The Gate

Hi Maks
I'm just checking up on you.You said you will write on Friday...
What happened with the therapist?
What is your decision with respect to the enquiry?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Sorry for this pause. I kind of "needed" it though of course in terms of realization it'd be better to maintain momentum.

That's a thing I noticed: the self inquiry was just more interesting at first and now it's turned frustrating and boring. I know I won't find a self and yet I keep repeating the same question and wondering if I'm doing it right etc. That's ok now, I'd like to keep at it through the boring and the frustrating.

The therapist didn't work out. I've got these free consultations through work and we've had two meetings and she basically told me that she does more of a coaching thing and where I'm at is a bit above her paygrade and she recommends longer term therapy. Maybe I'll do it still but I've also chilled out a bit about it.

I've done some looking at the resistance on my own and it's all basically a story that's believed but I can tell it nonetheless. I notice that I tend to "honor" or believe emotions more if they are sad and not question sadness as much.

So at the bottom of a loooot of behaviours in my life there is a very strong, very energetic fear of death. It's a label for a strong prickling sensation. It feels like electricity throughout the entire body and it can get very intense. It's ok to stay with the sensation, even if it feels incredibly strong, it's sort of benign, and besides: it needs all that energy ;D it's doing an important job keeping me from death (as it sees things).

There's this belief that I'm on my own - a loneliness but even more so, it's like an abandonment. I've been raised by my mother but at this point she needs taking care of more than she is someone I can turn to with a problem. My dad died when I was very young so I didn't know him and there isn't any other family in the picture. There's this feeling that noone else really genuinely cares. Not my friends, not my girlfriend, not my coworkers. Everyone is concerned with themselves. So I need to keep up a sort of facade, a mask of a likable and lovable person in order not to be abandoned. It feels like my survival is threatend whenever I'm rejected or when the mask is seen through.

These beliefs came about as a necessary consequence of my childhood when I've had an incredibly hard time connecting to people socially because of some degree of autism. And I was or am still quite sensitive to emotions. Also I've had this recognition that "oh shit, people are mostly incompetent". This fear of death thing comes from this being lost in an incomprehensible world that I found myself in that I didn't have the tools to handle.

Reflecting on it now it feels like this fear isn't really necessary anymore. The behaviours it drives are problematic but basically the conditions changed quite a lot and I'm no longer dependent on others for most things. If I picture life without this fear, even if no other strong motivating force appeared and with no plan whatsoever I'd most likely be just fine winging it.

I've been stressing about work the past weeks but I'm taking 3 weeks vacation now starting on monday. I'd like to go forward with the inquiry throughout this time and beyond. I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. I was feeling ashamed that my heart wasn't in it and that I might disappear again so it's better now when there's less going on.

I guess I could write a list of these "limiting belief" type of thoughts that keep bouncing around so you know where I'm at:
I'm too cerebral to get it.
Even if I get it I'll naturally regress. I'll need to spend lots of time every day stabilizing the insight so what's the point.
I'm deluding myself with any thoughts of progress.
I'm doing it wrong.
You're pointing it out in a wrong way :D it's like preconceptions about how this should work that want to be affirmed, not challenged by you.

I tried the exercises you suggested focused on finding the decider. With the hand exercise I found that even disregarding the hand there's lots of movements the body makes that didn't have any decision behind them. Just happening on it's own all the time. Then the thought came "so what's the point of ever thinking about this person that's in control?" And a moment later the entire body became viscerally felt. And it's frustrating that I can't just stay with this feeling. Already the thought comes "oh this is it" or "is this it?" and carries me away into a cacophony of thoughts.

You described your current state as an "addiction." Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

That's what I meant when I said "it's like an addiction". The view forming tendency is super strong and I don't know how to stay neutral with regard to thoughts. That time when I saw through it it lasted for hours and then I could feel the doubt thoughts taking hold even though they were semi-seen as only doubt. That's so tragic like I could feel it slipping away but I don't even know where the door is anymore. There clearly is a mental move that results in clear seeing but it's so obscure. Where is this lever? It was right there and now I'm completely at a loss trying to find it.

