Requesting a second chance.

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,
It was really good to read this statement by JonathanR again.

Now. is it 'you' that can look anytime you wish? Does it work like that? Any time 'you wish'? Or is it more like this: Looking, seeing happens when it does. it may seem that there is a self that 'does' this at a time of its own choosing but actually that self does not exist and the noticing-seeing is not owned or done ?

There are still a lot of thoughts like this. It still seems as if there is an I looking for the I. It does not hold up to scrutiny but it often slips by unnoticed.
I feel like saying I must stop separating the 'I', the searcher of the 'I', from the other 'I', but that is falling into the trap again. How is this resolved? There is no confusion that 'I' the searcher (or the 'other' I)is anything other than an illusion.

I kept saying looking could be done at any time. I wonder what I meant by that at the time because looking properly has come to me relatively recently.
There is of course a new level meaning to the comments that JonathanR made. Many were understood less back then. This may be quite obvious to you and JonathanR but I am sure that I forget a lot as time passed.

Have a new look: Who is reading this? Can anybody be found?

I really like this question. Reading is typically a time when the I illusion can be assumed without being challenged. Reading is being done and a strong sense of 'I' can accompany it but thoughts seem too occupied with these things to look at the 'I' when actually reading. The feeling can be examined, but only when the reading stops. It is not a special feeling of 'I'. It is the same as at other times. It is just a feeling of 'I' not evidence of one.
I will continue reading. It is very slow going.
Thank you.
Mav.

[Ghata]

Hi Mav,

Lovely. :)

Now, while reading this, is there an 'I' reading or simply reading?

And where is this entity 'I' that looks for the 'I'? Where is it located, what does it look like?

Look into these questions first before continuing with the reading.

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hello,
Thank you for you questions Ghata. I hope I have not just made things more complicated.

Now, while reading this, is there an 'I' reading or simply reading?

As far as I can see there is looking at the words, a sense of a voice saying the words and thinking about the content of the words. This is seeing-thought-though and those things are not split up into doer-thing done-thing done to. So there is no sign of an 'I'.

And where is this entity 'I' that looks for the 'I'? Where is it located, what does it look like?

I have given this a lot of attention. It's hard to see. I don't think the illusion is always an active part of what is happening in each moment. I think what might be happening is that there are feelings that there is an 'I' and a long standing assumption that part of this is a viewer. The viewer is part of the assumption of the 'I'. In a sense the viewer element of the 'I' illusion is temporarily broken off from the overall 'I' construct. To see it it feels like taking another step backwards, the whole picture can be seen. The viewer isn't that special. It is just a part of the 'I' illusion.

I hope I am not opening a can of worms here, but I am bothered by something. I have looked at the issue described above. However when it comes to making sense of things I often am aware that it is how I am looking at it in a particular moment. I must stress this is not absolute. I can see thoughts and feelings arising that seemed to suggest an 'I' and I can see that there is in fact no 'I' in them. So far so good. The issue is that at first, there is a feeling of being taken in by the film of Mav's life. A concious decision is then made to look at it a different way.

I realise this is all in fact happening by itself but I wondered if it might be damaging? Or is good enough to see this is all happening by itself?
Best wishes,
Mav.

[Ghata]

Dear Mav,

As far as I can see there is looking at the words, a sense of a voice saying the words and thinking about the content of the words. This is seeing-thought-though and those things are not split up into doer-thing done-thing done to. So there is no sign of an 'I'.

Lovely, Mav. No doer and no done-thing, simply doing.

The viewer is part of the assumption of the 'I'. In a sense the viewer element of the 'I' illusion is temporarily broken off from the overall 'I' construct. To see it it feels like taking another step backwards, the whole picture can be seen. The viewer isn't that special. It is just a part of the 'I' illusion.

Very good. You are right, the viewer is simply another disguise of the I-thought.

I can see thoughts and feelings arising that seemed to suggest an 'I' and I can see that there is in fact no 'I' in them.

