Request for a Guide

[Ngapa]

I am holding onto the view that this is not liberation. Would it help for me to dismiss this as mere thinking? Liberation cannot be that easy! (Ooops, another view...)

It is the thoughts which expect thought-patterns to change when self has been seen through. Maybe these thoughts are deluded. As you point out, they are unnecessary, being about "future", but the issue here was whether this now is seen as liberation or suffering.

Are you saying that delusion does not exist? Delusion means wrong, compared to some reality. Or is it that delusion, being thoughts, doesn't matter for liberation to occur?

What it is which seeks liberation I don't know, maybe it's a natural result of delusion, of deluded thoughts. This must be a paradox for everyone who wants liberation.

As for what knows there is no self, what knows there is seeing? Yet there is seeing. There is no more need for a THING which knows, than there is need for a thing which rains. But we can't say it any other way. Rain rains, seeing sees, knowing knows. Surely getting this point is liberation? (Even though you can't say what might get it.)

What feels the need to do something? That which seeks liberation. What motivated coming onto this website? I'm not the only one who came onto here. Do you just want me to notice that there isn't any 'thing' which feels this need? (Just wanting.) Or do you want me not to do anything?

[Ngapa]

Concerned that we may be discussing my "view" here, rather than my experience. Not that the above is invalid, but as we said, my view - i.e. thinking, is not the crucial matter for liberation.

I pick up your constant pointers to look for the I which appears explicitly or implicitly in my reports to you, to see if, though I write this way, I find anything in my experience which corresponds to this way of thinking / talking.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Gosh, there’s a lot of thinking going on here about what liberation is or isn’t. Please just stop it. I say this with all compassion but mind will only lead you on a merry dance around this stuff. Mind doesn’t know and it’s not my role here to persuade your mind about anything. In direct experience thoughts can be seen as arisings in the moment – no think-er – just thinking, on and on, round and round. Stop paying attention to the content of thought and see thought for what it is – like clouds blowing through the sky – sometimes white and fluffy, sometimes dark and heavy – but thoughts don’t ‘belong’ to anyone – just like clouds don’t belong to the sky. They have nothing to say that’s worth listening to. ‘Liberation’ and the ‘story’ about what it entails is just this – a story. Have a look at this Adyashanti video and let me know if this gives any helpful pointers about expectations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQD90Las5c

[Ngapa]

I'm not really bothered about expectations, unless they are getting in the way and need addressing, but I don't think they are.

Last night it occurred to me that experience just is, it's undivided, and then thinking sees/interprets this as me and it. This is what happens anyway pre-liberation, and I suspect what you're pointing to is that I appear still to be doing this. So even having a whiff of how direct experience is not 'me and it', thinking still sees it as dual, thus hiding or weakening appreciation of the direct experience when this IS noticed.

Also thinking habits assume there's a controlling 'I', with the same effect of smothering my recognition of the absence of this. Paying less attention to the content of thoughts, and more to how 'immediate-sensation' is, seems a good idea.

[Jack'n'theBox]

I'm not really bothered about expectations, unless they are getting in the way and need addressing, but I don't think they are.

OK look out for ‘should’ thoughts – they indicate that mind is contradicting what is actually happening in experience, i.e. ‘this shouldn’t be happening, that should’. ‘If I was liberated then I shouldn’t be experiencing this stuff I should be experiencing that stuff’ etc.

Last night it occurred to me that experience just is, it's undivided, and then thinking sees/interprets this as me and it. This is what happens anyway pre-liberation, and I suspect what you're pointing to is that I appear still to be doing this. So even having a whiff of how direct experience is not 'me and it', thinking still sees it as dual, thus hiding or weakening appreciation of the direct experience when this IS noticed.

Yep, I think you’ve got it here. When you find that ‘naked awareness’ – awareness of what is actually happening unadorned by concepts – you can then see the ‘gap’ between the experience itself which is non-dual (no experience-er) and mind’s projections onto it (which introduces the duality) as in “I did that”.

