Flying

[JonathanR]

Hi Aguila

Getting better but it has been a tenacious cold for sure. I hope you're better?

. Our whole practical world is build on it, society, culture, politics, daily life… - everything is organized around this very concept! More than that: nothing seems to be NOT somehow related to that belief. Isn’t that what makes it so difficult to let it go? Almost unthinkable?

Yes. True. And who would do the letting go anyway? ;-)

But perhaps there is a way? Not of letting go exactly. but By noticing that the whole world of narratives is not as it seems? Noticing that you are not what you had supposed you were?

. That was interesting. I focused on the left foot instead of the leg, since it seemed easier. It became a world in itself. And “I” indeed seems to be able to wander there, the head being at some distance (this sounds weird). I was wondering what it would be like to live through the day from the left foot. To think from there. Mmh. Which would mean to have the thoughts appearing from there? Weird again, they do not come from anywhere. And suddenly also all those exercises about focusing of the breath get a different dimension.

Yes this is interesting and good investigation. It's so incredibly simple. It's almost laughable (and here I am also noticing the sensations in my feet right now). Funny that whatever consciousness or awareness is it doesn't seem to be able to be 'in the head' whilst it seems to be around my foot.

Leaving attention alone and not attempting to focus it seems to settle into an 'anywhere and everywhere' kind of experience which is not 'separate' from anything. Do you notice this?

If it starts to seem that "I am in my head" perhaps this might have something to do with where attention goes?

For example, activities like a lot of problem-solving, reading and writing, interacting with others at the level of eye contact? Could these sorts of activities bring attention to focus around eye area or head area? If a lot of this goes on and there's almost no attention to other sensations could this result in identification with the idea of 'someone, me" being 'inside my head'?

all the best

Jon

[Aguila]

Good morning, Jon,

Getting better but it has been a tenacious cold for sure. I hope you're better?

Yep. Though it was the stomach flu here, still a bit shaky.

. Our whole practical world is build on it, society, culture, politics, daily life… - everything is organized around this very concept! More than that: nothing seems to be NOT somehow related to that belief. Isn’t that what makes it so difficult to let it go? Almost unthinkable?

Yes. True. And who would do the letting go anyway? ;-)

Aaaargh!
But interesting question nevertheless. There is the thought “this is difficult”. It is thoughts “holding on”, or rather repeating some content. Instead of changing it. Which would be just more thoughts anyway! Hilarious.
And there is the thought with the content “unthinkable”. :-)

But perhaps there is a way? Not of letting go exactly. but By noticing that the whole world of narratives is not as it seems? Noticing that you are not what you had supposed you were?

Yes. But not much to find. In a way a flow of sensations seems much less than this biiiig narrative. Almost too simple.
I cannot believe I am saying this (I am a huge fan of simplification).
And there goes the “I” again. :-)

. That was interesting. I focused on the left foot instead of the leg, since it seemed easier. It became a world in itself. And “I” indeed seems to be able to wander there, the head being at some distance (this sounds weird). I was wondering what it would be like to live through the day from the left foot. To think from there. Mmh. Which would mean to have the thoughts appearing from there? Weird again, they do not come from anywhere. And suddenly also all those exercises about focusing of the breath get a different dimension.

Leaving attention alone and not attempting to focus it seems to settle into an 'anywhere and everywhere' kind of experience which is not 'separate' from anything. Do you notice this?

I am bit unsure there: you probably don’t refer to attention jumping between topics or objects like mad? But rather the kind that in an unfocused way encompasses everything as it arises? Like a 360 degree openness?

If it starts to seem that "I am in my head" perhaps this might have something to do with where attention goes?

For example, activities like a lot of problem-solving, reading and writing, interacting with others at the level of eye contact? Could these sorts of activities bring attention to focus around eye area or head area? If a lot of this goes on and there's almost no attention to other sensations could this result in identification with the idea of 'someone, me" being 'inside my head'?

Yes. I will experiment along the day.

All the best

Aguila

[Aguila]

Hi Jon,

yes, in fact I realized (again) that 4 out of our 5 senses are located in the head - no wonder that seems like the key part of the body in terms of identity. For me a lot happens through the ears - that is hard not to associate with the head. But when hearing happens (without the I), then it doesn't really matter. It's just that IF you have an "I", THEN you have to put it somewhere. I guess.
And I realized that if I just hear something, without having to do anything with it - hearing can just happen. Noises, birds, traffic. If I am listening to an audiobook, "I" shows up to discuss it. I suppose hearing words triggers more words, which are thoughts. Or it can be images, a whole movie. Well, also thoughts.

Take care

Aguila

[JonathanR]

Hi Aguila

Before I forget...this is the Bahiya Sutta, a very old Buddhist text in which Buddha talks to Bahiya. It's interesting:

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. [2]

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that, ' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that, ' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

This seemed a good time to send something like this :-)

Jon

[Aguila]

Hi Jon,

thank you, I did not know that.
First I was a bit surprised - focusing on the content? Not just on the channel? But then I realized: it is about leaving out the stories on top. Even the naming. Staying as close as possible to the first skandha?
“neither here nor beyond nor in between” as a different way of describing no-self (especially not in the head) - cool!
Today I was doing the dishes and tried to really focus on the sensations - when I realized, that in the attempt to really concentrate, I had started naming the sensations: “warm”, “wet”, “slippery”... Which added a completely unnecessary layer and put “me in the head” again.
Again: it seems to be more difficult to let the cognized just be the cognized. Everything seems to revolve around that. Everything about "me". But maybe it is loosening up a bit. At least when "I" am sitting here talking to "you". Who is talking? Talking is just happening, right?

