Feeling stuck and looking for guidance

[chii]

As soon as I attempt the inquiry, a lot of resistance appears. Distracting thoughts, discomfort and there is a strong feeling of being tired. They seem to eventually disappear when I am able to catch and recognise them.

What in particular do you notice about what is going on in this experience of SEEING?

There is awareness of seeing but nothing in particular is noticed until a thought or label arises.

Can you describe what is seen in any way accurately so that someone listening or reading would know EXACTLY what you are experiencing?

It would be impossible to communicate. Every person's labels or interpretation of experience is different. And the experience is too vast and ever-changing to capture.

Are there thoughts labeling what you see? A handle perhaps, the lip, the shape of it?

No, the labels can be dropped and it's just the seeing.

Can you find some specific thing that we can call a "me" doing the seeing?

There doesn't seem to be a "me" doing the seeing. Attention bounces between thinking the question and seeing.

Watch thoughts as you consider who is seeing. Notice what happens to seeing as you consider this. Did the seeing change in any way or stop?

Attention moves to thinking and seeing seems to recede into the background.

Did you try and figure any of this out by thinking about it or did you simply report your direct experience?

I am reporting my direct experience. There are doubting thoughts that I may just be overlooking or disassociated from the thoughts/labels when seeing. If the doubt isn't believed, it seems to return to seeing.

[Alless]

They seem to eventually disappear when I am able to catch and recognise them.

That's good Chii. Breaking the spell of the illusion is being able to watch thoughts pass by without being taken by them or being hypnotized into believing them.

As you catch them and feel resistance "pull back" ever so slightly from the senses and simply be aware of whatever is happening.
Let me know what you experience

nothing in particular is noticed until a thought or label arises.

Yes ! That's important to notice. Objectifying and specificity are invoked by the mind.

There doesn't seem to be a "me" doing the seeing. Attention bounces between thinking the question and seeing.

When you are aware of seeing and thinking another inquiry here is
Is there a seer to be found in the seeing? Can you find anyTHING that that is doing the seeing?



Is there a thinker to be found or only thinking?

Attention moves to thinking and seeing seems to recede into the background.

Yes whenever you can just watch that ebb and flow in experience. Being acutely aware of what's happening in this movement can give valuable insight

the doubt isn't believed, it seems to return to seeing.

When experience returns to seeing in the absence of doubt thoughts is there any doubt in that moment?

There are doubting thoughts that I may just be overlooking or disassociated from the thoughts/labels when seeing.

What are the consequences of disassociation from the thoughts/labels?



.

[chii]

As you catch them and feel resistance "pull back" ever so slightly from the senses and simply be aware of whatever is happening.
Let me know what you experience

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure I quite understand. Do you mean resistance to senses?

When you are aware of seeing and thinking another inquiry here is

Is there a seer to be found in the seeing? Can you find anyTHING that that is doing the seeing?

There doesn't seem to be a seer in seeing. Any "thing" would have to be a thought about seeing.

Is there a thinker to be found or only thinking?

Thoughts are just appearing. There is also the thought "I am thinking this thought" but that seems to appear too.

When experience returns to seeing in the absence of doubt thoughts is there any doubt in that moment?

No, doubt is only present when the thought is present.

What are the consequences of disassociation from the thoughts/labels?

I'm not sure exactly. My concern is that at times I'm not seeing them clearly.

[Alless]

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure I quite understand. Do you mean resistance to senses?

Resistance is the label we typically give to a "no" reaction to what happening in the present moment. It's typically experienced as a contraction - a feeling of "I don't want this" in some form. It is the "me" wanting something different to "what is" It can be very obvious or so subtle that we are not aware of it until we are willing to really feel into experience.

The aim here is not to get rid of the resistance in whatever form it takes persay but to simply acknowledge it and let it be and be aware of what happens to it. The suggestion to "pull back" ever so slightly is intended to give the "resistance" a little space - to feel the spaciousness that is always there but often not recognized when we are (usually unconsciously) identified with the resistance. Typically this default reaction of pushing back on what is. It typically is such an ingrained habit that we don't even recognize it is happening until we actually LOOK.