Also thinking habits assume there's a controlling 'I', with the same effect of smothering my recognition of the absence of this. Paying less attention to the content of thoughts, and more to how 'immediate-sensation' is, seems a good idea.

Yes, that’s what the ‘direct pointing to direct experience’ approach is all about – the Buddha put it like this: In the seen, just the seen; in the felt, just the felt; in the cognized, just the cognized. No ‘mental elaboration’.

So how do you feel you are getting on with this? Can any self be found? A good way to check this is to think of your greatest achievement – something that ego has invested in. Now look for the “I” that achieved it – can you find it? What happens when you try to find this “I” in relation to that achievement?

[Ngapa]

I'm working with what you've pointed to, thanks, now away until monday night, will try to post then.

[Jack'n'theBox]

How's it all going?

[Ngapa]

On 13th Oct you wrote " can you see that ‘selfing’ thoughts and behaviours continue to arise – but there is no actual self from which they emanate or to which they actually refer OR is there still a residual belief that there is a ‘me’ at the centre of these experiences that somehow directs them?"

These thoughts continue to arise, and generally to be believed and acted upon. When looking for a self, no self is seen, only thinking. This contradiction doesn't appear to change anything, which would seem to amount to a residual belief that there is a me at the centre of these experiences.

On Oct 20th you wrote 'There are some exercises I can give you to help you find this “naked awareness”...' Would this help now perhaps?

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK. There doesn't seem much point in talking about these doubting thoughts any more. Let's do some exercises to see thought for what it is -- simply an arising in awareness. There is no 'one' thinking these thoughts and no 'one' believing them either. It is possible to see this directly. Try this:

Notice that thoughts and mental activities are arising in a kind of ‘mental space’ or 'heart space'. Don’t speculate about what this ‘space’ might be. Just notice directly that it is there. Remain noticing for a while, and then reflect

• What are its characteristics?
• If thoughts arise, even turbulent thoughts, is this ‘space’ affected?
• Discover whether you can ‘notice’ this space while thoughts are happening. Does this mitigate or slow, or otherwise affect the thoughts themselves?

Do you find bringing attention to this ‘space’ give rise to a ‘gap’ in thinking and/or some mental calm or absorption?

You don’t need to be in a ‘meditative’ state to see this – try the exercise for 10 minutes at a time throughout the day when you have a quiet moment and report back what you find.

[Ngapa]

I have given the exercise much attention over the last couple of days, and the way this has impinged upon my understanding may not be expressible. I will try to say what I found, bearing in mind that everything I write is a thought.

Can I notice thinking as a "space"? Thinking appears to be a separate realm or dimension from other senses, and in a metaphorical sense I could conceive a space in which thought occurs. It has no aspect of 3-dimensionality so cannot be found in relation to the space of the visual or auditory senses, it doesn't seem to be anywhere (except a vague 'here'). It has no spatial order within itself either, one thought does not appear in a different place from another.

Other characteristics of this 'mental space' - I can't find any, it being a hypothetical space. Thoughts occur, and what I said above relates to the thoughts. A thought may or may not affect the next thought, and only one can be present at once. When one is present, another is not, as with any awareness.

I did not notice this sense of separateness of thinking while I was thinking, except when thinking about these questions!

The idea of a space of thinking has made me more conscious of the separateness of thinking, the way it can be a world of its own. Noticing this 'space of thinking' did bring an awareness that "it's only thinking", which undercuts emotional involvement. This way of looking may have brought a deeper realisation of thinking as being simply thinking-awareness, rather than something owned or done or personal.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK good work looking here.

Can I notice thinking as a "space"? Thinking appears to be a separate realm or dimension from other senses, and in a metaphorical sense I could conceive a space in which thought occurs.

Let me push you here. ‘appears to be’, ‘metaphorical sense’, ‘conceive’ – all this is mind trying to interpret what is going on. Drop the mind. Drop ‘thinking’ – find the ‘space’ from which thought is seen to be just another arising in experience.

