Hi Lalita,
have resolved to get on the computer as soon as I get home, not dip in and out during the day, though some days it will be a bit late, 9.30 ish my time. And give myself to your questions then and there.
Great. I think that will make for an easier 'working ground'. There may be a time lag in answering with any later posts as I'm on Central European Time, so I may have to answer nighttime postings the next morning.
Thanks.I keep slipping from direct pointing into sideshows , hadn't realised I was .
Yes this is important distinction to make. This is a kind of dance, a dialogue between direct experience and direct pointing. Your working ground here is to look in direct experience (DE for short) which is something that is happening through perception channels. So the idea is to examine from and with the very stuff 'we' are made of, the five aggregates (skandhas) of form, feeling, thought, choice and consciousness –to see how their aggregate continuity creates the illusion of a permanent and substantial self-existence.
There is experience of thinking too, but the content of thought, like 'very difficult', 'right/wrong' is not direct experience; it's thoughts ABOUT experience, stories, fiction. Remember that a label is not an entity, a name is not a thing. The word table is not an experience of table.
I do decide things but due to a net of conditions,it is like hearing and what is heard the two are not distinct, the decision is related /part of the conditions and 'I think' there is a decider,that fusion of self referencing thoughts..So no separate agent who decides.
Willing: This is the energy of the decision,it isn't actually anything separate.
What you say above reads as contradictory or a bit like those magic tricks that go nicely with the phrase: 'Now you see it, now you don't!'
* Side note * This could just be a case of language gumming up comprehension between us - producing apparent contradictions when there are none. It's worth keeping your language as precise and clear as possible here or it may lead to me badgering you unnecessarily on something that is plain as day to you! So feel free to be as expansive as you want, but give me fully written, complete sentences in plain English with no abbreviations and little, or better still, no slang terms or figures of speech, as the all of the latter can impede comprehension.
So the contradiction I am pointing to is that you say you see there is no separate agent, yet you also say
I do decide things but due to a net of conditions
. What is this 'I' that decides things due to a net of conditions?
Can you actually find this 'I'? Can you see a puppet master? Is there anything that makes things happen or is it language that assumes there is an 'I'?
This is critical in investigation so use any opportunity for taking a look again in everyday normal tasks too: can you experience a doer? When In the shower, eating, walking, working, sitting, talking, is there a puppet that moves when strings are pulled? Are you the actor inside the body that moves the body around and reads and types words now on the computer?
Take a close look.
Anxiety ,right now,. In the body lower stomach also the knees the anxiety is around ,am I doing this right?.Hot feet,and a touch of laughter.
This sort of investiagtion, 'bring it closer,invite it to share its wisdom ' has in the past always been very difficult,and sort of double dutch.'
Ok, You were beginning to experience fear in your lower stomach and knees - yes you were in the 'right' place in terms of our investigation - then you had memories and thoughts about 'am I doing this right', 'very difficult' and 'double dutch' . However, going with these memory and thoughts seemed to be where the experiencing was cut off and distraction set in.
You're right that 'inviting fear', 'getting close to', 'respecting' 'looking behind' etc. are kind of double-dutch, but intended as metaphors for a gentle approach to being in your direct experience with fear, which can be a slippery customer but is important to face. Another way of approaching it - if thoughts insist on having their say or take focus away - is to use thinking itself to enter. So when you become aware of anxiety about this process, you know that the mind tends to distract itself away from the anxiety and the “hunting.” Look directly at the anxiety and pinpoint its message. is it “if there is no self, i will disappear?” or “Without a self, i will cease to exist?” sometimes it’s “Without a self, nothing will get done.” check and find out what the anxiety is. Then ask, “is it true?”
So, as you sit there in front of your screen, I want to first ask you to move towards a bit of general awareness by attending to your next six breaths. There's no need for any deep absorption; just a relative calm, and a relative leaving behind of what you were last doing, a sense that we are about to enter into an enquiry in a spirit of openness and kindly awareness together.
Tell me your response to these questions:
Is there an entity doing and being or just sensation of being, aliveness, never off, always here now?
What is the fear about losing the illusion of self?
D x