Hope everything is good on your end!
Let me know what you think and thank you for what you already did for me :)

Love
Maks

Hi Maks

I’m sorry to hear that the therapist was not very helpful! Therapy and inquiry are quite different when addressing suffering. Therapy is primarily focused on exploring the personal narratives that people construct around their experiences. It aims to uncover the often unconscious beliefs that underpin an individual's thoughts, feelings, and actions. This process involves bringing these beliefs to the surface and examining their validity and helpfulness
It also helps develop practical tools and strategies to regulate emotions, cope with stress, and navigate challenging situations. The key difference with inquiry is that therapy often gets caught in the "story," analysing its details and implications, while inquiry prioritises direct experience, encouraging the feeling the sensations and emotions associated with beliefs without getting lost in the narrative, experiencing them right now. Also the story is seen as empty – like puzzle pieces that fit nicely together, but at its core, the puzzle pieces were not reality (think concepts of apple and cups of coffee). Therapy also operates under the assumption of a "self" that needs to be healed or improved, while inquiry aims to deconstruct the illusion of self, recognizing it as a mental construct rather than an inherent reality. Of course just saying “the self does not exist so problem solved” is bypassing. These patterns need to be seen as what they really are – a misunderstanding, an illusion. When the beliefs were formed, you didn’t have the tools or the capacity to question them, and they’ve been around for a long time growing roots. But now you do. Therapy could be useful in identifying these core beliefs, as sometimes they are hidden under layers of other beliefs, which later can be used in inquiry as tools for exploring.

But let’s go back to “sadness”/”loneliness” and explore it the DE way…
You can do two things:
1. Look for the entity that is sad – pretend that you don’t know the answer and really look, trying to find it, look at the usual and unusual places even if you’ve looked before, Otherwise it’s bypassing

2. Welcome the sadness and allow all the feelings. Let feelings come and listen to the stories that come from them. This is very simple but extremely effective.

Usually one of the two will feel more natural so listen to your intuition.
…
1. Is there an experiencer of sadness? Which body sensations are present as proof for its existance? Is this truly the ‘experiencer’? How is it known?
Can experience labelled as 'sensation' ever arise without the knowing of it? When you look, can you find where a sensation ends and the knowing of it begins? Is there a dividing line between a sensation (which is known) and the knowing of the sensation, or are they one and the same thing? Are there knowing AND known or just knowingknown (experincingsensation)?

2. Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘sadness’, what is the sensation itself? What is there if the story of “I need to keep up a sort of facade, a mask of a likable and lovable person in order not to be abandoned’ is removed? There is an icky sensation, right?

Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration)
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?
It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.
Is it really unpleasant? Is the actual sensation itself unpleasant, or is unpleasantness added by thought? Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘sadness’ or ‘loneliness’?
Is there any inherent sadness in the sensation itself? Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘sadness’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation of “tightness or constriction” felt in the chest, throat, or abdomen what is the difference between them? A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.

That's a thing I noticed: the self inquiry was just more interesting at first and now it's turned frustrating and boring. I know I won't find a self and yet I keep repeating the same question and wondering if I'm doing it right etc. That's ok now, I'd like to keep at it through the boring and the frustrating.

It boils down to expectations. If you treat the inquiry as a fast relief from all your problems, of course it will be disappointing – it will not change the actual experience (i.e remove unpleasant sensations). It only changes perceptions remember, it cannot change what IS happening (e.g. sensations). The house of suffering is built on unfulfilled expectations, unmet wants and desires. Seeking is based on the expectation of finding lasting happiness by trying to fix something that is not as it should be. Of course, the tension is here because of the fear that expectations won’t be met. The feelings of boredom, frustration, sadness, shame, guilt, blame, anger, desperation, and hopelessness, are all close friends of expectation. If one can let go of wants, shoulds, and should nots, triggers are released too. This moment is perfect because it can’t be any other way, it is how it is supposed to be right now. Acknoledging that you really don't know how it is supposed to be (you don't have all the information) and it is not in your control, could be really freeing. No more expectations, no more fear that they won’t be met, no more resistance to what is here now.
So you see you are trying to find some proof that you've seen (like a sign from above) as your current experience has not changed but you are forgetting that the self never existed in the first place – there were only patterns of thoughts. These thoughts do not automatically fall away – they have to be seen as they appear, only then the perception changes. Expecting that all will fall into place by itself, could be just an intellectual bypassing. If you experienced a judgement out of that like YOU have not seen through the illusion, then you might inquire where is that “you” that is doing the inquiry? What passes through the gate?

