An “I” whose experience is “heartful” – or is heartfulness always already there, always already available as a dimension of awareness itself?

Yes..er...yes.. I only baulk because it's a matter of allowing this to be true, there is some resistance based on the thought it's too good to be true and sometimes such a doubt has to be actively rejected or it clips the wings

Think of it like this – the space in a room accepts anything that is placed there – it totally embraces any object or occurrence – it has no preferences – it is pure openness – pure receptivity.

beginning to trust this

Yes, try sound – notice that all sound is always already accepted as it is as it arises in awareness – the emotional response to sound is added on in the labelling of it – e.g. “bird song” = pleasant/ I like it – “car exhaust” = unpleasant/I don’t like it.But does awareness itself discriminate in this way? Does awareness have personal likes and dislikes?

No, awareness is prior to this sort of discrimination and being there liberates me from the barely conscious dictates of these likes and dislikes

It is also introducing 'me' to a place where it is hard to see how a self could exist, insisting, as it does, on such a narrowness of perspective.

These are all reflections on moments snatched and occasionally savored through a busy day. At the moment there is some intoxication in all this and a realization that in the past, in this process, this intoxication has been appropriated by the ego

Where now? What now? I would happily explore those ten words for the next week but is there something more focuses I should be doing?

LV

beginning to see how endlessly rich NOW is

Right!

. . . is heartfulness always already there, always already available as a dimension of awareness itself?


Yes..er...yes.. I only baulk because it's a matter of allowing this to be true, there is some resistance based on the thought it's too good to be true and sometimes such a doubt has to be actively rejected or it clips the wings

Ok maybe you are aware of the Mahamudra teaching on the four faults?

This teaching states that natural awareness – awareness in the ever present now -- is apparently difficult to ‘realise’ because it’s

Too easy
Too close
Too good
Too wonderful

It’s much the same with seeing through the self-view – often the biggest block to this are beliefs such as ‘I can’t do it’ or ‘it can’t be that simple’ or ‘but I still feel quite ordinary’. Natural awareness is ‘ordinary awareness’ – that’s another term for it. It’s exactly the awareness that is taking in these visual arisings on the screen that the mind interprets as words and meanings.

So the teaching above is about pulling the rug from under thoughts such as ‘it can’t be that easy (to ‘realise’ buddha nature – another term)! Or ‘I can’t believe it’s right here right now, ordinary awareness like you’re saying’. Or ‘yeah, well that’s too good to be true’. Or ‘I can’t imagine that anything so reputedly wonderful can be right here’.

Well it is really that simple! There is nothing ‘special’ about you that makes it harder for you to see. How could there be? There is no f*cking you! There is just a thought about a ‘you’.

OK so I have to go away for a few days and won’t have internet. I should be back and can post on Saturday. So in the meantime really let the above sink in. If thoughts arise that “it can’t be this simple” or “I will never get it” – just slap them down with the retort “What would you know? You’re just a thought”.

Also here’s an exercise from another guide you may find helpful:

'What is wrong with you that needs to be corrected?

You may think there is something wrong, and emotions seem to validate that assumption, but when you look at the emotion you will see that it is just a feeling about the thoughts you are thinking.

The emotion is not actually connected to any truth, other than the belief you give your thoughts.
Those emotions become a conditioned part of the image of your self.

Experience the emotion free of thoughts by not letting the story of the emotion play though the actual feeling.
Let the emotion just be what it is.

Now ask yourself again, what is wrong with you, and do not let your answer be determined by an emotion or a thought.

Hi LV I'm back with internet connection now. How's it going?

cheers,

JV

Hi JV,

Good to hear from you.

It been going great. I've been concentrating on exploring the ten qualities of awareness you listed a few posts ago. I know they were only a sample but they're rich enough to be getting on with.

The experience is of realising that there is a richness, vividness etc... always there and that 'I ' am only beginning to explore it. And as for 'I' - there doesn't seem any room for one in this very different way of experiencing. I haven't been directly looking because I wanted the reality of seeing awareness clearly to sink in.

