Ready to go

[Jack'n'theBox]

Looking for self, there is this sensation of a ghost of the self. Then there is reflection on the fact that all that is really there are sensations and then I notice the objection that there are things unavailable to awareness, subconscious things, which there is no access to.

Like, wow. The "subconscious" is one of the greatest of mind games -- because no matter how much you try to uncover it, you never can – because its unavailability is built into its definition.

Really, you’ve got to admire the mind and its defense mechanisms and its ability to keep this whole “show” on the road.

[philkingston]

okay

[Jack'n'theBox]

Look to see that thoughts are working with a ‘depth model’ here – the idea that ‘the self’ has dimensions (it goes deep!). Thoughts love the story that you are some profound, complex kind of being with hidden depths. I used to buy into this BIG time!

This is a common construction in our society fueled by language which uses spatial metaphors to construct a self – deep is good, shallow bad. Freud plays a role here. But let me challenge you on this – if there is no self then what, exactly has dimensions? What is hiding behind what? Is there some 'thing' that cannot be accessed by some other thing?

To see the emptiness of the self we don’t need to go deep – it is right in front of you. When you turn attention upon itself and look for the thinker of your thoughts, the absence of any centre to consciousness can be glimpsed immediately. It can’t be found by going deeper. "Deeper" is just a thought.

Remember awareness/consciousness is only ever in this moment right now. It doesn’t progress though time (only thought says this). Nothing appears in awareness until the conditions are there – it’s not like some really deep shit is lurking somewhere backstage. There is no backstage. There is no deep down. There is no 'you' period. There is just this, just now. Just look and you can see this.

[philkingston]

Yes, I see this. Several times today I found the space to sit in now and just let go of the ideas of a self of depth or that the contents of thoughts are really that there is anything other than what is happening now. Noticed the first time the strength of thoughts wanting to own experiences... I've just noticed that, I heard that...and how these thoughts 'shrank' the awareness. Also realised that I've been very literal in my understanding of how 'thought' is used in this dialogue and that it covers feelings, intuitions, inner movements of different kinds. All these are part of awareness but can easily be used to reinforce the spatial metaphors you mention and have me seeing experience as a complexly layered and therefore ultimately unknowable thing.

My intuition, (which is the response I am relying on more and more in this as reason, willpower, expectation all prove unhelpful) is that I need to keep practicing this sort of looking with no expectation of insight or sudden seeing through of self.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Keep noticing the difference between mental activity simply as a set of arisings in awareness (thoughts, images, impulses) etc. and the tendency of mind to "run off" with these simple arisings -- to "proliferate" them. Only the latter activity is deluded and it is through this delusion that "sense of self" arises. Sense arisings in and of themselves "just are" -- let them be as they are. Don't proliferate. Don't get involved.

From Mipham Rinpoche:

Therefore, it is based on direct perceptions,
Which are non-conceptual and undeluded,
That misperceptions of apparent phenomena
Can be decisively eliminated.

[philkingston]

working on this - this morning a simple but important understanding, experience is what it is whether I like it or not. Or to be more accurate whether there are feelings of pleasure or pain, whether it's sunny or dull etc..

Walking at lunchtime, and earlier on the tram, the constant gentle letting go of thinking, returning to being, not needing to comment on everything. At times, in this, seeing how quick the mind is to appropriate experience as proof of a self. This morning looking for the self the old conviction that that which is looking must be a thing. This can be countered by returning to the exercises of where is the senser of sensations.

Also working on seeing things feelingly. as well as reducing input which just tends to make looking even harder.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK -- sounding good. Now might be a time to take stock and review where we've been. Here are some pointers:

Why do you think you have a self: what information do you have that supports this conclusion? Is it the recurring pattern of thoughts, feelings and all else you experience? Look at those thoughts and emotions: where did they come from? Where do they go to? Can you pin them down for any period of time? How do you know you have a body: where do you get that information? Isn’t that just another set of thoughts which come and go?

This menagerie of thoughts and images comprises the content of our experience. The mind is an amazingly flexible and creative thing, and it is understandable that you could infer or assume a “self” behind all that (and don’t worry: pretty much everyone has). Humans even made up gods to explain the tides, why the sun rises and sets, etc., assuming there was someone behind all that as well, but closer inspection eventually showed it wasn't the case. A closer looks reveals that there isn't a personal self, either.

If you're open to the possibility that all this can happen without a “me” calling the shots, with stillness and a sense of inquiry, go ahead and look for “me”, look for a self. I can tell you about the illusory self, but I can’t show it to you. In the end you have to see the illusion of “me” within your own experience, the only reliable information you have. At that point, it’s no longer inference or supposition: what you see is what you get. Just pay attention to what is actually there, without elaborating or interpreting it.