It may also be helpful to inquire into “boredom” and “frustration” and the entity that is bored and frustrated, in a similar way to "sadness"

Even if I get it I'll naturally regress. I'll need to spend lots of time every day stabilizing the insight so what's the point.
I'm deluding myself with any thoughts of progress.
I'm doing it wrong.

What is doing the inquiry? What is outside of experience to stabilise the insights, what is progressing and doing it wrong? Are you in charge of these thoughts, their thinker, their listener? What is underneath all of these thoughts? LOOK! Don’t draw conclusions!
Love
Rali

Hey Rali,

I've been busy with trip preparations and I'll spend most of tomorrow on planes but I have been looking. I don't have a complete answer yet and don't want to post a partial one so I'm just letting you know today.

Love
Maks

Hey Maks

Safe flight!

Love
Rali

Hey Maks
It's been a while... Are you still interested?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

I'm still going at the inquiry. I felt that the method that's used here at LU was presupposing an ability to distinguishing thoughts from DE to a degree that just wasn't the case for me. The thoughts too easily hijacked the narrative without noticing.

Instead I've been focusing on just the thoughts and what they are which cleared up a lot and allows DE of the senses to shine through. It's only from that slowed down thought space that I'm looking for the self, the one thinking and deciding.

I also noticed that it's important that I do the inquiry early when I'm rested and alert or alternatively as I'm falling asleep. It's like the construction of a self falls asleep first and then for a moment there's an awareness without me.

The last week I'm really drawn to sitting down and doing this kind of inquiry which is ironic because it's exactly this "need to fix the perceived problem" energy that is at the root of the self. It looks like the belief in self is upholding a mechanism that constantly looks to pin down a context in which it finds itself and to define what problem it faces. And then with a problem identified thoughts rush in looking for solutions. So this recent obsession is more of a seeing that all the other "problems" are futile in comparison because they don't address the root.

The experience of inquiry goes something like this: I sit down, close my eyes, focus on DE of a sound or sensation for a moment to settle in, thoughts begin to be noticed. Then I just notice them without a goal to settle in deeper because they are still sticky and the narrative could take over if directly questioned. After a while I look for the I in them. The I they are talking about is easy to disidentify from as it's part of the thought but there's also an implied I that isn't part of the content, it's the context for the thought. So for example. "It got really quiet" implies that there's someone who noticed this and comments on it. When I look where that context-I is coming from it's this assumption "because I exist it's me who thought this". Through this assumption the I gets injected into the context of everything that's happening. It's rather crass how many contradictory positions it's willing to take just to satisfy that assumption. It claims everything no matter how bizarre that makes it look.

At times it seems like there's a never ending torrent of these thoughts and they come in labeling, describing, disputing, analyzing or doubting this inquiry as it's happening and it's a back and forth of getting hypnotized and disidentifying from individual thoughts. They are trying to help by remembering useful pointings or by summarizing the experience so it can be accessed later etc. I'm aware that none of this is necessary and that there's peace just beneath all this obscuration. In this there's some identification with awareness as in "you don't need to help, you can't help, you can't know it, it's already known".

The last days I've been hitting a pretty intense "fear barrier" which isn't necessarily so much about fear as it's just the body reacting to the recognition of futility of the view-formation mechanism from a place of quiet and then thoughts interpreting what "I" must be feeling. There's the heart racing and pounding, breathing picking up and it can last five or ten minutes. Thoughts become more agitated then and are either catastrophizing or get excited like "yay it's happening". In this "meditation" there's a kind of flattening of thoughts: while previously there have been ones that are obviously not mine interspersed with some that felt like they are the case, now all of them are noticed and have the same light quality.

