Thread for unbearablelightness

[unbearablelightness]

Think I just found reply!

[dridhamati]

Yep you have! :-D
Dm

Sent from a phone. Please forgive poor style and spelling. :-)

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati

And happy New year!

Sorry for the delay. I'm back with sporadic access until this Saturday. Not sure what's best to do with that time.

But to report on the last little while:

I've been continuing to notice selfing as it comes up, and there seem to be fewer ripples with the noticing. Still some thoughts around the significance, some thoughts remembering the work we've been doing, and a knowing that those thoughts are labeling a process that's going on anyhow. A continuing of looking at the distinction between DE and conceptualizing at different levels.

Any thoughts for the next few days?
All the best
Vp

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

And a very happy new year to you too.

When asked to report on observation of experience, here are some of the answers that were given:

“awareness arising, experience unfolding, consciousness transforming, whatever we call it.”, or
“In direct experience there's inseparable flow.”

So...
Where is the experiencer and the object of experience?
Where is the believer, the doubter, the fearful?

Please pick up any exercise of observation, and look at the experience, to the point of the barest qualifier (the one without which communication ends). Now answer these questions in the light of the experience.
As many times as desired.
Including mental experience (fear/doubt).

All the best
Dridhamati

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati

Can't work out how to use quote on tapatalk, so just as well you only asked the one question.

In bare experiencing, the object is a part discriminated from the seamless field. The experiencer is nowhere to be found. There are fleeing thoughts narrating what to later write; little bits of worry that "I'm missing something"; experienced as thoughts and tension in the belly and chest; thoughts retelling the instructions of the exercise. There is also a sense of space within the field, which somehow feels referenced to a central point, tho that's ungraspable on closer inspection. All of these have the feel of an experiencer, a bit like the pixels on this screen making an image.

But like the pixels, the components listed above are not only not an experiencer, but they aren't even of the sort of nature that an experiencer could be, whatever that is.

All the best
Vajrapriya

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

Can't work out how to use quote on tapatalk, so just as well you only asked the one question.

Looks like Tapatalk can only quote an entire post, not parts thereof. If you want to quote a segment of a post then you need to delete everything that’s unwanted between the square braketed ‘quote’ and ‘/quote’. Then type before and after the ‘quote’ block. (If that makes sense?)

The experiencer is nowhere to be found.

This is also the experience here.

In bare experiencing, the object is a part discriminated from the seamless field.

Is there actually an object “in bare experiencing”?

So no experiencer can be found, yet an object of experience can.
Can you please observe again?

All the best
Dridhamati

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati

Ok what i meant is that to refer to an object I have to discriminate, and so it stops being direct experience. But whereas the experiencer (as a conventional concept) has no referent at all, conventional objects do, if I discriminate from the seamless field with a level of conceptualization.

So in direct experience there is no object, unless one chooses to call the whole field an object, which would be a bit eccentric, not least because it implies the presence of a subject.

Thanks
Vp

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

Thank you for the clarification. Very helpful.

So in direct experience there is no object, unless one chooses to call the whole field an object, which would be a bit eccentric, not least because it implies the presence of a subject.

More than eccentric: not in accord with experience, and as a result, deluded.

So we seem to be in agreement, from experience. Great!

Now abiding in this ‘knowing/seeing’ that there is no subject, no object, only experience unfolding ...
Who/what experiences this fear/doubt (“memory of the seeing, belief system, etc”)?
Does the fear/doubt actually exist (as an object)?

All the best
Dridhamati

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati
Great, enjoying the pace thanks.

Now abiding in this ‘knowing/seeing’ that there is no subject, no object, only experience unfolding ...
Who/what experiences this fear/doubt (“memory of the seeing, belief system, etc”)?

There's nothing observable that can be the experiencer of fear, doubt or anything else for that matter

It's more like the other way around: the emotion seems to imply the one to whom it applies and concerns. But that one isn't anywhere observed.

Does the fear/doubt actually exist (as an object)?

Not in any ultimate way, just like any other object. To discriminate e.g. fear out of the field of direct experience, I also need to discriminate out certain thoughts and body experiences, (which division is also a discrimination) and choose to call them conventionally "fear".
Thanks
Vp

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

Great, enjoying the pace thanks.

Let’s make the most of it while you’ve got a connection.

There's nothing observable that can be the experiencer of fear, doubt or anything else for that matter

Certainly the experience here too.

Does the fear/doubt actually exist (as an object)?

Not in any ultimate way, just like any other object.

Again that’s the experience here too.

Leaving all discrimination and conceptualisation aside for a moment:
Is there ever an observer?
Is there ever an object of observation?

All the best
Dridhamati

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati

Leaving all discrimination and conceptualisation aside for a moment:
Is there ever an observer?
Is there ever an object of observation?

Interesting to have that little nudge. Feeling the reluctance to say outright "there is never an object of observation" without the qualifications I've already made. And yet within direct experience the phrase "object of observation" seems absurd.

So take the plunge, no theres never an object of observation in direct experience. And recognising "thoughts of fear" type experience that tends to go along with that phrase, and then "relief" as well.

Bon nuit
Vp

[unbearablelightness]

Forgot to say, no theres never an observer. That's clear and doesn't stir any resistance.

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

Interesting to have that little nudge. Feeling the reluctance to say outright "there is never an object of observation" without the qualifications I've already made.

But are these qualifications anything other than constructs, views and other concepts?

And yet within direct experience the phrase "object of observation" seems absurd.

Here too, here too my friend!

So take the plunge, no theres never an object of observation in direct experience. And recognising "thoughts of fear" type experience that tends to go along with that phrase, and then "relief" as well.

Now you've taken the plunge, time to quote Rumi:
"What good are swimming skills in an ocean with no edge?"

Sleep well.

All the best
Dridhamati

[unbearablelightness]

Hi Dridhamati

But are these qualifications anything other than constructs, views and other concepts?

No. Just recognising a reluctance to let go into a completely non conceptual space, which gets interpreted as a realm without meaning. Which is a conceptualizing too, as is meaning in itself. Increasingly trusting that letting go into non conceptuality isn't a one way trip, but a realm that can be entered and left.

Here too, here too

Do you mean the sense of absurdity is view, concept etc? What I was trying to describe is that usually the phrase "object of observation" is a common sense notion, but in DE that falls apart in a surprising and funny way. Is there something I'm missing that you're pointing to?

Now you've taken the plunge, time to quote Rumi:
"What good are swimming skills in an ocean with no edge?"

Like!

Many thanks
Vp

[dridhamati]

Hi Vajrapriya,

Here too, here too

What I was trying to describe is that usually the phrase "object of observation" is a common sense notion, but in DE that falls apart in a surprising and funny way. Is there something I'm missing that you're pointing to?

Sorry for the unclarity. Nothing missed.
The “here too” was meant as agreement with the “absurdity of the phrase ‘object of observation’” in DE.

Increasingly trusting that letting go into non conceptuality isn't a one way trip, but a realm that can be entered and left.

No matter how absurd the notion of “toast with butter and jam”, this body still needs food to carry on functioning.
Yet, when looking at the “toast with butter and jam” in DE, no ‘thing’ is found, no ‘seer’ is found.
This is the sheer, simple beauty of it all. This is it.

Are there any unanswered questions?

All the best
Dridhamati