What you’ll find is that the self is neither within nor without: calling its name, nothing is found, nothing shows itself. All that you find is raw experience that need not be interpreted in any particular way. Keep looking until you’re sure: it’s an incredibly convincing illusion. Also, be patient: it could take a lot of time to unlearn some deeply-ingrained habits. Don’t worry, this isn’t nihilism: you will always have some form of experience, but you can also have clarity as to what that experience represents. “Me” can be a presumed separate self, or a conventional placeholder for the current snapshot of your experience: you really can know the difference.

[philkingston]

Working on this. Nothing special to report other than coming up against familiar objections that it is the voice in my head. Now I know this is simply thought but my question becomes ...breaking the habit or wearing down the habits of thinking this way itself requires thought so I find myself at an impasse. There's enough experience now from this dialogue to counter the habits that coem up but this countering takes me back into thinking.

Am confident this will solve itself and am happy to keep looking but didn't want to leave a silence between us while I did.

Best

lV

[Jack'n'theBox]

...breaking the habit or wearing down the habits of thinking this way itself requires thought so I find myself at an impasse.

In the seen just the seen
In the heard just the heard
In the sensed just the sensed
In the cognised just the cognised

What is there that "requires thought"?

[Jack'n'theBox]

What's thought been saying?

[philkingston]

It's been saying

You've been here before
What am I meant to do now
If I reason with the familiar doubts I'm thinking again
Has it already happened

It's also saying
To my guides it seems do systematic, they say things like 'we've been here before' or 'we've looked at this' as if that meant a particular aspect of the delusion had been seen through definitively. It doesn't feel that way from my side. Am wondering what I'm doing wrong

Sometimes am very happy to keep looking with no worry about time. But this morning depressed day lack of progress. Have sends this is something that has to be seen through and can be detrimental if half baked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack'n'theBox]

"What am I meant to do now?" This can't be answered by thought -- because thought doesn't know. You haven't been HERE before -- there is no "thing" that is going round in circles -- every moment is its own thing: special, particular -- you have to "feel" your way into this. So try this:

Sit quietly and try to find the present moment. How long is it? Does it have a duration? Is there any "thing" that is moving (through time)? Any "thing' that has been here before?

Can you see that sense arisings/experiences SEEM to be arising and passing -- but that which knows them is not moving with them -- can you feel there is a vast stillness that seems to underlie that which seems to be moving? Can you allow attention not to be distracted by the apparent movement but instead rest in the stillness? Is there any reason to label this stillness? Does the stillness need to "do" anythign in order to be istelf? Does this stillness need to question itself in any way? Or is the questioning just another arising in the stillness?

[Jack'n'theBox]

Here's a nice short exercise that points to the 'stillness':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8TaQCm2pg

[philkingston]

Sit quietly and try to find the present moment. How long is it? Does it have a duration? Is there any "thing" that is moving (through time)? Any "thing' that has been here before?

The sent moment can't be captured, it can only be lived in or thought about in retrospect. When lived in no thought is involved. The moment thought is involved there is no present moment. And no nothing has been here before. Familiarity is a construction of the imagination, it's an emotional habit but not a reflection of reality.

Can you see that sense arisings/experiences SEEM to be arising and passing -- but that which knows them is not moving with them -- can you feel there is a vast stillness that seems to underlie that which seems to be moving? Can you allow attention not to be distracted by the apparent movement but instead rest in the stillness? Is there any reason to label this stillness? Does the stillness need to "do" anythign in order to be istelf? Does this stillness need to question itself in any way? Or is the questioning just another arising in the stillness?

Yes, and this seems so easy and so obvious. It's peaceful as well as still.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Right. The past is not there. The future is not there. The now is not going anywhere, it has not come from anywhere. There is no “thing” that is progressing towards a future. Yet there is always an awareness present – but it is not a “thing” that moves through time – you could say that (thoughts about) time move through it.

Thought cannot recognise this. In Dzogchen they say awareness can be ‘self-recognised’. Awareness knows itself. But not as an ‘object’.

So without ‘doing’ or ‘developing’ (or eradicating, etc.), simply allow and rest as ‘that which is aware’, or ‘that which knows’.

In Zen, this is spoken of as ‘taking the backward step’, that is, ‘stepping back’ from sense arisings to the clarity/awareness /presence that is ‘taking it in’.

What happens when you do this?