Yesterday as this fear thing was ending I felt like there's a scary step that can be taken though I didn't. Nevertheless experience noticably changed and became crisper. The warmth, sweatiness and softness in the palms of the hands became immediate, the yellow of the curtains, the deep redness of the sofa contrasting with the blueness of a towel. The floor appeared almost blindingly bright. There was also no time at all. For like half an hour lol.

So as you see the tendency to make a thing of this and to conceptualize and get attached to these concepts is really strong. I'm not sure why I'm writing to you, seems obvious that I should just keep going. Well the problem-obsessed I hopes you might have some input still.

I guess it's this same uncertainty that's fueling the constant view-forming. I'm scared of the strength of it and that this tendency will reinstantiate a self even after this realization, probably in some hidden form. So for example I want to deepen this realization as soon as possible and imagine that breaking fetters 4 and 5 could soften this pull. And then I think that probably going deeper still is required so that it becomes unmissable in every moment.

All probably sounding psychotic from your point of view haha.

I hope you've been well Rali :)

Love
Maks

Hi Maks
I’m glad to hear from you and I’m happy you are still doing the inquiry :)

The experience of inquiry goes something like this: I sit down, close my eyes, focus on DE of a sound or sensation for a moment to settle in, thoughts begin to be noticed. Then I just notice them without a goal to settle in deeper because they are still sticky and the narrative could take over if directly questioned. After a while I look for the I in them. The I they are talking about is easy to disidentify from as it's part of the thought but there's also an implied I that isn't part of the content, it's the context for the thought. So for example. "It got really quiet" implies that there's someone who noticed this and comments on it. When I look where that context-I is coming from it's this assumption "because I exist it's me who thought this". Through this assumption the I gets injected into the context of everything that's happening. It's rather crass how many contradictory positions it's willing to take just to satisfy that assumption. It claims everything no matter how bizarre that makes it look.

You won’t find answers in thought. They are just absurd when you have a closer look at them :)) (or at least most of them). The thought "It got really quiet" doesn’t imply anything. It is just a description of sound. The thought “someone who noticed this and comments on it” – that’s a different story. What is this description based on? Where is this listener/noticer/commentator in DE ( not in thought)? Can it be heard, smelled, tasted, felt or seen?

I felt that the method that's used here at LU was presupposing an ability to distinguishing thoughts from DE to a degree that just wasn't the case for me. The thoughts too easily hijacked the narrative without noticing.

The presence of thoughts together with the rest of the senses are just labels for DE. In reality what IS cannot be split into parts, only labels do that. Yes thoughts are inseparable from the rest of the experience, but it is possible to distinguish the difference between what thoughts say and what the actual experience is. Like when you say “the wind is blowing hard”, is there an entity “wind” that is doing the blowing? Similarly, when you say “I’m thinking; I’m doing; I’m reading, I’m lying in bed”, where is this I that is doing these things? Is it the body? Can sensations (labelled “body”) do things or they just are (just appearing)?

The last days I've been hitting a pretty intense "fear barrier" which isn't necessarily so much about fear as it's just the body reacting to the recognition of futility of the view-formation mechanism from a place of quiet and then thoughts interpreting what "I" must be feeling. There's the heart racing and pounding, breathing picking up and it can last five or ten minutes. Thoughts become more agitated then and are either catastrophizing or get excited like "yay it's happening". In this "meditation" there's a kind of flattening of thoughts: while previously there have been ones that are obviously not mine interspersed with some that felt like they are the case, now all of them are noticed and have the same light quality.

