Stuck on the witness

[Jutylda]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
From the “Gateless Gatecrashers” I understand it means no doer and no witness - just doing, just witnessing. It comes with a lack of separation from the world, feeling of freedom, direct contact with reality, and seeing that everything is perfect just as it is.

What are you looking for at LU?
I am sure that there is no doer, no free will - that is seen clearly. However I'm stuck on the witness-self. As it seems, it is connected with the feelings of tiredness, separation from the world, imprisonment in existence, and a notion "something is wrong". I would like to investigate it further.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
A pointer where to look, a helpful question. Maybe a change of perspective, maybe showing a blind spot or inconsistency in my thinking. I have already contacted LU by e-mail, and was informed that my guide would be Vince Schubert - so I'm looking forward to talking with him.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
For the last 5 years I’ve been practicing with Triratna Buddhist community (meditation on breath, metta bhavana, just sitting). Meditation was irregular and not deep. The realization of no-doer came very gradually, not in one “a-ha” moment. It was a sum of experiences in everyday life and in meditation, reading suttas and scientific works on human psyche, and listening to Buddhist teachers and the non-duality message (Suzanne Chang).

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
9

[vinceschubert]

Good morning (in Australia) Jutylda,

I'm stuck on the witness-self. As it seems, it is connected with the feelings of tiredness, separation from the world, imprisonment in existence, and a notion "something is wrong".

How much do you think, that these experiences are the result of stories that are on repeat?

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

Good morning, Vince
Thank you for such a quick answer.

It’s hard to tell if the feelings are caused by the story, or if the story was created to explain these feelings.
It seems that the experience of witness came first – that is, the experience of all the personal stories going away, leaving only this core, the witness, the presence.

As I remember it, there was not much emotion then. There was a feeling that I was myself more than with all the personal stories. As if the center of gravity, that was going all around due to the stories, making me lose balance, came back to it’s place, making me stable. It was calm. And there was a feeling of separation.

It is plausible that later the witness got personified in the mind to be tired of existence and unhappy, like we personify a forgotten “poor, lonely and sad” teddy bear.
The thought “something is wrong with existence” comes definitely from the mind, not from the witness. The witness does not think.

I hope this answers the question.
With love
Jutylda

[vinceschubert]

Hi Jutyida, i read your post as an interesting mix of past and present.
Let's set some parameters...
This investigation is from the perspective of the organism with the label Jutyida.
The absolute is unknowable/indescribable so we are only interested in subjective experience.
i can only imagine what you mean by "witness", so attempt to describe it without using that word. (when applicable)

It’s hard to tell if the feelings are caused by the story, or if the story was created to explain these feelings.

yes, I get what you mean. Let's not worry about cause & effect (it's simplistic anyway) If you can isolate a thought stream (story) then describe it.
When you say "feelings", I expect there to be intertwined sensations and stories. What is your experience of this?

And there was a feeling of separation.

i'd like to hear more about this.

It is plausible that later the witness got personified

Would you say that this was identification?

he thought “something is wrong with existence” comes definitely from the mind,

..and still there would be sensations involved. Can you see where they are?

The witness does not think.

This sounds like experiencing. Is it?
Does (insert description without the word witness) have memory?

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

The absolute is unknowable/indescribable so we are only interested in subjective experience.
i can only imagine what you mean by "witness", so attempt to describe it without using that word. (when applicable)

It is the I that is just looking, not thinking, not doing, not controlling, not judging. It can be called consciousness, awareness, presence, experiencing, or “here and now”. It has no memory of its own.

When you say "feelings", I expect there to be intertwined sensations and stories. What is your experience of this?
I’m not sure of terminology – how is sensation defined? Is a mood a sensation?

There are older stories: “there is no sense in life” (which can be good or bad, depending how you look on it – no task to accomplish, no higher power judging, no purpose); “it would be better for me if I wasn’t born” (which sounds sad and depressive, but it isn’t – it’s more like stating “it would be better for me if I exercise every morning”); “I can’t see any escape from this” (which is sad).
The sensation is weariness, lack of energy, sadness, resignation mixed with a small hope of escape. There is aversion to all the troublesome tasks of life. There is also fear of pain and suffering.