All the best

Aguila

[JonathanR]

Hi Aguila

. But then I realized: it is about leaving out the stories on top. Even the naming.

Right

. neither here nor beyond nor in between” as a different way of describing no-self (especially not in the head) - cool!

Yes! Definitely not in the head!

His words do point to no self but somehow do not name anything. Does that seem significant?

.
Today I was doing the dishes and tried to really focus on the sensations - when I realized, that in the attempt to really concentrate, I had started naming the sensations: “warm”, “wet”, “slippery”... Which added a completely unnecessary layer and put “me in the head” again.
Again: it seems to be more difficult to let the cognized just be the cognized. Everything seems to revolve around that. Everything about "me". But maybe it is loosening up a bit. At least when "I" am sitting here talking to "you". Who is talking? Talking is just happening, right?

Loosening is good.

Can anyone 'let the cognized be the cognized'? Does it need to be allowed to be what it already is?


:-)

Jon

[Aguila]

Hi Jon

His words do point to no self but somehow do not name anything. Does that seem significant?

Yes. There is nothing to point to or to name. That makes sense. A lot of descriptions I have read suddenly make sense from this perspective.

Can anyone 'let the cognized be the cognized'? Does it need to be allowed to be what it already is?

Oops, I did it again…
Of course not. And for the first time it dawns on me, that really nothing needs to be DONE, only to be SEEN. Letting go is nonsense.

This feels a bit like playing a ball game. Without noticing I seem to throw you a ball, and you keep playing it back. ;-)

Aguila

[Aguila]

Can anyone 'let the cognized be the cognized'?

This is so funny. I keep coming back to that. There is this thought with a mad touch going in circles "But I have to do SOMETHING!!!". And it feels amusing to watch it! A sigh of relaxation accompanying it.

[Aguila]

And of course "I" am not coming back to that - the thought pops up over and over again. ;-)

[JonathanR]

I can see you are having fun :-).

Glad and happy to hear if you relaxing.

You might find that this popping backwards and forwards between 'seeing' and dualistic thinking happens quite a bit for a while. Some patterns of thinking are so routine that they reappear like tram lines. It isn't uncommon to go through a period in which the whole inquiry seems like complete nonsense ...but then it doesn't again! Ha ha.

It's as if someone 'falls asleep' again and then later 'wakes up' ( but of course that is just away of talking or thinking).

It seems a lot of people, me included, get to a point at which any major doubts about what has been seen tend to evaporate or disappear. Even then it's quite possible to identify with some nonsense or other for a while, but the 'waking up' aspect seems to take care of itself so that doubts cease to be an issue.

All the best

Jon

[JonathanR]

Although I am generalising. It seems that everyone's experience is what it is. I probably should not be saying that it pans out "like this" or "like that" because it cannot be known.

All best

Jon

[Aguila]

Well, I have never seen the whole inquiry like complete nonsense. So far. Though there is impatience sometimes :-) And it helps to hear that some popping back and forth might be expected. Yes, someone falling asleep for moments. Longer moments. Also suddenly the expression of "seeing" makes more sense (as opposed to dualistic thinking).
But the way you put it sounds more like a process than the momentary passing of a gate?

All the best

Aguila

[JonathanR]

Hi Aguila

. Well, I have never seen the whole inquiry like complete nonsense So far

Good to hear.

. But the way you put it sounds more like a process than the momentary passing of a gate?

Well they do call it the Gateless Gate too.:-)

But also,. the process of inquiry appears to happen across 'time' but in direct experience is there time?

.Jon

[Aguila]

Hi Jon

. But the way you put it sounds more like a process than the momentary passing of a gate?

Well they do call it the Gateless Gate too.:-)

Well, I didn't know it was because of that.

But also,. the process of inquiry appears to happen across 'time' but in direct experience is there time?

Of course not, perceptions only occur in the present moment, everything else are thoughts about past or future, the thoughts themselves occurring also in the present. Time is a concept. But a puzzling one. Puzzling to "me" ;-) I have heard every once in a while statements like "we ARE time". Or "we create it". Which I do not have access to, though I keep wondering. Self only makes sense with time. And vice versa.
Even though time is "just" a concept - it has a major role in this whole self-narrative! Like one of the major rules (or even rulers) of the game.
All the best
Aguila

[JonathanR]

Hi Aguila

. But the way you put it sounds more like a process than the momentary passing of a gate?
Well they do call it the Gateless Gate too.:-)
Well, I didn't know it was because of that.

Neither do I actually, but how can a gate be a particular point or moment in time or space if it's also 'gateless'?

Yes. It may seem that a process takes place. It may seem that a momentary passing of a gate occurs too.

. Self only makes sense with time. And vice versa.
Even though time is "just" a concept - it has a major role in this whole self-narrative! Like one of the major rules (or even rulers) of the game.

Yes. I really know what you mean!

I did ask you this a while ago but do you feel now that you could say with a big fat Yes there is no self ?

All the best

Jon