THIS/what IS is not about special states or accomplishments. It’s about everyday normal stuff. There never was an “I” so what will happen when the illusion of “I” is seen? The illusion of a mirage is just that an illusion. It does not change the landscape in any way. It was just what the landscape was believed to be. So what do you expect will change?
In simple everyday life, what is happening is happening. Seeming decisions are made, seeming actions are taken, seeming things get done. Thinking about what should be done, thinking about what needs to be done, and planning the next step flow with whatever is happening. Hands and feet are doing their thing and thoughts are flying by. What is in control of that? Think about it. If I ask “What is in control of the weather?,” what would your answer be? Thoughts? Clouds? Or maybe the wind?
What we change here is just perceptions – what we think we are experiencing. What the inquiry shows is that nothing that thoughts talk about exists. The content of thoughts is empty of intrinsic existance. You can see thoughts as approximations of what IS, like tools. I like the analogy with the icons on your desktop. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

I guess it's this same uncertainty that's fueling the constant view-forming. I'm scared of the strength of it and that this tendency will reinstantiate a self even after this realization, probably in some hidden form. So for example I want to deepen this realization as soon as possible and imagine that breaking fetters 4 and 5 could soften this pull. And then I think that probably going deeper still is required so that it becomes unmissable in every moment.

Did YOU come up with the thought “this tendency will reinstantiate a self even after this realization, probably in some hidden form”? Were you the thinker of this thought, or it just appeared? What makes it yours? Were you the experiencer/listener? How exactly did you do that (describe in detail)?

Once you see there is no self, you cannot unsee it. There are only doubtful thoughts that claim the opposite and that is known. I can see how the pull with going further can be tempting, but this is exactly why you shouldn’t do it. The “I” is the big planner, checking boxes and accomplishing things, making sure there is no going back :))). This could be an “awesome” bypassing. Once you see there is no I in any form or shape (including awareness) with absolute certainty, only then you can go and look into these. Knowing that there is no I that likes or dislikes makes looking into the mechanics of these possible. Otherwise, you are creating an enlightened story with “awareness” being the main character. Sounds familiar???
Love
Rali

Thanks Rali,

That's helpful. Could you clarify: do you think this other practice of "disidentifying" from thoughts, specifically in a kind of meditative space, is without prospects? It's like repeatedly noticing I'm lost in thought and stepping back from the narrative content into a wider thing and the DE of the senses becoming more pronounced. Like in the movie watching analogy you used.

In the limit there's this noticing of the story of a me who notices which isn't something I can do (because that would be another story), it sort of happens when all effort towards it is removed. It's like a forgetting of me. And then sorry I will describe it in these words there's the feeling of something opening it's eyes which isn't me.

Do you see this as clearly a dead end? Could be identifying with "awareness", idk. It's at least "working" in the sense of generating an error signal whereas the questions you ask feel so slippery. No, obviously there is nothing in control of the weather. It's easy to see how this translates 1:1 to thoughts, hands and feet. Maybe it's best to just look like you suggest.

Love
Maks

What is this description based on? Where is this listener/noticer/commentator in DE ( not in thought)? Can it be heard, smelled, tasted, felt or seen?

It cannot be heard, cannot be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. Things that are seen, heard, tasted, smelled or felt cannot own anything. It's only in thoughts that an owner of experience comes up and claims things. It's not clear how that would work. There are these words like hearing but clearly not actually heard. They come with no location, a tone of voice, an understanding of the intended personality of the "subject" and if the words are ambiguous the meaning is nevertheless clear. I don't know what makes them "accurate" or "inaccurate". Some feel like knowledge and some are speculative or absurd but what constitutes the difference is unclear.

is there an entity “wind” that is doing the blowing?

The wind is a name for something that happens but there isn't anything blowing that's apart from the blowing itself.

where is this I that is doing these things? Is it the body? Can sensations (labelled “body”) do things or they just are (just appearing)?

I was making pizza yesterday. The thoughts weren't narrating the process too much and I was just looking at what's happening. Dough being kneaded, arms and legs moving... no I to be found. Kind of disorienting. May be thoughts of uncertainty appearing idk.

so what will happen when the illusion of “I” is seen?

Nothing other than what's already happening.

So what do you expect will change?