And there was a feeling of separation.

i'd like to hear more about this.

It seemed not affected by anything, no reaction.
But most of all there was a feeling “this is what I am”, and I guess separation comes in a package with it. I try to think of the sensation of it, but I can only come with a metaphor – it was like a nice weight keeping me stable, while everything before seemed light and fleeting.

It is plausible that later the witness got personified

Would you say that this was identification?

The identification was earlier, before the experience. I would say that the witness was always there, and the mind assumed that the thoughts were “witness’ thoughts”, sensation were “witness’ sensations”, and that the mind and witness were the same “I”.
In the experience it was seen as something else – not thinking, not feeling, just “I am”.
But the mind is still habitually ascribing the thoughts and feelings to it, and identifies with it.
Even now it is confusing, when I write about "it is looking" and "I am writing". I am obviously not writing, it just happens. I am looking, but again, I can't say "I am looking", because "the I" does not talk.

the thought “something is wrong with existence” comes definitely from the mind,

..and still there would be sensations involved. Can you see where they are?

Tension in the forehead, furrowing the brows – focusing, trying to discern, judgment. Tension in the soft palate - disgust. Sometimes tension in the lower part of the belly – fear.

[vinceschubert]

Please answer every question.

what you mean by "witness",

It is the I that is just looking, not thinking, not doing, not controlling, not judging. It can be called consciousness, awareness, presence, experiencing, or “here and now”. It has no memory of its own.

This sounds like you are describing experience. Is this accurate?

The sensation is weariness, lack of energy, sadness, resignation mixed with a small hope of escape. There is aversion to all the troublesome tasks of life. There is also fear of pain and suffering.

This seems contradictory to witnessing.
Would you be open to a session via zoom. i imagine that I could get a better handle on your current situation with a face to face interaction. What part of the world do you live (so I can work out a convenient time) Pm me if you prefer.

it(separation) was like a nice weight keeping me stable,

This is another puzzle.

The sensation is weariness, lack of energy, sadness, resignation mixed with a small hope of escape. There is aversion to all the troublesome tasks of life. There is also fear of pain and suffering.

It appears that a huge amount of your energy is consumed by fear.

and that the mind and witness were the same “I”.

This is identification.
It's an assumption that needs unravelling.

But the mind is still habitually ascribing the thoughts and feelings to it,

Is it possible that the mind is deceiving you?

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

Hello, Vince

So, back to the forum.
I’ll write some more about “the witness”.

I remember one experience from the time, when I was 4 year old. I was on the bus carrying children from the kindergarten. Usually during these drives I was deep in thoughts, so it was probably the case then, too. But then either the thoughts stopped, or I was no longer aware of them. Somehow I forgot about body and mind, I forgot that there exists some small Jutka. I was aware of the interior of the bus, of trees and sky behind the window, of the children getting off the bus, but there seemed to be no thoughts or feelings.

Eventually it got me in trouble, because I didn’t get off the bus when I was supposed to. It was very frightening and I assume this is why I remember this experience. But I guess it could have been happening more often.

My parents thought I just fell asleep on the bus, but I was absolutely sure that I was not sleeping, I was aware.

I know you would say that there was no aware I, just seeing that was happening (or appearing to happen). But I’m not able to see it like that. There still was some kind of presence in the experience, some “here and now”, and I call it “the witness”. It is always there, otherwise there is nothing.

With love
Jutylda

[vinceschubert]

Hi Jutyida, i have no answers as to what was actually happening, but I am keen to investigate this with you.
There is a presumption here that your subconscious (ha, more in this later) knows.
i also presume that whatever arises (then and now) has intent to protect you. i know that this can be counterintuitive when what arises is unpleasant or worse. (a good friend and mentor says "whatever problem appears it is actually a solution")
Let's start by killing the idea that THE witness is a separate thing. Unless you think that it's inaccurate we will say it as a verb. There was witnessing.
i concur with your description of witnessing in every way but a few.
The bits that threw me were that there was no witnessing of the bigger picture. That is you lost sight of what you were doing on the bus.
This is not to say that it wasn't witnessing. Just that the perspective was limited for some reason.
That reason is the intriguing bit. We don't need to reveal that reason (although it is good if it happens). Just recognizing that there is something there is enough to change things.