Once seen we then need to LOOK and FEEL again to see if there is any resistance to the resistance !! This can be so so subtle and is often lurking under the radar so to speak.

Does that answer your question Chii?

There doesn't seem to be a seer in seeing. Any "thing" would have to be a thought about seeing.

Thoughts are just appearing. There is also the thought "I am thinking this thought" but that seems to appear too.

Clearer seeing here Chii. Albeit with a little "foginess"



And do you see how the word seems implies doubt at the same time?



What is the thought that arises with the sense of "seem"?



What has you "mistrust" what is seen?

No, doubt is only present when the thought is present.

No "seems to" here. Very clear.

What are the consequences of disassociation from the thoughts/labels?

I'm not sure exactly. My concern is that at times I'm not seeing them clearly.

No need to see thoughts clearly all the time. Just to realize whatever is thought is not the truth.

Let's investigate thoughts a little more in the next part of this exercise

Now take the cup again and simply watch thoughts as you look at the cup.
As you start to watch thoughts and wait for the first thought to arise what happened?



Did you actually choose which thought arose first or did a thought just appear?



After a while of watching thoughts, what happens to them?




As you watch the thoughts does the experience of seeing the cup change in any way?




Now look for spaces between thoughts.
Focus on seeing in the spaces. They may be milliseconds, but notice them.
What happens in your experience as you attend to the spaces?




Is there any direct association with thoughts in the space(s)?




What is experienced with this "disassociation?




'

[chii]

Does that answer your question Chii?

Yes thanks Alan, your explanation is extremely clear.

And do you see how the word seems implies doubt at the same time?

Yes, I see that it implies the possibility that a seer still exists.

What is the thought that arises with the sense of "seem"?

The thought isn't clear, but it feels like "maybe it's somewhere else" and I'm overlooking it.

What has you "mistrust" what is seen?

There must be a belief that there is something outside of what's being experienced that is yet to be found.

As you start to watch thoughts and wait for the first thought to arise what happened?

A thought "Here we go again..." appeared.

Did you actually choose which thought arose first or did a thought just appear?

No there was no choice, it just appeared.

After a while of watching thoughts, what happens to them?

The thoughts continue to come and go.

As you watch the thoughts does the experience of seeing the cup change in any way?

No, the thoughts are changing but the seeing is unchanged.

What happens in your experience as you attend to the spaces?

There is just the experience of seeing and the other senses.

Is there any direct association with thoughts in the space(s)?
What is experienced with this "disassociation?

There is an abscence of thoughts, I'm not really sure what else I can say about it.

[Alless]

Love the clear seeing in your responses Chii

There is an abscence of thoughts, I'm not really sure what else I can say about it.

You're right. There is nothing much more to say other than perhaps to look at this .....



Is the directness of experiencing able to show itself any clearer in the absence of thought?




In the absence of thought is there any sense of a separate "me" present at all?





Here is another way to investigate this "cup experience."

In the experience of picking up a cup, looking at a cup, be¬ing thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on are you actually experiencing a cup or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of what is labelled cup?



Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences?





How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it?





What do you know anything about this cup except what you learned in the past?






You would have no idea what this cup is, except for the past learning of/about it. Do you, then, really experience a cup?




Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual and what is a cup in actual experience?



.

[chii]

Is the directness of experiencing able to show itself any clearer in the absence of thought?

Yes

In the absence of thought is there any sense of a separate "me" present at all?

No, a sense of a separate "me" isn't there in the absence of thoughts.

In the experience of picking up a cup, looking at a cup, being thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on are you actually experiencing a cup or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of what is labelled cup?

What do you mean by "reviewing your past experiences"? Recalling a memory?

Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences?

Yes, it is based on past experience.

How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it?

Past experience and learning.

What do you know anything about this cup except what you learned in the past?

No, everything known about cups are would have to be referencing a memory/past conditioning.

You would have no idea what this cup is, except for the past learning of/about it. Do you, then, really experience a cup?

There is no experience of an actual cup, just the label "cup" that arises. If I had never encountered cups before, the label would not appear.

Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual and what is a cup in actual experience?

Sorry I don't quite understand this question. Could you please rephrase it?