Yeah there's an expectation that there should be an experiential confirmation that "I've arrived" for it to be undoubtable.

the next step flow with whatever is happening. Hands and feet are doing their thing and thoughts are flying by. What is in control of that?

It doesn't feel like it's me in control of them when they happen "without being noticed". Reflecting on them in retrospect there was no I. I'm not sure what "without being noticed" exactly means because they must have been noticed to reflect on them a moment later. The feeling is different if thoughts are explicitly narrating a choice or activity. They don't necessarily keep up with what the hands are doing but the activity of the hands is clearly informed by the thoughts and there's a back and forth where they try to confirm or contradict each other when I'm trying to figure out where the I is in this.

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

The email icon isn't a box and can't contain any mail in it.

Did YOU come up with the thought “this tendency will reinstantiate a self even after this realization, probably in some hidden form”? Were you the thinker of this thought, or it just appeared? What makes it yours? Were you the experiencer/listener? How exactly did you do that (describe in detail)?

When the thoughts are appearing the I is the one that speaks them. A moment later when another thought appears, for example poking holes in the previous one, I'm no longer the speaker of the first thought, I'm the listener that took in the first thought and is now speaking the second thought... it doesn't make much sense that I'm switching persons like that. It feels like I can now decide to speak the thought "am I the speaker of this thought?". And now thoughts are trying to piece together how it would be distinguishable if the thoughts "just appeared" without being mine. "What makes this thought mine?". I guess everything coming up in response "just appears". Does it matter at all that there are like two different "levels" of thoughts? There are like really quick and less verbal and more meaning-based thoughts that pop up all the time and feel more like they are just appearing and then there are "words spoken in my mind by me" that are slower, more deliberate and more like hearing.

story with “awareness” being the main character. Sounds familiar???

Yeah this rings very true. Makes sense to do the first step first.

Love
Maks

It feels like there is an intentionality in the thinking, like a search is running. A question or a beginning of a sentence comes up and then many possible continuations are iterated through until the "right one" is encountered. Then I is what does the recognizing that it fits. Many nebulous meaning blips flash up, are judged, and die down until one that is known to "fit" is found. Then it's sounded out in the mind to continue the central thought. How does that intentionality, that judging work without an I or a something that does it?

Hi Maks
I'm away on a holiday. I thought I could do it but the internet is quite spotty. I'll be back on Saturday and we can continue. I apologise for the delay!
Love
Rali

No worries, enjoy your holiday!

Hi Maks
I’m sorry for the delay!

The experience of inquiry goes something like this: I sit down, close my eyes, focus on DE of a sound or sensation for a moment to settle in, thoughts begin to be noticed. Then I just notice them without a goal to settle in deeper because they are still sticky and the narrative could take over if directly questioned. After a while I look for the I in them. The I they are talking about is easy to disidentify from as it's part of the thought but there's also an implied I that isn't part of the content, it's the context for the thought. So for example. "It got really quiet" implies that there's someone who noticed this and comments on it. When I look where that context-I is coming from it's this assumption "because I exist it's me who thought this". Through this assumption the I gets injected into the context of everything that's happening. It's rather crass how many contradictory positions it's willing to take just to satisfy that assumption. It claims everything no matter how bizarre that makes it look.

That's helpful. Could you clarify: do you think this other practice of "disidentifying" from thoughts, specifically in a kind of meditative space, is without prospects? It's like repeatedly noticing I'm lost in thought and stepping back from the narrative content into a wider thing and the DE of the senses becoming more pronounced. Like in the movie watching analogy you used.

Staying with DE instead of thought story is what we are “aiming” for :). There is nothing wrong with thoughts as long as there is an understanding of their empty nature – the stuff they talk about is not inherently existing. Thoughts are built of concepts/labels which are useful as tools for pointing to DE but they are not DE per se (the icons on your desktop). The problem is when there is a belief that what thoughts talk about exists as a thing (like the scissors on your editing tool).
What could be useful in that “disidentifying practice” is actively looking for the center/the experiencer that everything “bounces off” from. Look! Is there such a "pole"/"center"/"observation spot"/mini armchair?

