Looking for a guide

[Ezra]

I'm going to post now as some time has opened up for me but hopefully,I'll be back tonight with more.

Ok. I've been doing the tapping exercise. The fingers don't respond (like a reflex) to a thought that tells them to tap. Obviously I can choose to make them tap but there is no 'force' or 'supreme command centre' that makes them tap. You're trying to help me see the absence of a controller. If the fingers tap, it's because I choose it (had the thought). Now, there's that 'I'. Maybe 'I'll' get back to this "I' in a bit because right now 'I' can't see past her...

In thinking about my normal day and looking for the 'I,' or lack of, I'm getting a bit stuck on the matter of choice. So, for example, I got some free time today, I decided to spend it reflecting on this work instead of blowdrying my hair. I made a choice based on my aspirations. I can see that's a thought (right?) but it is directed; based on my ideals and where I want to go. My day is (partly) made up of these choices. Is that not 'me'? And when I stay in bed instead of getting up to meditate (because I drank too much wine and couldn't be bothered with my ideals) is that choice not 'me' too?
I see how I don't have to think about how to manipulate the gears, the steering wheel of the car but there may be choice in how I do my driving. I might choose to be patient with they kids messing in the back. I might think very carefully about what to prepare for lunch (what did we have yesterday? Who doesn't eat broccoli - what will she have instead?).
I'm stuck but missing something very simple, I think...?

Ok. I have to leave it there for now. I'll be looking and reflecting during the day. Back tonight.
Thanks.

[Jack'n'theBox]

I'm stuck but missing something very simple, I think...?

Yes, the irony in this is that is it very simple – so simple in fact that when people get it – laughter is a common reaction. The trick is not to over think it – thought is the mechanism which produces the self-view in the first place – you cannot see through the self-view via the same mechanism. So keep with direct experience – when thought offers an interpretation or ‘claims’ ownership of something (e.g. “I made that happen”) – question “Is that true?” and really look.

The fingers don't respond (like a reflex) to a thought that tells them to tap. Obviously I can choose to make them tap but there is no 'force' or 'supreme command centre' that makes them tap. You're trying to help me see the absence of a controller. If the fingers tap, it's because I choose it (had the thought).

OK do you see that your opening and closing statements here are in conflict? You say the fingers don’t respond to a thought that tells them to tap – and then you say if the fingers tap it’s because you choose it (have the thought)?

If you look closely – it is clear that there are many (most?) thoughts that don’t result in action. I can lie in bed for a long time and thought suggests all sorts of things that I should be doing and repeatedly says ‘get up get up’ – but nothing happens – then suddenly, while thinking about something else, I get up. What made the getting up happen? It certainly wasn’t a thought – if thoughts could make things happen, I’d have a very clean and tidy house (I don’t).

Look at all the thoughts that pop up suggesting courses of action that don’t eventuate. If there is a ‘you’ thinking the thoughts – why doesn’t every thought result in the suggested action? Are you saying that you don’t choose which thoughts pop up – but you DO chose which thoughts are acted upon? Have a look today and see if this is really what is happening?

I'm getting a bit stuck on the matter of choice. So, for example, I got some free time today, I decided to spend it reflecting on this work instead of blowdrying my hair.

Ok so two thoughts popped up – reflect on the LU dialogue – or blowdry my hair. Did you know in advance that these exact two thoughts would pop up? What about other courses of action that you could have done – do the laundry – bake a cake – Why of all possible thoughts did these pop up? Did you choose to have only these thoughts?

I made a choice based on my aspirations. I can see that's a thought (right?) but it is directed; based on my ideals and where I want to go. My day is (partly) made up of these choices. Is that not 'me'? And when I stay in bed instead of getting up to meditate (because I drank too much wine and couldn't be bothered with my ideals) is that choice not 'me' too?

Choice is a thought – what I mean is that the decision to do the LU exercise and not blowdry the hair is itself a thought – a particular action eventuates and then thought says “I chose this”.