Too easy
Too close
Too good
Too wonderful

It’s much the same with seeing through the self-view – often the biggest block to this are beliefs such as ‘I can’t do it’ or ‘it can’t be that simple’ or ‘but I still feel quite ordinary’. Natural awareness is ‘ordinary awareness’ – that’s another term for it. It’s exactly the awareness that is taking in these visual arisings on the screen that the mind interprets as words and meanings.

And this has really helped in accepting this new experience.

Well it is really that simple! There is nothing ‘special’ about you that makes it harder for you to see. How could there be? There is no f*cking you! There is just a thought about a ‘you’.

Only reason I'm avoiding looking at this point directly is to be settled in the reality. Am wary of setting of habits of forcing, tightening, pushing which just reinforce the self.

Also here’s an exercise from another guide you may find helpful:

'What is wrong with you that needs to be corrected?

Did try this exercise but it didn't make much sense over the last few days. There wasn't any feeling of needing something to be corrected. I was what I was, the idea of correcting didn't fit with this way of accepting whatever is going on.

A final point on the qualities of awareness. Each provokes more discoveries. So 'intimacy' implied two objects, experience with which something else is especially close but of course there is no two things, there is only experience so close that it is all there is.

Best

LV

The experience is of realising that there is a richness, vividness etc... always there and that 'I ' am only beginning to explore it. And as for 'I' - there doesn't seem any room for one in this very different way of experiencing. I haven't been directly looking because I wanted the reality of seeing awareness clearly to sink in.

OK great. There are two ways into ‘this’ – looking to see what isn’t (let’s call it ‘self’) and looking to see what is (let’s call it ‘awareness’). Looks like you’re sensitive to the latter. But let’s be careful we don’t reify ‘awareness’ so that it becomes the new ‘me’.

So look closely – this rich, vivid experiencing that is always there – does it have an age, a gender, an occupation, a history? Does it have a family, responsibilities, an agenda? Does it need or lack anything?

Too easy
Too close
Too good
Too wonderful

Only reason I'm avoiding looking at this point directly is to be settled in the reality. Am wary of setting of habits of forcing, tightening, pushing which just reinforce the self.

OK. Let’s look at this:

Can you find a self that can be reinforced?

You’ve got kids, right? They get scared at night? Is the belief in “monster under the bed” the same as an ACTUAL monster under the bed? What would you do to PROVE to your kids there are no monsters? Use the very same mechanisms to prove that there is no self. It’s that simple.

The “habits” that you mention are irrelevant. The only reason we don’t let kids watch horror movies is that they are predisposed to believe in monsters. But it’s OK for adults to watch horror movies. Why? Does the habit of watching vampire flicks predispose you to believe in actual vampires? Of course not – you saw through “monsters” decades ago -- these horror flicks are exciting precisely because we can vicariously get off on the fear expressed by the actors – but we are aware that they are ACTORS -- the movie is just a fabrication – an appearance dependent on script writers, actors, directors, special effects guys, music overlay – on and on. “Self” is fabricated in just this way – it still shows up in experience – but when we get that “self” is just like a “movie” and not an actual “documentary” – then there is nothing there that can be reinforced.

'What is wrong with you that needs to be corrected?


Did try this exercise but it didn't make much sense over the last few days. There wasn't any feeling of needing something to be corrected. I was what I was, the idea of correcting didn't fit with this way of accepting whatever is going on.

OK cool. Just notice this – whatever shows up in experience has ALREADY been accepted otherwise there would be no awareness of it. Just check to see – is there first a sense arising then followed by an ‘accepting’ of it by some entity?

A final point on the qualities of awareness. Each provokes more discoveries. So 'intimacy' implied two objects, experience with which something else is especially close but of course there is no two things, there is only experience so close that it is all there is.