Do you see this as clearly a dead end? Could be identifying with "awareness", idk. It's at least "working" in the sense of generating an error signal whereas the questions you ask feel so slippery. No, obviously there is nothing in control of the weather. It's easy to see how this translates 1:1 to thoughts, hands and feet. Maybe it's best to just look like you suggest.

There is a problem that you replace one set of identity with another. The "I" is seen as non existing, but the center is still there, things are still happening TO something. Yes, it could be helpful, but only as a stepping stone, and ultimately, seeing the emptiness of all concepts, including “awareness”. You could ask yourself, if there is nothing to be aware (no objects, including DE objects) and no one to be aware, is there even “being aware” at all or is it just language? There is just THIS/what IS.

They come with no location, a tone of voice, an understanding of the intended personality of the "subject" and if the words are ambiguous the meaning is nevertheless clear. I don't know what makes them "accurate" or "inaccurate". Some feel like knowledge and some are speculative or absurd but what constitutes the difference is unclear.

Exactly! The meaning that is allocated to them – important vs superfluous, accurate vs inaccurate, knowledge vs speculative or absurd - is based on conditioning. Even logic as in math is valid only within the parameters set. If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, two plus two equals four. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, two plus two might be two or one or five or really anything at all. 2+2 isn’t always equal to four. And I don’t just mean that you could change the symbol “4” with the symbol “5”. You can do that of course, but that’s not the point. The point is that two plus two is a symbolic representation for the properties of elements of a group. And the result depends on what the 2s refer to and how the mathematical operation “+” is defined. Strictly speaking, without those definitions 2+2 can be pretty much anything :).

I was making pizza yesterday. The thoughts weren't narrating the process too much and I was just looking at what's happening. Dough being kneaded, arms and legs moving... no I to be found. Kind of disorienting. May be thoughts of uncertainty appearing idk.

Of course, after seeing the world through coloured glasses for some time, removing the glasses could be disorientating. But has anything actually changed? Does thought influence DE or just tries to describe it? Thoughts of “uncertainty” sounds like the title of a book. Can you please share more on that?

It doesn't feel like it's me in control of them when they happen "without being noticed". Reflecting on them in retrospect there was no I. I'm not sure what "without being noticed" exactly means because they must have been noticed to reflect on them a moment later. The feeling is different if thoughts are explicitly narrating a choice or activity. They don't necessarily keep up with what the hands are doing but the activity of the hands is clearly informed by the thoughts and there's a back and forth where they try to confirm or contradict each other when I'm trying to figure out where the I is in this.

What is this that “notices”? What is the noticing made of? How is noticing different from thinking about what is happening?

It feels like there is an intentionality in the thinking, like a search is running. A question or a beginning of a sentence comes up and then many possible continuations are iterated through until the "right one" is encountered. Then I is what does the recognizing that it fits. Many nebulous meaning blips flash up, are judged, and die down until one that is known to "fit" is found. Then it's sounded out in the mind to continue the central thought. How does that intentionality, that judging work without an I or a something that does it?

Thoughts are self-organising. When there is “noticing”, they are self-organised around the experience but at some point they become organised around themselves/the story (story about story). Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good analogy of that self-organisation and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But is there such a thing as “AI” as a being/thinker or just processes?

Part of that self-organisation is the trimming of thoughts that are not a “good fit” in order of maintain efficiency – all the cognitive biases. Confirmation bias is the tendency to favour information that confirms or strengthens existing beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.

The “intentionality” comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming “your” view/belief system/your bubble of reality. Is the thinker/I/Maks necessary for this to happen? The more “focus” is on DE the more the organisation is around the actual experience and not stories about stories… Can you see that?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thank you for the pointers! Super appreciated.

What could be useful in that “disidentifying practice” is actively looking for the center/the experiencer that everything “bounces off” from. Look! Is there such a "pole"/"center"/"observation spot"/mini armchair?