Great!

The issue is that at first, there is a feeling of being taken in by the film of Mav's life. A concious decision is then made to look at it a different way. I realise this is all in fact happening by itself but I wondered if it might be damaging? Or is good enough to see this is all happening by itself?

Dear Mav, being taken in by the film of Mav's life will happen many, many times more. It is not a problem. You can then have another look for the 'I' and see if it is in fact there.

Seeing that all that is happening by itself, that there is nobody and nothing pulling the strings to make it happen, is the most important. It is not only good enough, it is exactly what this is all about. :-)

A concious decision is then made to look at it a different way

Please describe how this conscious decision is made.

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,
Thank you for your responses. They are really helpful.

Please describe how this conscious decision is made.

There is a decision to look. The fact the film of Mav is being taken as the story of 'me' is noticed, Often then there is a moment when it is decided to remember what is known... Actually for this point I realise that I have doubts but I will come back to that. What is known is that all things are seen. This changes the perspective of how things are seen.

The doubts: I have looked and seen that there is no controller so it logical that these things are seen. However that things are seen is not understood as an indisputable fact. Possibly because its hard to know for sure this is what is going on. It's easier to see that there is no 'I' because it is possible to unpick the assumption. However how is it possible to know what is?
Perhaps it is enough to know that it is not really 'me' that has this problem?

Seeing that all that is happening by itself, that there is nobody and nothing pulling the strings to make it happen, is the most important. It is not only good enough, it is exactly what this is all about. :-)

I can say there is nobody pulling the strings with confidence because it is clear that we merely assumed that somebody. The thought has been exposed as merely a thought. However I can't say that nothing is pulling the strings. I don't know what is happening. I cannot see any direct evidence for anything pulling the strings so perhaps this is good enough?

Am I right in saying that there is a theme of accepting only direct experience as the truth in this forum? Therefore not even logic can add to that reality? This is intriguing. If you are feeling well enough would it be possible for you to explain more about this? I don't want to give you too much to do.
Best wishes,
Mav.

[Ghata]

Dear Mav,

There is a decision to look.

Okay. How is this decision made? Is there an "I" making the decision to look, or a watcher?

However that things are seen is not understood as an indisputable fact. Possibly because its hard to know for sure this is what is going on. It's easier to see that there is no 'I' because it is possible to unpick the assumption. However how is it possible to know what is?

Well spoken, Mav! Once the illusion of self is seen through, the path opens up to look into what we think is reality and whether it is possible to know what is. You are already getting a glimpse of that. Can something be known at all? Can we not only experience sensations and thoughts, which then are interpreted and put together to what we perceive as reality? These are fascinating questions to look into.

What will always be there are sense experiences and thoughts. What will unravel are the interpretations of it.
For example, seeing happens. You cannot not see as long as you are awake.

Is "I see" a sense experience or an interpretation?
Is "I am thinking about what can be known" an experience or an interpretation?

I can say there is nobody pulling the strings with confidence because it is clear that we merely assumed that somebody. The thought has been exposed as merely a thought. However I can't say that nothing is pulling the strings. I don't know what is happening. I cannot see any direct evidence for anything pulling the strings so perhaps this is good enough?

What comes closest to truth are sense experiences. Everything else is added interpretation.

Is "There may be something pulling the strings" an experience or an assumption?

Am I right in saying that there is a theme of accepting only direct experience as the truth in this forum? Therefore not even logic can add to that reality? This is intriguing. If you are feeling well enough would it be possible for you to explain more about this? I don't want to give you too much to do.

Right. If something cannot be directly experienced, where is the evidence that it actually exists outside thoughts, outside of imagination only? Thoughts can invent the greatest things, imagine figures like Spiderman, tooth fairy or Mickey Mouse. Do they exist?

This doesn't mean that thoughts are to be disregarded. When ideas are brought to life, turn into sense experiences, great things can be invented. Cars, airplanes, internet...we wouldn't be able to communicate without the imaginative power of thoughts.