My parents thought I just fell asleep on the bus

Of course, people will always try to explain things in a way that makes sense to them, and if it is outside their experience they will modify the event to suit.

I know you would say that there was no aware I,

Yes, but I wouldn't say that there wasn't awareing happening.

But I’m not able to see it like that.

Not yet.

There still was some kind of presence in the experience

This is a logical conclusion. (bear with me here) Even if there was experienced sensations, it is a logical conclusion that says that means there was a presence.
Even if those sensations validated the idea of a presence, it is still (mainly) a mental game.

It is always there, otherwise there is nothing.

Yes. Agreed. Being aware is all there is. (but more on this later too)

Now, don't be polite. Give me raw, unedited, stream of consciousness please. If something doesn't sound right - tell me bluntly.

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

Hi Jutyida, i have no answers as to what was actually happening, but I am keen to investigate this with you. There is a presumption here that your subconscious (ha, more in this later) knows.

Right now it feels as if it was nothing special. I can't see any other reason than that the mind went there, because it felt nice and comfortable. If not for the “catastrophic” ending, I probably wouldn’t pay much attention to it.

i also presume that whatever arises (then and now) has intent to protect you. i know that this can be counterintuitive when what arises is unpleasant or worse. (a good friend and mentor says "whatever problem appears it is actually a solution")

It seems logical, this is what thoughts and sensations are for.

The bits that threw me were that there was no witnessing of the bigger picture. That is you lost sight of what you were doing on the bus.

Isn't it always like that? I mean, being aware is seeing what the mind shows, and the mind can turn on and off different parts, or fabricate some, give us tunnel vision or fill up the blind spots, or whatever.

There still was some kind of presence in the experience

This is a logical conclusion. (bear with me here) Even if there was experienced sensations, it is a logical conclusion that says that means there was a presence.
Even if those sensations validated the idea of a presence, it is still (mainly) a mental game.

If it is a mental game, the mind is winning :)
Maybe I can say it like this: in this experience there was no being aware of being aware - but still there was being aware. And in the same way there was no sense of "I am", but still there was "I am".
Maybe it can be said that in this experience "I am" was no different from "it is". But it still doesn't feel right to say there was no "I am".

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jutyida,

But it still doesn't feel right to say there was no "I am".

We don't say that there's no "I am". We say that there's no inherently separate, independent self.

I can't see any other reason than that the mind went there,

This may (or may not) be accurate. It is speculation. (more mind stuff) It doesn't matter what the reason for it is.

this is what thoughts and sensations are for.

I don't know what they are for. Meaning is created.

being aware is seeing what the mind shows, and the mind can turn on and off different parts, or fabricate some, give us tunnel vision or fill up the blind spots, or whatever.

Yes. Agree.

If it is a mental game, the mind is winning :)

It is a mental game, but there are no winners or losers.
The mind is everything. It is the purveyor of experience. Yet it is nothing.
If we believe what the mind tells us, is that just more mind stuff?
What is the experiencing of belief? Is it more than just more thoughts?

i hope that you'll come to the meet up Sunday evening. (same link)

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

But it still doesn't feel right to say there was no "I am".

We don't say that there's no "I am". We say that there's no inherently separate, independent self.

Isn't it another belief?

I can't see any other reason than that the mind went there,

This may (or may not) be accurate. It is speculation. (more mind stuff) It doesn't matter what the reason for it is.

You've said the reason is intriguing, so I'm giving you info what are my thoughts on it. I'm not saying it's accurate.

this is what thoughts and sensations are for.

I don't know what they are for. Meaning is created.

I said that it seems logical, not that I know it. It doesn't even have to be logical, it just seems so to me. The reality does not even have to be logical, but there is a preference here to choose the logical option.
And your presumptions are also just mental stuff.

If it is a mental game, the mind is winning :)

It is a mental game, but there are no winners or losers.
The mind is everything. It is the purveyor of experience. Yet it is nothing.

What do you mean by saying it's nothing?

If we believe what the mind tells us, is that just more mind stuff?
What is the experiencing of belief? Is it more than just more thoughts?

