hide and seek

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

You did a nice looking.

Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s start to investigate them, and see what they really are.
Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has two main ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”


So when an emotion is present, identify the sensation, and investigate:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

So when an emotion is present, identify the sensation, and investigate:
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

No. The pure sensation coincident with emotion is plain and unadorned. It has no description. It’s just a sensation. Thought content labels the sensation with the story of, fear, excitement, etc.

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Happy, sad, good and bad etc. are thought labels on the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

The pure sensation is totally neutral. There are no words for it.

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

Sadness, sorrow and suffering all are found within thought stories.
They aren’t actual.

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Yes, I can see this. A sufferer implies a doer like anything else, and is a product of thought content.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

The pure sensation coincident with emotion is plain and unadorned. It has no description. It’s just a sensation. Thought content labels the sensation with the story of, fear, excitement, etc.

Yes. Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant? And only the labels make them seemingly different?

The sensations are all the same. Only the labels describe differences.

So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes, all the same. Only the labels are different.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

No, it’s simple and not dramatic and can’t be described.
Only thought content is pleasant of unpleasant.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

No, it’s simple and not dramatic and can’t be described.
Only thought content is pleasant or unpleasant.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Only thought content is pleasant or unpleasant.

Yes. And the illusionary self’s main concern is the pleasant and unpleasant sensations. It ‘wants’ to avoid all unpleasant/uncomfortable sensations at all cost, and longs for and clings to the pleasant sensations. It ignores the neutral sensations. Almost all thoughts when taken seriously (as reality) accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant sensations, and thus decisions on behalf of the self is based on these sensations, about wanting and not wanting these sensations. The sensations sometimes can be subtle, but even with the subtle ones, thoughts of wanting and not wanting follows them. Although, it might seem that there is a resistance (not wanting) to a thought, or an idea, or a situation, but actually the resulting sensation is being resisted, not the thought itself, since the sensation gives the quality of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the situation or other person or thought, etc.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no actual ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

As soon as we ignore the thoughts, labels and visual thoughts, staying only with the sensation, the sensation gradually lessens or even dissipates since it’s no longer fuelled by the thoughts and images. So, if in the future when something triggers a strong reaction, and lots of thought proliferation about ‘me’ occur, you can focus on the pure sensation, so the intensity can lessen, so it will be easier to see that the ‘me’, that the whole story revolves around, is fictionary. That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent verbal and visual thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are simply not happening.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien[

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Yes. For example, it is the seizing in the heart and stomach that makes fear so unpleasant. But examined closely, these sensations are actually not disturbing alone, but the thought that accompanies them makes the drama.

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes

.
There were a few occasions today when activities were thought to be disturbing, but putting the thoughts aside and looking closely at the sensations, the importance of the upset faded and the action continued softly and peacefully. The sensations were inconsequential alone. And when thoughts are not believed they fade quickly.

And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no actual ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

Yes, wanting is just more thought, and not wanting is the same. Belief in thought is shaken.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Yes, wanting is just more thought, and not wanting is the same. Belief in thought is shaken.

Nice looking.

Now, let’s investigate the notion of awareness or consciousness, or in other words the knower.

When it’s seen that a seer, taster, smeller, feeler, thinker, etc. cannot be found, the identification often goes to the seeming appearance of a self-existent, self-aware awareness, which is the knower of everything that appears.
So the identification with the body and the senses (feeler, hearer, thinker, etc) is replaced with a subtle form of identification, “I am that which is aware”…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object). And the identification with awareness is an excellent hiding place for the separate self.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?

This belief has been with me for many years, and certainly it was an instant refuge when this investigation began, but a recognized refuge, not. one to be believed in. For many years I thought that staying with the ‘witness’ would resolve things, but it was not so. Now the witness is seen to be the content of thought and not actuality.

Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

The idea of a stand alone independent awareness has been seen to be the not true content of thought. What is is still quite mysterious.

But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

It can’t be found in actuality, only in thought content. That is where something doing something comes up.

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought. Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

Nothing can be separated from anything.

Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Trying to separate something is a thought already. ‘I’ can’t
do anything.

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?

Dividing lines are thoughts; No dividing line can actually be found.

Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

No.

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

No.

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?

No independent knower can be found.

In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Knowing and known spring up simultaneously. Can't see one without the other.

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

This is a very spacey exercise. The mind halts and is empty. No conclusion is reached. I could spend more time looking at this.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

This belief has been with me for many years, and certainly it was an instant refuge when this investigation began, but a recognized refuge, not. one to be believed in. For many years I thought that staying with the ‘witness’ would resolve things, but it was not so. Now the witness is seen to be the content of thought and not actuality.

All right. If this had been a belief for many years, then let’s dig a bit deeper here just to make sure that nothing has left of this belief.

So let’s investigate the witness a bit:

Is there still a SEEMING appearance of a witness?
If yes, where is it located?

Is it possible that certain sensations in or of the head is labelled as ‘witness’?

Is the witness separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how is it known that witness is what notices?
Does the witness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can be pointed to a witness?

Is witness something other than, different to, or separate from experience?
Can anything be found at all that is witnessing, or there is just experience?

V: Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

F: This is a very spacey exercise. The mind halts and is empty. No conclusion is reached. I could spend more time looking at this.

After looking at it more, what have you found?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

So let’s investigate the witness a bit:
Is there still a SEEMING appearance of a witness?

Yes

If yes, where is it located?

Seems to be in the head behind the eyes.

Is it possible that certain sensations in or of the head is labelled as ‘witness’?

Hmmmm. There is a sensation of tension, but that is the same tension that is present with every thought and emotion. I think the label is more connected to the question, “What the heck am I!? All this stuff being experienced and no one to lay claim to it. It’s a long long habit.

