Take two!

[Bobf]

Hi Matthew,

Very hectic today. I read your post and will answer tomorrow.

Bob

[Matthew]

No problem!
Take your time.

[Bobf]

I'm continuing to do 2 things during the day:
1. Deliberately conjuring up the self feeling and LOOKING at it.
2. Asking myself (as I go through my day): is there a self right now? or "is there a self controlling things right now.
Build in a third step there!

3. Can that what is asking these questions right now, can that what is doing the investigation right now, can that what is doing the looking right now also be observed?

If yes:
What is it made of? Is it a thought? Is it a sensation? Can a sensation do anything? Could a thought by itself do this investigation? Or is it -again- a thought ABOUT a something that would be doing the looking?

If not:
Couldn't that count as a hint that there is actually no one and no thing doing the looking?
Could it be that there is no one doing the looking? Could it be that there is just looking right now?

The answer is that I can't find anyone doing the looking. For example, for #2 above, the question just arises "is there a self right now?".

I have a related question. Kay emphasized the importance of looking as often as possible throughout the day. There are often long stretches throughout the day when I'm preoccupied with my (relatively high stress job) and I'm not looking. I guess I should try to look more often. In my case, the looking usually consists of observing what's happening and looking to see if there's a self controlling it. For example, I'll be walking down the street and I'll observe that my legs are moving automatically, with no controller to be found. Does this make sense?

[Matthew]

Does this make sense?

It's not that it doesn't make sense.

I guess I should try to look more often.

It just sounds like a huge and stressful effort for something which is actually quite simple and already true.
What you can keep in mind:
This is not about recognising some kind of presence.
This is about recognising an absense. Very light.

For example, I'll be walking down the street and I'll observe that my legs are moving automatically

And what was observed?
Can such a thing as "control" ever be observed in direct experience?
Or are there just thoughts about control, sometimes present, sometimes absent?



Besides the control aspect, you can also have a look at this throughout the day:

Is there something doing the seeing right now?
Is it the "I" which is doing the seeing?
Where exactly is "I" in seeing? Is there an "I" in seeing?
Is the notion of "I" required for seeing to happen?

[Bobf]

I guess I should try to look more often.

It just sounds like a huge and stressful effort for something which is actually quite simple and already true.
What you can keep in mind:
This is not about recognising some kind of presence.
This is about recognising an absense. Very light.

I get that looking should be light and fun. That's helpful.
Kay repeatedly told me how I should constantly be looking during the day. That's kind of difficult and stressful, particularly at work.

For example, I'll be walking down the street and I'll observe that my legs are moving automatically
And what was observed?
Can such a thing as "control" ever be observed in direct experience?
Or are there just thoughts about control, sometimes present, sometimes absent?

What I observe is that things are just happening. I can't see "control" in direct experience.

Besides the control aspect, you can also have a look at this throughout the day:

Is there something doing the seeing right now?
Is it the "I" which is doing the seeing?
Where exactly is "I" in seeing? Is there an "I" in seeing?
Is the notion of "I" required for seeing to happen?

I'll look at this. Easier for me to see that things are just happening when it comes to movement (e.g. walking). I'll look at seeing.

Bob

[Matthew]

I get that looking should be light and fun. That's helpful.
Kay repeatedly told me how I should constantly be looking during the day. That's kind of difficult and stressful, particularly at work.

There can be looking through out the day.
But it should cause no heaviness. Because what you are looking for is not something heavy.
Is should be a light thing to happen. Because what you are looking for is very light :-)

[Bobf]

I threw my back out this morning, so have been laid up at home. I have been continuing to do the things you suggested in the last couple of messages - will report back soon. Bob

[Matthew]

O no, I hope you'll be fine again soon!!


In the meantime you can also have a look at this:

Imagine any notion of a self or a no-self would never have arisen in the first place.
Imagine you'd be completely blank in regards to these questions.
Imagine you'd be completely blank in regards to EVERY question about meaning.

What's left? What remains here? What does always remain at the end of the day? What cannot be gotten rid off?

[Bobf]

Imagine any notion of a self or a no-self would never have arisen in the first place.
Imagine you'd be completely blank in regards to these questions.
Imagine you'd be completely blank in regards to EVERY question about meaning.

What's left? What remains here? What does always remain at the end of the day? What cannot be gotten rid off?

I've been a bit out of it because of my back - I should be up and around again in a couple of days. I've been continuing with my inquiries including your questions above. I find it helpful to imagine complete blankness when it comes to questions about meaning.

When I observe, the idea of a self seems less real. But there are long stretches in between when I'm back to my usual mesmerization with the thought-stream.

Bob

[Matthew]

Yes. Keep doing the inquiry when it happens effortlessly.
When something interesting appears, you're welcome to report!

