‘No doer of the deed is found...’

[Seamist]

Hi Sara

When looking in the mirror there is no connection between felt sensations and the image. It is an almost laughable experience to see how little correlation there is

yes! great

The image in the mirror doesn’t point to ‘me’. It is colours and shapes.

Turning away from the mirror, the experience of ‘body’ is only sensations.

‘I am walking’, is a thought that makes sense of the shifting sensations. No such thing as ‘walking’ can be found.

These are all great noticings, well done!

Next...
1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

You can repeat the exercise with all of body parts. For the head you can use a mirror.

x PK

[River1]

I can see that the sensations do not come from the hand. Sensations and visual sight are both present but not linked.

[Seamist]

Good. More from me in the morning
X

[Seamist]

Carry on doing the exercise, but this time with different body parts

[River1]

Sensation is not coming from the object seen, whether hand, foot, head etc. Sensation is happening, as is sight, but neither is the source of the other. That the sensation is coming from 'foot' is a thought.

[Seamist]

Great, if you haven't already done so, do the head now

[River1]

With the head I find the same thing - there is sensation, theres is colour and shape, and thought that labels the visual information as ‘head’. Thought also links the sensation with the visual impression, which involves an idea of space, giving the idea that sensation is coming from the head. However, I can see that sensation and visual sight are occuring simultaenously but are not dependant on each other.

[Seamist]

The usual belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body as a separate item is responsible or 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc

We will begin with 'seeing' - Just that one sense on its own.

Close your eyes.
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.

Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

x

[River1]

When I close my eyes I see ‘blackness’, nothing else. I can’t find what is witnessing the blackness. There is only blackness. There is the thought, ‘I am seeing blackness’, but this is just a thought. I can’t find a me. I notice that I try to find me, the witness, behind the eyes. But there is nothing to find that is separate from the blackness. The idea of see-er is a thought, a concept.

[Seamist]

good. nice simple answer!

Let's move on to opening the eyes now.
Again, address this very simply - The 'seeing' sense only for the moment.

With eyes open, a world of objects appears . . . a room . . . a computer screen etc
What you can specifically see isn't of interest here, and whatever it is, I am simply going to refer to it as 'what can be seen'.
This might be a little more tricky, but give it some consideration.

1) With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'what can be seen' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?
3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Justin be found that is witnessing 'what can be seen'? Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

x PK

[River1]

Hi Prabhakari,
With eyes open, I experience ‘what can be seen’, and nothing else. I can’t find what is witnessing. I can’t find a ‘me’ that is ‘seeing’.

In doing this exercise I notice there is an idea of a consciousness/ that ‘recieves’ the visual information. When I try to find this ‘consciousness’ I can’t, and there are moments in which it feels very clear that there is no ‘see-er’. And then there returns this vague sense that these is an ‘awareness’ in which ‘seeing’ is happening. When I look closer at what this ‘sense’ actually is, I find that it is just thoughts. The ‘sense’ is just an idea about what is happening. All there is in actual experience is ‘what can be seen’.

[Seamist]

Morning Sara,
You're doing great! Well done. That's excellent noticing.

Look at whatever is in front of you. It is seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?
Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

xx

[River1]

When I look at what’s in front of me it’s like a windscreen view.
I can’t find seeing separate from what’s seen.
There is no awareness separate from experience, there is only experience. Any sense of a separate awareness is an idea.

Sara x

[Seamist]

Good again.
What about...
Find somewhere quiet to sit. Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.
1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

You might chose to leave this to the morning, of curse!
x

[River1]

Hi Prabhakari,

In hearing there is only 'what is heard'. What is doing the hearing cannot be found. There is no inherent hearer.

When doing this practice I notice that with hearing quickly arises image and thought - 'mum is putting dishes away', which, among other things, creates a strong sense of an external world in which noise is being made.
I also noticed that when I try to' just listen' I can then find myself in the mode of 'the watcher'. It is only when I allow experience to happen, and drop the effort of the observer, that the sense of a self witnessing the experience falls away.