It's about time ! Looking for guidance from Kevin from BC Ca

[Den]

I'm here after 20 years of - first mild interest, then deep curiosity, then seeking, through the usual procession of books, blogs and videos by Krishnamurti, Bob Adamson, John Wheeler, Fred Davis, Joey Lott, Ruthless Truth, U.G Krishnamurti, Nisrgadatta, Maharshi, Mooji, Gangaji, Adyashanti, Scott Kiloby, Rumi, Lisa Cairns, Jeff Foster, Master EIckhart, Randall Friend, Douglas Harding and on and on and on and on..........With a little bit of meditation here and there. And most recently a great deal of frustration and uprisings of a strange, very intense fear when i address some of the questions. So perhaps it's about time i stopped reading and watching and actually start looking. i guess the question remains - "how to look properly". thankyou.

[KevinD]

Hey Den,

Thanks for the complete intro.
Fascinating the lengths we take--we share a lot in common.
How do we know each other, Den?

Best,

Kevin

[KevinD]

You there, Den?

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

Apologies ! I either received no email back in August or i deleted it by mistake. Today i contacted the LU administrator to find out what was going out and why no-one had ever contacted me and she told me that you had in fact made contact back in August.

Are you available at the moment ? If not, no problem, i will request another guide.

Many Thanks,

Denis.

[KevinD]

Hi Denis,

Great we finally connected.
Technology--what are ya gonna do?
Make sure you've got the box clicked at the bottom of your reply that says "Notify me when a reply is posted."
That should keep us up to date.

Once we get started, I find frequency of check-ins is kind of important to the process.
You respond once a day and so will I.
If life gets in our way, or if more time is needed, just check in daily saying more time is needed.

You and I will simply have a conversation, the aim of which will be for you to make the realisation that there is no 'self'. That will be our focus. I will tend to ask various questions and set you some exercises, but nobody will be judging you. You can't get this wrong.

This process is a guided inquiry where specific areas can be examined. I am not a teacher. This is YOUR inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have.

Okay, let's get down to business.
A few preliminaries to get out of the way first.

• You agree to post at least once a day, even if only to say, "still here!"
• I am not your teacher, all I can do is point, you look, until clear seeing happens.
• In general, I will ask questions, you look deeply and honestly, and respond.
• Responses require simple, uncontrived honest looking. There are no wrong or right answers.
• Responses are best from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers, and stream of consciousness answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.
• Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention into seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.
• Please learn to use the quote function; See these instructions

If you haven't already seen it, there is intro info here, our disclaimer and a short video too.
For the sake of your success, I ask that you be 100 per cent honest. If you can manage that, this process will be much more efficient.

For ease of seeing, my questions will appear in bold text.

If you could confirm you have seen all the above and would like me to be your guide - then we shall begin.

What are your expectations for this process?
How will it change you?
How will this feel?

You can press 'subscribe to this topic in the blue bar at the bottom of this page and receive an email every time I post here.

Good to have you here, Denis.

Best,
Kevin

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

I have read and understood all that you wrote. I have no problem with any of it and yes, i'd like you to be my guide.
Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.

I'm in Sydney so there's effectively a 5 hour time difference between us. I will respond at least once a day, even if it's to say that i need more time. I'm fairly busy at the moment with work, 2 young children and a pregnant wife.

Let's make a start.

What are your expectations for this process?

Having read through dozens of the dialogues on here and in other places (ruthless truth etc.), i'm expecting to learn how to 'look'. By which i mean start to understand the real mechanism of thought and how it works. Rather than the normal focus I have, which is on the content of thought and as a consequence constantly following and believing the content and seeing in it what appears to be a coherent story about 'myself''.

Like most people, i guess the start of my 'searching' was mostly driven by the basic desire to get rid of the sh*t bits and keep the good bits of life. (and also by a very intense experience i had in childhood). I've never been very 'spiritual' in the normal sense - incense, beads, dabbling with buddhism and other 'isms'. etc. For me it's been like an itch i must scratch, a deep feeling that something's not quite right.

After looking at this subject for quite a while, i think i've become more realistic and and i 'get' in some ways what you are all pointing at ( "I understand this intellectually" is a phrase i'm sure you've heard many times before !) Now i suspect the only reason i come up with the idea of 'good' and 'sh*t' parts of life in the first place is because there is a pre-requisite idea of a "ME", for whom "good" and "sh*t" can apply. Without "ME" i see there is no reference point for those two opposites. In other words, i've been trying like everyone else my whole life to fix this and fix that, improve things, make things better......ad infinitum but all the while sitting with an unexamined assumption at the core of it all - myself.