You need to look at this so-called choice mechanism in a very close, forensic manner. Can you see that whatever action eventuates – thought is always going to claim in retrospect ‘I chose that’ – because ‘choice’ is embedded in the thought story that is ‘me’ – it explains ‘why’ things happen. In Buddhism, of course, thoughts and actions are all ‘dependently arisen’ – they arise from a vast and unfathomable interconnected network of causes and conditions – nowhere in this network is my ‘self’ listed as one of the causes or conditions! But ‘dependent origination’ is itself a thought story about how things happen! You have to see this in action yourself – not ponder it philosophically. The answer is not in thought.

I might choose to be patient with they kids messing in the back.

OK this is interesting – you are suggesting you have a choice over emotion. Is this really the case? So are you saying that the choice ‘to be patient’ is always available? So you never get angry or sad of vengeful because when a challenging situation arises and there are a range of possible options – skilful and unskillful – your ‘self’ is able to choose the ‘right’ option. Does this actually happen? How does an emotion arise, exactly? Is it something you can choose or control?

Spend the day LOOKING at how anything happens (not pondering choice as a theoretical question) and let me know what comes up.

[Ezra]

Hi J,

I'm keeping this one short as I am ill in bed. You gave me loads to work on and it's actually been helpful having such a quiet day to watch thought.

Look at all the thoughts that pop up suggesting courses of action that don’t eventuate. If there is a ‘you’ thinking the thoughts – why doesn’t every thought result in the suggested action? Are you saying that you don’t choose which thoughts pop up – but you DO chose which thoughts are acted upon? Have a look today and see if this is really what is happening?

Yeah, I noticed thought after thought today that weren't acted upon. I also noticed myself doing something, on a number of occasions, without my knowing I had chosen to do it.

Ok so two thoughts popped up – reflect on the LU dialogue – or blowdry my hair. Did you know in advance that these exact two thoughts would pop up? What about other courses of action that you could have done – do the laundry – bake a cake – Why of all possible thoughts did these pop up? Did you choose to have only these thoughts?

No, you're right. I can remember, there were a number of other thoughts too.

OK this is interesting – you are suggesting you have a choice over emotion. Is this really the case? So are you saying that the choice ‘to be patient’ is always available? So you never get angry or sad of vengeful because when a challenging situation arises and there are a range of possible options – skilful and unskillful – your ‘self’ is able to choose the ‘right’ option. Does this actually happen? How does an emotion arise, exactly? Is it something you can choose or control?

Yes, even as I was writing this yesterday I could see that particular hole. No, I don't think one can control or choose emotion. I'm still not sure what I was getting at.

I'll keep looking.
Thank you so much for this. I haven't said that for a while but I hugely appreciate the time you take everyday to think and write.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi Carmel

Sorry you’re not feeling well – but being ill in bed is a great opportunity to do the ‘symphony’ exercise. Let me suggest this:

So far ‘attention’ has been directed toward the ‘arisings’ in awareness – noticing the modulations in the sights, sounds, sensations that arise and noticing that they arise spontaneously – there is no ‘I’ that needs to do anything to notice these arisings.

Now, try to allow that attention to notice not so much the arisings, the so-called ‘objects’, but reflect back on itself – notice the space, the awareness, in which/to which these arisings appear – and relax into that.

Now does this aware space have any characteristics of a personal self? Does awareness have an age, a gender, an occupation? Does it have dimensions, edges? Is it personal or limited in any way?

[Ezra]

I'm still unwell so again, I'm keeping this short.
I spent a lot of time today doing the symphony exercise and looking at the space in which the arisings appear.
If I was doing the exercise correctly I couldn't find anything personal about the awareness. No age or gender or occupation, no dimensions, no edges. It was limitless and spacious.
Thanks J.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK great.

So we often say "MY thoughts slow down during meditation" or "MY knees hurt if I sit for too long" or "MY head hurts the next day if I drink more than two glasses of wine" -- so we have thoughts arising and sensations arising in awareness -- but if this sense of "me" or "my" isn't in the awareness -- where is it? what makes a sensation MY sensation? What makes a thought MY thought? Is MY a quality in the thought or sensation itself? Have a look.