It has no aspect of 3-dimensionality so cannot be found in relation to the space of the visual or auditory senses, it doesn't seem to be anywhere (except a vague 'here'). It has no spatial order within itself either, one thought does not appear in a different place from another.

Again, let me push you. Can you find ‘visual’ or ‘auditory’ in the experience itself? These are just labels. They indicate that mind is still actively involved in dividing things up. You are trying to ‘analyse’ the experience instead of let it just ‘occur’.

Other characteristics of this 'mental space' - I can't find any, it being a hypothetical space.

It is only ‘hypothetical’ to the mind. Look again. Just experience it. Just this, just now, no interpretation.

Thoughts occur, and what I said above relates to the thoughts. A thought may or may not affect the next thought,

What evidence do you have that a thought ‘affects’ another thought – other than a thought that says so?

I did not notice this sense of separateness of thinking while I was thinking, except when thinking about these questions!

Not sure what you mean here – can you experience thought as ‘separate’? If so, separate from what?

The idea of a space of thinking has made me more conscious of the separateness of thinking, the way it can be a world of its own.

OK good. Thought builds stories, entire worlds filled with fictional characters, one of which is “you”. But is there some ‘thing’ (something other than thought) that thought is ‘separate’ from? Look and see.

Noticing this 'space of thinking' did bring an awareness that "it's only thinking", which undercuts emotional involvement. This way of looking may have brought a deeper realisation of thinking as being simply thinking-awareness, rather than something owned or done or personal.

OK good. ‘thinking-awareness’ – that’s nice. This is kind of what I’m pointing to. Above (sorry if I misunderstood) you seem to be suggesting that thought is ‘separate’ from awareness – is this possible – is there any arising in experience that can be ‘separate’ from anything else. Look again and let me know.

[Ngapa]

OK I will try the suggestions you offer. Until then, here is my initial response to your last comments.

Experience arises in different spaces. Is there just one common space of awareness? Or do we try to manufacture this - as our material world (into which thinking doesn't fit).
"Visual" or "auditory" comes from comparing the two distinct aspects of awareness. Hard to notice all awareness as one - compared to what?
Well, maybe compared to noticing only its "contents". Noticing the fact of being aware, in all forms.

They indicate that mind is still actively involved in dividing things up.

- asking questions about experience is about looking at experience, can this be done without a kind of self-consciousness, turning awareness to look at itself? If we just let experience occur, it is known of course, but it continues without any deeper appreciation of itself.
Before I came to L-U, I let experience occur, that's what everyone does, so how do I notice more than simply knowing experiences as they happen?... without this self-conscious "dividing up" of experience.

What evidence do you have that a thought ‘affects’ another thought

What evidence - when I'm angry I don't just have one angry thought, one leads to another. Trains of thought, daydreams, constructive or analytical thinking. It would be quite odd if every thought were unrelated to the one before, in fact we'd never get anywhere. In Alzheimer's people lose the ability to hold a thought long enough to progress to the next one.

[Ngapa - I did not notice this sense of separateness of thinking while I was thinking, except when thinking about these questions!]

Not sure what you mean here – can you experience thought as ‘separate’? If so, separate from what?

I meant I didn't notice the way thinking is in some ways a space of its own, separate from other senses. You asked if I noticed this thought-space while I was thinking, and I didn't.
But thinking is awareness just as other senses are, and awareness moves between them seamlessly. It seems valuable to notice thinking especially, since relying upon thoughts leads to strife.

is there any arising in experience that can be ‘separate’ from anything else. Look again and let me know.

Is there any arising which is separate - - yes and no. The smell of an orange is separate from the feel of an orange or the look of one. Yet awareness is all one in that it's all there is, it's the smell of an orange and it's rabid toothache, or a rainbow or loud music. Looking at experiences, they are all different, looking at awarness it is all awareness.