But thought content by itself doesn't exist except in the cyberworld of thought. To differentiate between thought content and experience is the key for the whole path.

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,

Thank you for your amazing post. I have been out today but I managed to read it on my wife's phone this morning. Thank you for taking the time to write it. Since my last post I have been looking a lot, and I felt I was closer to answering some of the questions I asked you. The line of enquiry we have taken has opened things up for me a lot and your latest post has made things even clearer.

There is a lot to say but I got back home late and I am too tired to think clearly, so I will write a better reply tomorrow. I think a lot of progress has been made. I think things are falling into place. It will be interesting to hear what you think.

I hope you are OK Ghata.

Best wishes,
Mav

[Mav]

Hello again Ghata.

I have been thinking a lot about your last post and it has raised a few questions. I was going to mention some progress that may have been made but I realise that time will tell. This has come up and I have gone from feeling as if I was understanding more to realising that I really have no understanding of what we are doing here.

I hope it is OK to ask this question at this point Ghata. When there is experience of sounds, smell. sensation, thought, taste and sight perhaps we could call that the 'noise of experience'. This is direct experience. I have been looking at it and I realise that the fact that there is no 'I', is not contained within the noise of experience. Experience has no meaning. There is interpretation necessary to claim that there is no 'I'. If we just focus on experience, Batman is neither a real person or a fictional character. The noise gives us nothing in the way of labels or interpretation.

So I wondered if you agreed that the realisation that there is no 'I' comes from looking and thought? Not from looking alone?
Secondly, I wondered if there was any value in meditation like practice where there is awareness of the noise of experience? In other words. Is there any value in looking without bringing thought to it?
If I look, it is tempting to say 'this is experience'. Even that is interpretation.

I feel as if I am back at square one. I can't understand how people can get this in a few days. It seems infinitely complex. Every time either of us posts it raises yet more questions. I don't understand what we are aiming for or what we are using to get there. I feel totally perplexed.
I really appreciated your post Ghata. Although I am not responding to each point, you can see it has changed my thinking a lot. I hope it is OK to respond like this.

Best wishes Mav.

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,

I hope that you are OK. I don't want you to feel obliged to answer this post. Your recovery is the most important thing. I just thought I would post so that I can keep things up to date and because it may be useful to someone else reading this thread who may have similar difficulties.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about where I might have been going wrong. At fist I didn't think I would have much luck but one thing occurred to me. It leads on from what I was saying in my last post about experience having no meaning.
On the LU homepage there is what looks like a poster. There is the word LOOK and the two O's are cat's eyes. Below this image it says, 'there is no you, there is just looking. For quite a while I have focused very heavily on the word 'just'. There is just looking. I can see that this is true, but I think I may have wrongly interpreted instructions like 'just look'.

I am sure that the 'I' that was assumed is a product of thought. I have been sure for some time, but I think my reaction to that may have been a little unusual. If you were to tell me my father is not in fact my biological father, my mind would naturally explore the implications of that. This is the normal reaction to this kind of information. I have not been doing that much with the realisation that there is no 'I' for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I thought it might lead to the construction of yet another illusion. Secondly, I was unsure of the process. Was looking the answer to everything? It is often stressed that looking is the key, but I think I may have taken this too far? I would very much doubt that many people would not think of the implications, just as they would if they were learning any other subject. I think I may have been engaging in some kind of unnecessary purity of looking exercise because of my lack of understanding of the process. I am guessing that my reaction has been atypical, but perhaps others get stuck like this?

If looking and thinking come together it does not necessarily create assumptions. For example, looking and thinking 'this is not what it previously appeared to be' does not create assumptions. It's very normal and natural. I was inadvertently suppressing it.

Anyway, that's the theory that I am working on at the moment.

Once again, don't feel that you have to respond to this. I hope you are taking things easy. I will just post if I feel I have something useful to say.