Is the witness separate from all the rest?

There really isn’t a witness, it’s just an idea.

Noticing happens - how is it known that witness is what notices?

It isn’t known that witness is what notices. It’s just the cultural logic that requires a doer for everything. The witness can’t really be found. It’s the content of a thought.

Does the witness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can be pointed to a witness?

No shape, location or weight. Can’t be pointed to, only thought about.

Is witness something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

Well, it’s the content of a certain thought experience.

Can anything be found at all that is witnessing, or there is just experience?

There is just experience. Clean and fresh, no middleman.

After looking at it more, what have you found?

Simplicity and peace.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

V: If yes, where is it located?

F: Seems to be in the head behind the eyes.

V: Is it possible that certain sensations in or of the head is labelled as ‘witness’?

F: Hmmmm. There is a sensation of tension, but that is the same tension that is present with every thought and emotion.

It’s important to emphasize that the self is not just simply a thought/concept. The sensation that is mistakenly labelled as me plays a huge role in the seeming appearance of ‘sense of self’.

So there is a plain sensation, like a pressure in the head, and thoughts label this sensation as ‘me’.

So the reason why the ‘me’ SEEMS or FEELS so real, is because the sensation is real. The sensation is there.
And since this sensation is labelled as ‘me’: BUMMM! The seeming sense of self appears.
So the sensation is giving the ‘reality effect’ to the thought concept of ‘me’.
Can you see this?

I think the label is more connected to the question, “What the heck am I!? All this stuff being experienced and no one to lay claim to it. It’s a long long habit.

The question: Who I am? – is based on the belief that “I AM” and I just have to figure out who/what I am.
So this question points to the wrong direction. It is pointing to look for an OBJECT (who am I?) and not to the seeming subject (Am I at all?).

With the question: Who am I? – attention and searching is directed to the object of identification, and not to the subject that is identifying. So the subject can ‘hide’ in the background without ever even looking there. Since the focus is on the objects.

There could be a never ending list of objects of identification, with a never ending search. It could take years and years of looking at objects, without every occurring to look at the subject directly. As if the solution would be at south, but you were constantly focusing to the direction of north.

Why not go directly to the source of the illusion and bypassing all the effort of looking at the objects of deification? It’s like looking for the needle in the haystack, while all along the needle has been in my hand without realizing it.

So here is a question that points to south: “WHERE is the I?” or – this question doesn’t assume that “I AM”, but rather asks to find its location. So this question is pointing to look for the SUBJECT. It is pointing to search for the thing itself. It doesn’t make the statement that this thing (I) exists, rather it’s ask to search for its existence, if there is any. Can you see this?
-
Now let’s examine the notion of awareness a bit more just to make sure that everything is clear.

Awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails us, due to its dualistic nature.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

So the sensation is giving the ‘reality effect’ to the thought concept of ‘me’.
Can you see this?

Yes, thought concepts need something to attach to to legitimize themselves.

It doesn’t make the statement that this thing (I) exists, rather it’s ask to search for its existence, if there is any. Can you see this?

Where is the ‘I’? The ‘I’ is in thought. There it can attach to many things, sensation is immediately available.

But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Yes, that is quite clear.

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

I’m trying to imagine what awareness would be without anything to be aware of. I’ll spend the rest of the day on that.
(day passes).
So I can imagine awareness without an object, but there is no experience of that awareness without an object, so no, there is no stand alone awareness.

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

Yes, that’s where the sense of self departs, when there is no separated awareness or separated something to be aware of.

Thank you for your elucidation

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Where is the ‘I’? The ‘I’ is in thought. There it can attach to many things, sensation is immediately available.

Since the label ‘I’ is often attached to a sensation, it’s important to not just see the ‘I’ as a thought, but more importantly to FEEL the sensation only as a plain sensation.

The body identification is nothing else than the ‘I’ label applied to a sensation.
So the label needs to be ‘separated’ form the sensation.
And it’s not enough to know that it’s just a thought label on a sensation, but the sensation needs to be FELT again and again only as a plain sensation. No different than any other sensation, like the sensations labelled ‘the sole of the feet’.

So in the next few day, please focus on the sensations that are labelled as ‘me’, and just spend a couple of minutes feeling those sensations as sensations. Nothing more, nothing less. Just what they are - sensations.

Do this as many times as you can during the day. Let me know how it goes.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Since the label ‘I’ is often attached to a sensation, it’s important to not just see the ‘I’ as a thought, but more importantly to FEEL the sensation only as a plain sensation.

Hi Vivien,
Just to touch in:
Plain sensation is enough. "i' am not needed. Happy to spend some time looking at this.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Just to touch in:
Plain sensation is enough. "i' am not needed. Happy to spend some time looking at this.

Is there an ‘I’ that is not needed?
The ‘I’ is not needed for what/who?

What we are investigating here is whether the label ‘me’ on a sensation is a correct label or not.
If the sensation is actually a me/self, or it’s just a plain everyday sensation. Nothing more.

Treat thoughts as just voices-off. Ignore them. Focus on the sensations, the one's that feel most me-like.

See them as sensations - only. Like a sensation in the foot, or stomach, or hand, or head. Sensations. Radically ordinary. Bereft of meaning.

So for the next few days, I would like to ask you to focus your attention to this sensation as often as you can during the day (hundreds of times).

Just keep the attention on the sensation, and just make a repeated recognition that this sensation is just a sensation. Nothing more.

So just FEEL the sensation as sensation.
The task is to see what is there for what it is.
To give things their true name.
A sensation in the head is a sensation.

And see this again and again and again and again….. hundreds of times.
Please let me know how it goes.

Vivien