[Alless]

What do you mean by "reviewing your past experiences"? Recalling a memory?

Yes Chii. Reviewing past experience is recalling memory.

So here is the question again...
In the experience of picking up a cup, looking at a cup, being thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on are you actually experiencing a cup or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of what is labelled cup?

Sorry I don't quite understand this question. Could you please rephrase it?

Certainly.

Remember when we first started this inquiry and direct / actual experience was clarified....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is this Direct or Actual Experiencing? For practical purposes we can identify 6 aspects of experiencing. It is PURE

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content)
We are depending totally on AE/DE to LOOK for no self.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that context then realizing what actually IS, is direct/actual experience .....then what is a cup in actual experience?



.

[chii]

In the experience of picking up a cup, looking at a cup, being thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on are you actually experiencing a cup or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of what is labelled cup?

Yes, the story/labels that arises is always referencing the past even though it can seem to appear almost instantaneously.

In that context then realizing what actually IS, is direct/actual experience .....then what is a cup in actual experience?

In direct experience, "cup" is a thought that arises based on a certain pattern of seeing/feeling.

[Alless]

Yes, the story/labels that arises is always referencing the past even though it can seem to appear almost instantaneously

In direct experience, "cup" is a thought that arises based on a certain pattern of seeing/feeling.

Yes. Lovely way of describing it Chii

To take this a bit further, this exploration is about unlearning everything you think you know…and I mean unlearning everything.

Old ideas are difficult to change, because everything believed is rooted in time. Look at a cup again. Do you see a cup, or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of picking up a cup, be¬ing thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on? Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences? How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it? What do you know about this cup except what you learned in the past? You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it?

If you really LOOK at a cup…what do you find?

The label ‘cup’ is AE of thought and not AE of a cup
Colour labelled ‘cup’ is AE of colour and not AE of a cup
Sensation labelled as ‘cup against your lips’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup against lips.
Sensation labelled a ‘warm cup of coffee’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup with warm coffee.
The thoughts about a cup ie what it is, what it is for, what it is made from etc, are thoughts ABOUT thought, because ‘cup’ is a label and is not the AE of a cup!

Do you see how the AE of the "contents of thought", concepts, create a seeming "separate inner world" when we believe the concepts to be the truth?



Do you then recognize that which we call a cup is what we call a concept?



Take time to really FEEL this. It is so easy to say "oh that's obvious" and move right on into concepts again !!

A cup that has uses and takes up space, and need washing after use? A concept that includes shape, form, color, what it is intended to be used for………...but we aren't actually seeing it anymore. We look at it but recognize a vessel to contain something.

The "details" are all still there but are now typically veiled by our thoughts ABOUT the cup, the concept of a cup.

Now do this with a flower (or any other object) and see what is experienced.
What stands out for you in experiencing concepts and direct experience with whatever object you choose?





.

[chii]

Hi Alan,

I would like to have another day to explore this please.

Thanks

[Alless]

Thank you for letting me know Chii

[chii]

Do you see how the AE of the "contents of thought", concepts, create a seeming "separate inner world" when we believe the concepts to be the truth?

Yes I see how the illusion is formed by the beliefs.

Do you then recognize that which we call a cup is what we call a concept?

Yes I recognise that there is no "thing" that is objectively a "cup" and that "cup" is a just concept that is learned.

What stands out for you in experiencing concepts and direct experience with whatever object you choose?

The concept and the direct experience of the object are both in awareness and the distinction between them is a sort of transition or movement of attention.

[Alless]

The concept and the direct experience of the object are both in awareness and the distinction between them is a sort of transition or movement of attention.

Could you tell me more about this please Chii especially about
- the distinction between them, and
- that both are in awareness

[chii]

There is the direct experience of thoughts, the contents being the concepts, appearing in awareness.
There is also direct experience of seeing the object appearing in awareness too.
The illusion of a separate inner world is formed by the belief in concepts.
The sense of self is also formed by this same mechanism of belief. It is made up of the direct experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling and thoughts and is also appearing awareness...so there isn't a self that is separate from what is experienced in awareness. It's beginning to make sense now.
Am I missing something?