Best wishes Mav.

[Ghata]

Dear Mav,

thank you so much for this :-). I am feeling well again, feel free to post as much as you feel like.

I am sure that the 'I' that was assumed is a product of thought. I have been sure for some time, but I think my reaction to that may have been a little unusual. If you were to tell me my father is not in fact my biological father, my mind would naturally explore the implications of that. This is the normal reaction to this kind of information. I have not been doing that much with the realisation that there is no 'I' for a couple of reasons.

Go ahead and explore the implications of seeing that the "I" that was assumed is a product of thought.

Let thoughts label what is seen, that is their normal function. It isn't always an assumption, it often is simply giving a name to something. The word "water" isn't the real deal, it is not wet and you cannot drink it. Still, when somebody says "water", we know what it means.

I am looking forward to your findings.

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,
Really glad to hear that you are well again. Thank you so much for your post.

Go ahead and explore the implications of seeing that the "I" that was assumed is a product of thought.

This is really good to here. It has opened things up a lot.
This was from your previous post and I am struck by the new meaning it has now.

To differentiate between thought content and experience is the key for the whole path.

I am having trouble putting things into words but this has become clearer to me.

Much of the time the difference between imagining the implications and seeing thing as experience is indistinct. I have been constantly struck by the thought, yes this is just experience. What else could it be? Sometimes I ask this a a rhetorical question but sometimes I go in and explore. Thought, I remind myself is not being created by a little 'me' entity. I can look and see that is right. Hearing, seeing, sensation are not split into, thing being done, do-er, doing.

There can be a lot of exploring but there is also a strong sense of looking at what is, like the quote at the end of your posts.

In the seen just the seen. In the heard just the heard.

There are thoughts such as 'things seem more detached now'. 'I' can see that it is just a thought. Thought can ask what is more detached from what? All of this is just experience.

I have been unwell for the last couple of days. Nothing serious just a bad cold. It does seem to make looking harder. I am exploring that. I don't think it should.

Best wishes,
Mav.

[Ghata]

Hi Mav,

I hope your cold will get better soon.

Thought, I remind myself is not being created by a little 'me' entity. I can look and see that is right. Hearing, seeing, sensation are not split into, thing being done, do-er, doing.

Right. Next time you look and find out there is no doer, look into the implications of that. It is clearly seen that there is no doer. What are the full implications of there being no doer?

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hi Mav,

I hope your cold will get better soon.

Thank you. I have to make a fuss. I hope you understand.

Right. Next time you look and find out there is no doer, look into the implications of that. It is clearly seen that there is no doer. What are the full implications of there being no doer?

This question has been great at getting me to see were I am at with this.
I can get to first base, I can see that it means that things are JUST seen. It means that there is no see-er of things seen, as that would be a do-er, but I can't see the implications of that.
The fact that there is no me has been taken very lightly even though it's a big deal. I think this lack of reaction is because I can't see the implications.

Thank you for your question. Does this give you a clear picture of where I am at Ghata?
Mav

[Ghata]

Dear Mav,

What is in the way of allowing the full impact of there being no doer and no see-er to hit you?

Don't think about this question. Next time you established again that there is no entity doing all these things, ask yourself :

What if this is really true what is seen, that here is no I who thinks, experiences, decides and acts?

What reactions are coming up, feelings, body sensations and thoughts?

Sending love,
Ghata

[Mav]

Hello Ghata,
 

What if this is really true what is seen, that here is no I who thinks, experiences, decides and acts?

What reactions are coming up, feelings, body sensations and thoughts?

There is a slight feeling of anxiety at not knowing the answer, in my stomach and throat.
Thought that I do know these things, but can't see it ultra clearly.
Thought that I can't imagine pleasure and pain being something experienced as just seen. I realise that that is how they are already are, and always have been but I can't get my head around that one at all. They seem to matter strongly to something.
Feeling of frustration.
I realise all of this is just seen.

Thank you.
Mav