But there are long stretches in between when I'm back to my usual mesmerization with the thought-stream.

Is there really someone or something that gets mesmerised?
Or is that -again- another thought story about mesmerisation and non-mesmerisation?
A thought story about a one who is sometimes mesmerised and sometimes not?

Here a little advice by Ilona:

"...There is no one there to be sucked into thought. Thoughts say many things and not everything they say corresponds to actuality.
Next time you watch a tv show or a movie, notice how you get sucked in the story, how emotions come up and judgments appear. Then out of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room. As if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens, is it different from being sucked into mind movies?

At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?"

[Bobf]

Yes. Keep doing the inquiry when it happens effortlessly.
When something interesting appears, you're welcome to report!

Thanks. I guess there is still the hope/expectation that a sense of certainty will arise (that there is no self) - that I will see this unequivocally. But maybe that expectation is what gets in the way.

But there are long stretches in between when I'm back to my usual mesmerization with the thought-stream.
Is there really someone or something that gets mesmerised?
Or is that -again- another thought story about mesmerisation and non-mesmerisation?
A thought story about a one who is sometimes mesmerised and sometimes not?

I see pretty clearly that "mesmerization" is simply a vivid thought story arising. When it arises, most of "my" attention becomes focused on the story to the exclusion of other things.

Here a little advice by Ilona:

"...There is no one there to be sucked into thought. Thoughts say many things and not everything they say corresponds to actuality.
Next time you watch a tv show or a movie, notice how you get sucked in the story, how emotions come up and judgments appear. Then out of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room. As if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens, is it different from being sucked into mind movies?

At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?"

I see that snapping out of the story happens spontaneously. A long period of time elapses during which there is focus on the story and then there is snapping out of it.

Bob

[Matthew]

Exactly. The expectation is that there is someone called "I" who will at some point see something.
This ain't going to happen.
It is about the recognition that there is no one called "I" who either could or could not see something.
It is about the recognition that there is no one called "I" who would have to see anything in the first place.

I see pretty clearly that "mesmerization" is simply a vivid thought story arising. When it arises, most of "my" attention becomes focused on the story to the exclusion of other things.

Yes. That sounds familiar.
Except for that:
What makes attention "your" attention?
And who or what would be irritated by such natural happenings?

[Bobf]

Exactly. The expectation is that there is someone called "I" who will at some point see something.
This ain't going to happen.
It is about the recognition that there is no one called "I" who either could or could not see something.
It is about the recognition that there is no one called "I" who would have to see anything in the first place.

Every once in awhile, there is a relaxing into what is. Expectations/ideas drop away and the world seems more vivid. Then the thought story starts up again and attention is focused on that (I realize I'm repeating myself here...).

I see pretty clearly that "mesmerization" is simply a vivid thought story arising. When it arises, most of "my" attention becomes focused on the story to the exclusion of other things.
Yes. That sounds familiar.
Except for that:
What makes attention "your" attention?
And who or what would be irritated by such natural happenings?

I understand.

Bob

[Matthew]

Every once in awhile, there is a relaxing into what is. Expectations/ideas drop away and the world seems more vivid. Then the thought story starts up again and attention is focused on that (I realize I'm repeating myself here...)

There might be repetitions. That's not a problem at all. Sometimes there are "larger" steps and sometimes there are "smaller" steps.

Relaxing into what is.. Yes.
Can a switch of attention really break this relaxation?
Isn't "the thought story starts up" exactly that WHAT IS in that particular moment?
Thought is just one aspect of this whole play like colour, sound and sensation. Could colour, sound and sensation disturb a relaxation into what is?
No. Of course not. Colour, sound and sensation ARE what is.
But here is the thing:
Isn't thought equally an aspect of WHAT IS in the present moment? Except for the apparent fact that it seems a little "closer"? Is it?

Expectations/ideas drop away and the world seems more vivid

Is there less vividness with thought appearing alongside sound, colour and sensation?
How come?

[Bobf]

Relaxing into what is.. Yes.
Can a switch of attention really break this relaxation?
Isn't "the thought story starts up" exactly that WHAT IS in that particular moment?
Thought is just one aspect of this whole play like colour, sound and sensation. Could colour, sound and sensation disturb a relaxation into what is?
No. Of course not. Colour, sound and sensation ARE what is.
But here is the thing:
Isn't thought equally an aspect of WHAT IS in the present moment? Except for the apparent fact that it seems a little "closer"? Is it?

When the thoughts start churning, they dominate attention. "Worrying" thoughts are often accompanied by tension and other "unpleasant" sensations. The world seems less vivid and more constricted until the thoughts subside.

Bob