[Ezra]

So we often say "MY thoughts slow down during meditation" or "MY knees hurt if I sit for too long" or "MY head hurts the next day if I drink more than two glasses of wine" -- so we have thoughts arising and sensations arising in awareness -- but if this sense of "me" or "my" isn't in the awareness -- where is it? what makes a sensation MY sensation? What makes a thought MY thought?

I could speculate - it's an habitual thought process we all develop in order to function in the world - but you keep steering me away from theorising and back to 'looking'.
When I look for it in direct experience I can't find it. I don't know how I'm doing it because I don't find 'me' in sensation or thought. I'm pulling the wool over my own eyes and I have no idea how I'm doing it.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK no need to speculate. "My" is a term that we constantly apply to feelings, thoughts and things -- if it actually refers to some really existing thing or quality ("Me") then we should be able to find it. So let's continue looking.

Do all arisings in awareness have this sense of me/my attached to them to the same degree? For example, say you get intensely irritated with your kids or your partner -- the sensation of irritation -- does that feel like "me"? How about if you bang your elbow -- that gives rise to an equally intense sensation -- does that feel like "me" to the same extent? Are some sensations more me/my than others? What makes the difference?

Keep looking at the different kinds of arisings -- feelings, thoughts, objects (my phone, my lunch, my body . . . ) -- note how thought attaches Me or My more to some things than others -- when you find a particularly strong me/my sensation or thing -- try to reflect back -- turn attention from the object and back toward that which claims the thing or sensation as me or my -- can you find anything anywhere in DE that "owns" a sensation or an object? What does "ME" OR "MY" actually refer to? anything?

[Ezra]

Are some sensations more me/my than others? What makes the difference?

I think so. I noticed some subtle 'me-ness' going on today and some screaming 'me-ness'. I'll give you some examples so you can see if I'm nosing in the right area.
I treated the kids to chips today but accidentally gave one child my salted and vinegared chips instead of his plain ones. After a few munches I realised my mistake. I couldn't take them back because they haven't yet discovered salt and vinegar so my chips aren't supposed be any different from theirs. But, they were MY chips, MINE! Looking at it, it seemed the 'me' in this was in the expectation of how things should be (I'll have my chips and they'll be yummy) and also in a story I think I tell myself (I deserve a treat, I work so hard etc). The feeling was in the chest and lifted after some time spent looking at it.
A stronger 'me' moment was trying to settle my daughter into her new bed. I knew this was going to be tough so I was well prepared. We had ninety minutes of jumping on the bed, rolling on the floor, reading books, turning on and off the light etc. A calm exterior but inside my belly was in such rage.
I was able to look at the rage, still feel it but I couldn't actually 'home' it, if you know what I mean. It didn't seem to belong anywhere.

[Jack'n'theBox]

I was able to look at the rage, still feel it but I couldn't actually 'home' it, if you know what I mean. It didn't seem to belong anywhere.

OK this is a great observation. The reason we have been looking at sensations/thoughts and trying to locate them in 'space' is to deconstruct this idea that "Experience is something that happens in my body" -- when we examine this statement we see it's just a thought -- experience isn't happening in "the body" -- we can't even experience "the body." The "body" itself is just an idea -- it doesn't experience anything.

So keep on looking at these sensations (is an emotion anything other than a sensation with a thought-story attached?) and trying to locate them -- if they do feel "fixed" somewhere like "in my belly" -- then switch awareness to the "space" around the sensation. Is that space inside/outside? Doers it have edges?

Ok the next stage is we are looking at the MY of "my body." Or the MY of "my sensation" (or "chips" or whatever!).

So when you say the sensation of rage "didn't belong anywhere" -- you are on track.

Now look closely at this rage -- or other arisings -- if they don't belong anywhere -- IS THERE SOMEONE/SOMETHING THEY BELONG "TO"?

Have a look and see.

[Ezra]

Now look closely at this rage -- or other arisings -- if they don't belong anywhere -- IS THERE SOMEONE/SOMETHING THEY BELONG "TO"?