Right! Language is always a crude approximation of what’s really going on. Pick up one of your kids and just hold them. Ignore any mental picture which tries to ‘storify’ the experience. Just notice the sensation – can you find where the child ends and you begin? If you drop the thoughts about ‘me’ and ‘my child’ – can you find anything personal in the sensation? What happens if you just relax into the sensation? Are personal identities prerequisites for the quality that you discover in this sense of ‘intimacy’?

Hi JV,

So look closely – this rich, vivid experiencing that is always there – does it have an age, a gender, an occupation, a history? Does it have a family, responsibilities, an agenda? Does it need or lack anything?

No, it doesn't have any of these things. They appear, or at least the stories of them appear within it, just as what has always been called 'me' appears in it as a collection of sensations that get amalgamated and imagined to be a thing.
Awareness can't lack or need anything. It doesn't make sense to think of it like that.

I've been asked similar questions before and realise my doubt has come from over complicating the answer, thinking I needed to find something very specific which felt insightful. But really it is, as Mahamudra says, 'too easy', the answers are more straightforward and honest than I'd thought.

Can you find a self that can be reinforced?

You’ve got kids, right? They get scared at night? Is the belief in “monster under the bed” the same as an ACTUAL monster under the bed? What would you do to PROVE to your kids there are no monsters? Use the very same mechanisms to prove that there is no self. It’s that simple.

Again the answer is straightforward, when I start to look, and imagine an inside in which to find the lurking self, immediately it's clear there is no inside to begin with. And the I look at that which looks and comments on the looking and see that it is thought. The significant difference for me in this is the sense there is a knowing which is different from thought. It feels like a quality of awareness. The distinction between knowing and thinking has been important to clarifying this.

“Self” is fabricated in just this way – it still shows up in experience – but when we get that “self” is just like a “movie” and not an actual “documentary” – then there is nothing there that can be reinforced.

I can't claim this is seen as clearly or explicitly as this but had an interesting experience yesterday reacting to a colleague at work. After a long meeting where sullen resentment boiled under a tightly civil surface I reflected on the tightness then present and decided to simply apologise and communicate what had been annoying. I would associate the reactivity with a strong attachment to self but the instinct to get past it and the subsequent just dropping of the whole event, the lack of taking it all personally, has been unusual and a sign of something shifting.

OK cool. Just notice this – whatever shows up in experience has ALREADY been accepted otherwise there would be no awareness of it. Just check to see – is there first a sense arising then followed by an ‘accepting’ of it by some entity?

No nothing so deliberate or conscious, I'm using acceptance as another quality of awareness.

Just notice the sensation – can you find where the child ends and you begin? If you drop the thoughts about ‘me’ and ‘my child’ – can you find anything personal in the sensation? What happens if you just relax into the sensation? Are personal identities prerequisites for the quality that you discover in this sense of ‘intimacy’?

There is simply, once the stories and imaginings have been dropped, a quality of sensation. That didn't need to be personified to be seen to exist. This feels like a radical way to experience the world.

Best

L V

The significant difference for me in this is the sense there is a knowing which is different from thought. It feels like a quality of awareness. The distinction between knowing and thinking has been important to clarifying this.

Yes, seeing that thoughts themselves are known, just as any other sense arising, but do not themselves ‘know’ anything is key.

I would associate the reactivity with a strong attachment to self but the instinct to get past it and the subsequent just dropping of the whole event, the lack of taking it all personally, has been unusual and a sign of something shifting.

Right. This ‘not taking thing personally’ is a good sign.

So I’ll ask you some summing up questions – have a look at these and answer them from where you’re at now:

Where is 'self' in the arising and passing of experience?
Can you find, a “self” that is the ‘experiencer’?
Or a “self” that is the doer, or can control what happens?
Or a “self” that ‘makes’ decisions?
Or a “self” that ‘does the thinking’?
Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this “self”?
Is there a “self” ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?
If there is no “self” – are there “others” – what is direct experience of “others”?

cheers, JV