So i expect to thoroughly examine this assumption.

How will it change you?

I hope it will result in more balance, a different view of what's happening here. I imagine more calmness, less being harassed by past thoughts and future imaginings. Less of the vicious cycle of following and drowning in thoughts and worries. I do expect it to make me 'happier' but i suspect not in the normal sense of that word. I suspect it may result in happiness and sadness not having any relevance anymore. Maybe a sort of equanimity about everything.

How will this feel?

I expect it to feel slightly shocking and disturbing but also a great relief perhaps. Like a weight lifted off me. I expect it to be like looking at one of those dot-pattern pictures that suddenly resolves itself into amazing 3D image. I expect to feel strange.

The answers to the last 2 questions have got to be guesses. The true answer is i really don't know.

Denis.

[KevinD]

Hi Denis,

Those are extremely reasonable expectations.
A new perspective, things may feel lighter, etc.
Who could find issue with that?
Well, I'm going to ask you to drop all expectations.

I expect it to feel slightly shocking and disturbing but also a great relief perhaps.

Particularly the one quoted above.
I've seen many walk through the gateless gate and their first words are "Is that all?"
It's different for everyone.
Problem with coming in with preconceived ideas, we can actually miss the subtler event.
So scrub your mind of all expectations, please. It will make our journey together here much easier.

Let's see how you feel about losing your "I"-sight ;)

What comes up when it is read that there is absolutely no “you” in any way, shape or form, there never has been a “you”, nor is there or will be there ever be?

When you say "I", what does that refer to in direct experience? Please describe in detail – does it have a shape? A size? A quality?

Great stuff so far, Denis.

Best,
Kevin

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

What comes up when it is read that there is absolutely no “you” in any way, shape or form, there never has been a “you”, nor is there or will be there ever be?

What comes up first is a sense of unease, a sort of discomfort. Then if I refer to memory, for example memories of myself as a little boy, feelings of sadness/loss arise because of the thought that he was never really there, that none of it was/is true. And then the thought "if this is correct, just what is going on here ? because i certainly SEEM to be here".

When you say "I", what does that refer to in direct experience? Please describe in detail – does it have a shape? A size? A quality?

I cannot attribute a shape, size or quality to "I", because i cannot identify it as a thing. Every potential attribute i try to assign to it is actually a just a reference to a thought,memory or the body. eg. "i" have brown hair, "i" grew up in the north of england, "i" am going on holiday next week etc. Then i would perhaps say "So ok, 'I' is the thing that is perceiving those thoughts and memories and the body, the thing that knows them". But then if i look at my hand, i may ask the question "why does there need to be a thing there to do the looking ?". This is very tricky to pin down. There is a feeling of being. How to put it, of 'here-ness'. Then i guess there is an assumption that something has to have that being, have that here-ness. "I" seems to be getting automatically stamped onto everything that occurs, attached to everything. I cannot say in direct experience anything about i. Direct experience is just sensations, thoughts, just 'stuff happening'. Yet by some reflex "I" is stamped onto everything. I've looked at this stuff before many times But in answering your question i realise that previously i may have stopped short at "ok, those things aren't "I", so just what is it and where is it ?" Then i would be off looking for something that had to be "I". I have never really seriously pursued the idea "Hey, why does it NEED to be there at all ?!". I need to look at this more closely so i will do that in the next day.

There was a Canadian magician guy many years ago. He was called the bubble man. He used to do amazing things with soap bubbles. He would make a ring of bubbles all stuck together, then a couple of other bubbles on top and bottom. In the centre space between all these bubbles a perfect cube would form, into which he'd blow smoke to suddenly reveal it's shape. You didn't even know it was there till he blew the smoke in. But there was no cube as such, it was just the interior space formed by all the other bubbles. It was just a consequence of the other bubbles. This may be a poor analogy but "I" seems a bit like that. An assumed 'thing' accounting for and partially responsible for everything else.

[KevinD]

Hi Denis,

Thank you for your honesty.
When I refer to direct experience (DE), I'm looking for what is experienced in the felt sense in the very moment.
The last part was missing from your description of it, but it's extremely important for this exercise.

As you are making good headway with the exploration of I, I will leave you with it for another day and have you report back on what you found.

I prefer to be thorough than swift.

I love the bubble analogy, by the way.


Great work.

Best,
Kevin

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

When I refer to direct experience (DE), I'm looking for what is experienced in the felt sense in the very moment.
The last part was missing from your description of it, but it's extremely important for this exercise.

I can't pin "I" down in this moment. In DE i find there are :

objects around me (around/outside the body)
thoughts
bodily sensations

The nearest i can get to DE of "i" is tension in the body.