No. I can't find the person or thing. I'm really tired now - blinking eyes, sore shoulders and frustrated after a tricky 'putting to bed' session. As I look at these sensations - the tiredness and the tightness in the chest and belly - and see how the sensations are not confined to the space of my body and then, looking more closely; there is nothing to find.
Hope you can follow that...very very tired.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK good work Carmel.

We are looking to see beyond doubt that this ‘self’ we suppose ‘ourselves’ to be never existed except as a belief, a view, a thought.

There are two complementary ways into this – small picture and big picture. We’ve spent time on the forensic deconstruction of experience into its constituent ‘parts’ – we've been looking for a ‘self’, a ‘me’ somewhere that somehow owns or experiences these sensations/thoughts – but it just isn’t there – all we can find are arisings in awareness.

The big picture comes in when we turn attention from sense arisings to that which ‘knows’ them – awareness itself. The way into this is to look for WHERE is anything happening?

You can bring these two aspects together by going for a walk -- just be aware of the body walking. Is there a walk-er that is performing the action? Is there any ‘thing’ behind the activities on the walk – hearing a bird, seeing a tree, picking a flower, walking faster, slower, stopping, smelling the air – is there any ‘thing’ separate from the experience and making endless decisions .. do this, now that, now stop, now start, now listen, now look . . . ?

Now look to see – are you really a ‘person’ in a body moving through an exterior space? Where do you think this exterior space is to be found? Where is anything found? That would be in awareness, right? Is there anything going on ‘outside’ in nature that is not in awareness? Can you see how crazy thought is when it postulates two things – a ‘me’ and ‘everything else’? Thought is CONSTANTLY splitting up experience into two opposite poles – an experience-er (subject) and thing experienced (object). These things do not exist – it is all one unified field of experience in awareness.

So go out for a walk and look for these supposed two things: (1) an entity that is behind any of the sensations that arise during the walk and (2) a dividing line between ‘me’ and 'everything else’.

So work with this as a koan for a few days in all your activities -- where is the dividing line? Where does 'you' stop and 'everything else' start?

[Ezra]

I'm afraid I didn't get much work done today.
I didn't couldn't get out walking but, luckily for me, had loads of physical discomfort after a sleepless night affording me opportunities to look at sensation 'in' the body -hurrah.
I'll be walking tomorrow and working on the 'dividing line'.
Thanks J.

[Ezra]

So go out for a walk and look for these supposed two things: (1) an entity that is behind any of the sensations that arise during the walk and (2) a dividing line between ‘me’ and 'everything else’.

I went for my walk.
Most of the time sensations arose and abated, thoughts came and went, breath came into my lungs and came out again; there was no sense of an entity behind any of it. Maybe, come to think of it, at the very beginning of the walk; the first few steps were a little anxious - "surely, my body and brain is going to dominate this experience' but I then thought of the symphony exercise and my experience broadened out.
I had less success with looking at 'the dividing line'. If I simply listened I couldn't 'see' a dividing line but if my eyes were open I swung back to 'my body' and 'the world'. I sat by a lake for a while, eyes closed just listening. My breathing didn't seem any more 'me' than the birds in the trees or the plane overhead but then I'd open my eyes and catch a glimpse of my red runners. Back to 'me' here and the lake 'there'.
It was really disheartening. Since then, everything is 'me' and 'it'.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK this is a great attempt -- keep on going with it. Sight is the most polarising of the senses. One tip is to recall the science of optics -- how does sight happen (light hits the retina and is projected to the back of the brain where it is assembled and appears as a 3D image in consciousness) -- so this image, is it 'inside' or 'outside'? Is there a mini-me in the head looking out through the eyes? Does consciousness have an inside and an outside? Again as you look around -- try to find WHERE is sight happening -- are there two things in the experience -- a 'me' that is seeing and an object that is seen?

Try this exercise.

Pont with your finger to all the objects you can see and label them, say . . . table . . . chair . . . book . . . floor . . . on and on around the room -- now point the finger back toward the eyes . . . what do you see . . . can that which is aware be labelled?