[Jack'n'theBox]

There’s quite a lot here so I’ll just pull a few things out. The reason we are taking this approach is that previously you indicated that although when you look you can see clearly that there is no ‘self’ behind experience, you still have ‘selfing’ thoughts. You think you shouldn’t have these thoughts, hence there is doubt that you have seen. You also mentioned wanting to get rid of ‘incorrect’ thoughts and I posed the question: Are thoughts ever ‘correct’? What I am pointing to is that expecting thought to validate a direct realisation of ‘no-self’ is a non-starter. At the moment you have ‘doubting thoughts’ -- maybe at some point in the future you may have an altered state of consciousness and these doubting thoughts will be replaced by ‘affirming thoughts’. I’m suggesting that the “I’ve got it/I’ve lost it” loop that thought plays is just that -- a thought loop -- thoughts know nothing about what it means to see through the self-view.

Pointing this out to you didn’t seem to help resolve the situation. So now I’m pointing you toward a technique that helps you see ‘thoughts as objects’ arising in experience just like any sensation or emotion. You say that thought is somehow separate from other arisings, happening in its own space. I’m prompting you to investigate this view. You say “It would be quite odd if every thought were unrelated to the one before” -- but it is a thought that says this. I’m asking what evidence do you have in direct experience (not thoughts about it) that one thought has any agency to produce or influence another thought? If you look closely it is possible to discern a gap between thoughts -- can you actually discern the mechanism whereby one thought influences another? Is the fact that one thought may claim to be referencing another evidence? In other words I’m asking you -- Can thought think? Is thought animate or self-aware in a way that the other sensations arising in experience are not? If not, then what are the implications when you ‘believe’ in thought?

If you have difficulty seeing the ‘gap’ between thoughts, then try this: can you find the thought that is happening now? If it’s not clear how to do this then say to yourself, ‘I’m about to have a thought and the next thought will be . . .’ then ‘and the next thought will be . . .’ Do this for a few minutes. Strangely the mind can’t cope with this and it often results in the flow of thoughts slowing down and the gap becoming more apparent. The distinction between mental activities (thoughts and images primarily) and direct experience of the five ‘body’ senses should be pretty obvious if you’ve been meditating for quite a long time. However, it’s surprising how the mind can subtly ‘simulate’ direct experience and hoodwink us into believing that a thought or image about an experience is the same as the direct experience itself. I’m suggesting to you that you are stuck doing just this -- believing that thoughts about a self indicate the existence of an actual self. I’m trying to give you a shove out of this thought loop. There’s a couple more exercises we can try if you’d like to continue.

[Ngapa]

Your clarity is hugely appreciated, thank you. Yes getting out of the addiction to trusting thoughts seems to be the issue.

Explaining how one thought influenced another would have to be theorising, thinking. Direct experience shows: "thinking now" (or even "was just thinking" - which is a thought itself). I wonder if I am clear what is DE where thinking is concerned. Memory is thought, that would be the only way thought could be self-aware in any different way from other sensations. Memory exists as an aspect of thinking, yet is no more trustworthy than other thoughts.

I am continuing to mix thoughts about my sensory perceptions with the direct sensations. Is that it? - that I have a memory of a sensation and the memory is already coloured with the self notion?
It doesn't matter that I am confused, since that's my thinking: I want to do something different from this thought-loop.

[Jack'n'theBox]

‘Memory’ is just thoughts that reference ‘the past’. Can you find ‘the past’ in direct experience or is there only ever this moment, now?

You say that when you look it is evident that there is no ‘self’ behind any action. Yet you also say you are ‘confused’. What is it that is ‘confused’? If not an entity -- ‘I’ -- then could it be that what is ‘confused’ is just thoughts?

Could it be that you have seen through the self-view in direct experience but thoughts are running a story line that says ‘insight shouldn’t be like this (whatever is happening now)’ . . . ‘insight should be some other set of blissed-out experiences’. ‘Should’ thoughts point to an imagined future. The future is always imaginary (as is the past) as it is only the present moment that is ever available to us in direct experience.

So look to your experience now -- can you find a ‘self’, a ‘me’ entity behind your direct experience of the moment?