Denis.

[KevinD]

Hi Denis,

No sweat, sometimes tension is all that can be felt in direct experience.
DE is a pretty big deal for this exercise, it's where I want you to reach for your observations.
This exercise should show you why and how.

Go line up a favourite piece of music on an iPod or whatever player is convenient for you.
Don't play it yet.
Now, think of what that tune sounds like. Try to remember all of the sounds that come from that piece. Go for as long as you can to remember that piece.
When you're done, play the music from whatever player you have.
 

What is the difference between what you thought (Conceptual thinking) and what you heard (Direct experience)?
 
Go grab a piece of fruit from the fridge (an apple or orange or grapes, etc.)
Set it away from you, and think about what that fruit tastes like.
Savour in thought everything that flavour would bring.
 
When done, take a bite from that fruit.
 
What was the difference between the experiences of what you thought (conceptual) and what you tasted (direct experience)?
 

Put an object on the table, maybe a rock or something.
Think about how that object would feel. All the nooks and crannies, go over them in your mind.
Now, pick it up and feel all those features.
 

What was the difference between what you thought (conceptual) and what you felt (direct experience)?
 

Do the same thing with an odor, maybe a cologne or a flower.
Think about that smell.
Then smell it.
 

What was the difference between the two experiences?
 

Continue this as many times as you want to ensure the difference between direct experience and conceptual thinking is crystal clear.
 

Thank you,
 

Kevin

[KevinD]

All good, Denis?

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

Yes, all good. We had severe storms over the weekend in Sydney which took out the power. Now that i am back in work i am able to reply.

What is the difference between what you thought (Conceptual thinking) and what you heard (Direct experience)?

My thought version was a pale shadow of the DE version. It was a song i am very familiar with, yet the thought version was so incorrect. Thought had twisted and skewed the original in so many ways, put bits in that were never there, edited it, changed it. Also with thought there is an associated dialogue about what the song should/does sound like. There is a sort of internal 'convincing' that the thought version is mostly correct. There were some parts of the song that thought got very, very wrong, yet prior to DE it was 'convinced' of it's correctness. In terms of the quality of the experience; the thought is vague, shifting, difficult to fully grasp. There was also a definite sense of effort in holding onto/focusing on the thoughts and their content. Conversely, the DE of the song was very 'alive' and immediate. And also clear and very definitive, by which i mean it just was what it was, with no room for interpretation. Also it was totally effortless, when focused on the sound there was no room for an intermediary or dialogue 'about' the sound.

What was the difference between the experiences of what you thought (conceptual) and what you tasted (direct experience)?

What was the difference between the experiences of what you thought (conceptual) and what you felt(direct experience)?

I did this with an apple, then other pieces of fruit. For touch i used various objects. I imagined that there would be less distinction between thought and DE as compared to the music, music being a more 'complex' thing than taste or touch. But then in essence it was the same. Thought was vague, shifting and took effort. DE was clear, immediate and above all, effortless. What i noticed distinctly with all 3 sensations - taste, sound and also touch, there was 'a lot to say' in thought, but in DE nothing really to say at all. Thought was very wordy. Labels kept popping up - sweet, firm, juicy etc. DE was in a way, silent. When i looked closer i saw a problem with the labelling, the way in which thought was splitting and categorising the experience. In DE the labels were really meaningless. They just weren't necessary, the sensation just kind of was what it was. Sort of very pure, and thought could not really get near it despite all the words.

Denis.

[Den]

Hello Kevin,

I was trying the touch/taste/smell experiments again. Something becomes very clear and i'm not sure how to say it but as simply as i can - thought is just not 'true'. It tries to represent the DE but it just cannot. The DE cannot really BE represented. I'm not sure if i'm making any sense here ? Thought just seems to get in the way more than anything. I can see the obvious need for language and labelling for communication as in "please pick up the rough red book that smells of oranges, not the smooth blue book that smells of apples". But apart from that, thought and description seems to add nothing. There's something 'about' the DE that i can't put words to. Something about the quality of the DE, 'quality' maybe being the plain and simple fact of the DE itself. Again, i'm not sure i'm making sense here but it is fascinating to look at this closely.

Denis.

[KevinD]

Hi Denis,

That's excellent observing.
Those stark differences between thought and direct experience is why we want you observing in DE throughout this exercise.

Now, let's take a look at self as the experiencer.

• In direct experience, can you find an “I” that experiences experience?
• Is there a seer separate from the seen?
• Is there a hearer that hears?

[/b]

Nice work, Denis.

Best,

Kevin