Since realizing that this practice isn't the be all and end all I got a bit disenchanted and haven't been practicing for a couple of days so when I tried it today there was no fireworks. Nevertheless each time this kind of perspective shift happened and I looked at what exactly the new position or view is it turned out to be made of exactly the same kind of mental image than the previous one that got "disidentified" from. All this awareness is ultimately just thoughts. I wasn't able to find a center or a ground.

if there is nothing to be aware (no objects, including DE objects) and no one to be aware, is there even “being aware” at all or is it just language

Yeah, though... I can sort of intellectually agree with that but realize you don't point at anything intellectual.

What is this that “notices”? What is the noticing made of? How is noticing different from thinking about what is happening?

What I meant to convey here is the same thing that happens when reading a book but getting lost in thought. The eyes follow the text for a couple of sentences but nothing is being read because thoughts are somewhere else. This would mean that yes, this noticing is exactly thinking. No difference. So this is clear in the case of reading.

In the example when I'm waving my hand around looking at how the decision to wave this or that way is made: It feels like it's me doing the waving. Is it just because there is thinking about the waving? When kneading pizza dough there wasn't much narrating of it so it was easier to see that the hands were just doing their thing, yet it was "noticed", in a kind of "aware" way but without an agenda.

In the waving-thinking it feels like there's an agenda: "find the self that is waving". The thoughts describe the hands' movements and the movements also react to the thoughts - they either do what the thoughts say or intentionally contradict them. This is the sticky part: if there is no I that hears the thought and decides to wave or not wave then why is the waving reacting to the thinking?

A third example would be becoming aware of the fact that breathing has been happening on it's own up until thoughts about breathing came up ("breathing was noticed") and a feeling of consciously breathing and being responsible for the chest movements started. The breathing can be forgotten and it will carry on on it's own but in the window where it is "conscious" there are thoughts about the breathing and it is likely to respond to these. I mean my chest is doing all kinds of weird things right now!

Of course, after seeing the world through coloured glasses for some time, removing the glasses could be disorientating. But has anything actually changed? Does thought influence DE or just tries to describe it? Thoughts of “uncertainty” sounds like the title of a book. Can you please share more on that?

Yes nothing changes when this is seen. But no, thought isn't just describing it. The thoughts that occur do inform or influence where attention goes next or what movements the body makes. I mean ok you can say there is noone deciding the thoughts or deciding what exactly the "response" is going to be - it happens due to "conditioning" or the "learned associations" like the learned weights in the AI. And there is no AI other than the process of inferencing through these weights.

Regarding the "thoughts of uncertainty" it was that sentences were starting up but they would repeatedly fizzle out in the middle. A dissatisfaction like "that's not it either", an inability to have the thoughts mean something true or significant so no way to take a position. Just one aborted thought after another which is a bit "disorienting" (though not really).

The “intentionality” comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming “your” view/belief system/your bubble of reality. Is the thinker/I/Maks necessary for this to happen?

The explanation was very interesting but I don't think confirmation bias is a satisfying answer to the question why it feels like there are intentions behind thoughts: some feel true, some irrelevant. A thought can appear "let's jump off a highrise" but I know it's unserious. In another context it could be believed and lead to much despair. So belief system/bubble of reality = that entire context?

I don't know what belief is. I guess there is a tension to thoughts, like a feeling?

Part of the difficulty in answering these questions is that putting them in words feels frustrating because necessarily it's constraining "what I believe" into some more or less consistent narration and by writing one thing I'm abandoning another possibly contradictory thing yet this preference is not justified. That contradictory thought also appeared. There can also be a more or less consistent story around it.

Is the thinker necessary for forming a system of beliefs? Evidently AI's exist. God why is it so hard to see, not just understand. No, an entity like a thinker or a Maks or an I isn't necessary for thinking to happen. Ugh so the process of thinking now yields "I'm a process".

The more “focus” is on DE the more the organisation is around the actual experience and not stories about stories… Can you see that?

Yes, that's visible though it doesn't feel significant unless in deep meditation.

I want to say sorry for spinning in circles so much. I mean it's evident here how these answers are kind of arbitrarily elevated thoughts and don't cohere well.

Love
Maks