I've read once about a robot that learned to limp (not a fiction, scientific stuff).
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/1 ... ts-injury
The robot, which looks like a four-armed starfish, is at first given a preprogrammed computer model of what its parts are, not how they are arranged or how to use them to fulfill its prime directive to move forward. To find out, it builds a series of computer models of how its parts might be arranged, at first just putting them together in random arrangements. Then it develops commands it might send to its motors to test the models. It selects the commands most likely to produce different results depending on which model is correct. It executes the commands and revises its models based on the results. So the robot has many, simultaneous, different, candidate models of itself, and these models compete over which can best explain the past experiences of the robot.

The result is usually an ungainly but functional gait; the most effective so far is a sort of inchworm motion in which the robot alternately moves its legs and body forward.

Once the robot reaches that point, the experimenters remove part of one leg. When the robot can't move forward, it again builds and tests simulations to develop a new gait.

It is very simplified, but I believe it's a good model of what beliefs are - the models that won the competition.
I believe it, so this belief is more of the same, a model that won the competion.
The mind can do nothing else but that, create the new models and see, which one fits the best the experience.

With love
Jutylda

[Jutylda]

PS.

If we believe what the mind tells us, is that just more mind stuff?
What is the experiencing of belief? Is it more than just more thoughts?

There is also a sensation of satisfaction, like in a feeling of a full stomach, or finding a puzzle that fits, or hearing a harmonious chord.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jutyida,

Isn't it another belief?

Absolutely. It's all belief. (IMHO) Anything that we think that we know, is another belief. ..but we jump ahead.
You seem to me to have an unusual mixture of both awake and not awake perspectives. I'm still finding my way with you, just as we are still learning good communication with each other.
Some beliefs are useful. Recognizing the inherent suffering that comes with a belief in a separate self, makes that belief maladaptive.
Recgnizing that what we took for a self is a bunch of stories that we responded to on a daily basis is useful. Once that recognition is integrated, then it can be dropped too.

so I'm giving you info what are my thoughts on it. I'm not saying it's accurate.

Oh, ok. i took it as a statement of fact. Keep doing that.

It doesn't even have to be logical, it just seems so to me.

Aren't they the same thing. Isn't "seems to me" another way to say that it's a logical conclusion?

there is a preference here to choose the logical option.

With this investigation, it is a good thing to question the efficacy of logic. Observable experience supersedes logic for our purposes. Not blindly.

And your presumptions are also just mental stuff.

Absolutely. Stating them is a way to verify or contradict them. i hold them lightly and don't mind at all to be wrong.

What do you mean by saying it's nothing?

Western society has put mind on a pedastal. Even before we go to school we are told that to be smart is good. Yet look where that has taken the world.
look at your own thoughts.
t was found that the average person has about 12,000 to 60,000 thoughts per day. Of those thousands of thoughts, 80% were negative, and 95% were exactly the same repetitive thoughts as the day before.

The mind can do nothing else but that, create the new models and see, which one fits the best the experience.

Yes, that's what we are doing here. ..but we are using the mind to change the mind and the mind doesn't go to new territory easily. My job is to push you into new territory.

with love

vince

[Jutylda]

Hello, Vince
I was doing what Sebastian recommended - that is when I get in an avoiding behaviour, I stop and look what will appear.
And what appears is a thought on repeat: "I won't manage, I won't manage, I won't manage". The sensation is heaviness and weaknes in the body, and tension in lower belly.

It doesn't even have to be logical, it just seems so to me.

Aren't they the same thing. Isn't "seems to me" another way to say that it's a logical conclusion?

I do not follow, can you explain what you mean?

With love
Jutylda

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jutyida,

I was doing what Sebastian recommended - that is when I get in an avoiding behaviour, I stop and look what will appear.
And what appears is a thought on repeat: "I won't manage, I won't manage, I won't manage".

..and how are you responding to what appears?

The sensation is heaviness and weaknes in the body, and tension in lower belly.

Hmm, this is a good start. We need to be more specific. Where is the heaviness? Does it change? Does the heaviness and the weakness happen at the same time? ..in the same place? Is the tension felt as a contraction? etc

with love

vince