Life's curious path has led me here (on the way to where?)

[Cabs]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
I see the 'self' as a powerful illusion - Infinite, meaningless vibration sensed by a biological organism and interpreted as 5 senses, thoughts, and emotions/feelings. These vibrations continuously bind together forming an illusory single, solid entity. Conditioning/beliefs seem to be the magnets that attract, bind and hold these energies together.

What are you looking for at LU?
When looking and contemplating the above, it is observable and hard to deny - especially in terms of seeing the ego for what it is. But this perspective is difficult to hold without effort - it's like a veil held up by effort and intention, and when attention is pulled away from this, the veil falls back down.

When my mind is engaged by a task, especially one that requires considered thought (such as a conversation / interaction with another human, when being asked a question or told information, executing a function with technology/machinery, problem solving, etc), I am immediately and unconsciously sucked back into a 'self' acting independently - it's as though these tasks cannot be accomplished or experienced without the utility of a separate entity. When attempting to maintain the perspective of no-self during these instances - i.e. when trying to notice all the numerous individual sensations that are being experienced in that moment binding to form the sense of self - the capacity to act out the role within 'the dream' seems to cease. Almost as though I become an empty puppet preoccupied by being aware!

My job as a teacher and my role as a parent are two of the most predominant scenarios that give rise to this occurrence.

The view that effort is even required at all, signals to me I am overlooking or unaware of something key. Given the awake state is the unconditioned state, I understand there is conditioning that is preventing this. Conditioning is clearly powerful and ingenious in it's capacity to create a labyrinth within the mind that is self-protecting. Attempts to see the beyond conditioning are just met with more conditioning.

I aspire to be guided through this labyrinth with the help of those that are not in it.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
'Expect' is a strong word that doesn't feel right. I am drawn towards unobstructed guidance from outside of my conditioning. I am wandering around in a conditioned labyrinth, tied to a bungee cord that keeps yanking me back. It would be wonderful to have a light shone on the path out, and the bungee cord cut.

I understand the guidance must be provided via questioning for many reasons;

1. Because language and words cannot bypass the thinking/conceptual mind, and will just be vacuumed up into the conditioned container.
2. Because a guide is not IN the labyrinth with me. My labyrinth is completely unique to me and while the path out is the same for everyone, the individual vantage point generated by my conditioning is only visible to me.
3. Questioning encourages and fosters a sense of self-guiding and self inquiry to carry with me on the path forward. Life presents infinite possibility, infinitely! It's handy to have meaningful self-inquiry understanding in the back-pack to use if and when needed.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Compared to others I never had a concise, assured sense of who or what exactly "I am". I would always be a chameleon, and intentionally employ characteristics I observed in others, or wanted to be. Upon reflection this goes back to my earliest memories and has remained ever since.

I was raised catholic and learnt how to have 'faith' as a young person, however when I met my future wife - a science-based atheist - she questioned my beliefs in a way I had not. I subsequently let go of my tag as a catholic after realising that it was only really through indoctrination that I held that belief.

I had an uncharacteristic depressive breakdown just before the birth of my second child. I was overwhelmed by the challenge of our first child, and the second imminently arriving became too much. I fell into depression and took 6 months to recover with the help of therapy and meditation. This was my first meditative experience. It showed me the power of mindfulness, contemplation and resting in stillness, although at this early stage I had not considered it spiritual. It did not engender a sense of 'seeking'.

A few years later, a long-term student of mine bought me a copy of a book called "Enlightenment To Go", which modernised some buddhist philosophy into easy to digest and employ practices. I enjoyed this book and felt something beneficial from practicing the concepts in it. Over time this fell away through lack of use. It did begin the openness to spiritual concepts as part of healthy mental and emotional maturity.

A few years into parenting I began developing tension headaches that became debilitating and chronic. The discomfort, stress and fear these brought into my life began an obsession with eliminating them. This obsession introduced many lifestyle changes including vegetarianism, exercise, stress management, psychology, and various other things to try and bring my health back to a place I wanted it. The obsession and resistance, along with the pain and suffering, created a lot of anger in me - mostly taken out on my children, which in turn created a lot of shame and self loathing.

Perhaps 10 years down that path, I learnt of Jon Kabat-Zinn's 8-week MBSR course. I undertook this (self-managed) and noticed significant benefits at the time. Not just physically, but emotionally. It improved my relationship with my wife and children and brought some peace to my life. It included spiritual teaching from people such as Tara Brach, Jack Kornfield, etc. Then COVID hit, and slowly I returned back to an unconscious place.

While COVID drew me backwards, it had the opposite effect on my wife. She had been increasingly suffering from seizures caused by stress before COVID and the forced shutdown of our business and lockdown periods gave her time to rest and recover. During this time my wife realised she had ADHD and this realisation empowered her to begin meditating and wandering a spiritual path of her own. Seeing the transformational shift she was experiencing drew me to explore some of the things she was drawing upon.

This led me to Thich Nhat Han. His books and teachings really came to me at the right time and brought a lot of peace, but also insights that unexpectedly began to unlock some emotional blockages. One day whilst walking I heard something that just made me start crying - very unusual for me. I would always withhold any urge to cry, yet this day a gate was opened. I don't even remember what was said, only that it unlocked something. I came home and told my wife, which then unlocked it further and I cried for about 5 minutes. Something was taking place, so I began listening to Thich Nhat Han dharma talks constantly, then a lot of Joseph Goldstein talks.

Throughout this time I felt continuously on the verge of emotional purging. I would want to cry when I hugged my kids, and recall after my son's debutant ball I just could not hold in my tears, for no reason I could make sense of. I felt weakened in my capacity to stop it. I then started to be drawn to various spiritual teachings from many places - Yogananda, Ayurveda, Byron Katie, etc. One day, going through a list of documentaries on various spiritual subjects, whilst watching trailers for these documentaries my heart was just opening up and tears were welling into my eyes - it's was a big feeling.

I decided at that time to go and see an energy healer that my wife had seen beforehand. He channelled a buddhist monk that assessed your 'true being' and clear energy blockages created during the first 7 years of your life. He provided insights into who you were behind your conditioning. It was profound for her, and I felt compelled to go and see him.

In that session, I instantly started to cry. Throughout the entire first part of the session I cried without the ability to stop. It continued as he began to clear my blockages and began to ease off by the end of that process. I left that session feeling cleaned out. Certain mental challenges have not returned since, and I have not felt the compulsion to purge emotion since.

I continued to listen to more spiritual discourse, finding particular interest in Christopher Wallis' classical Tantra. This teaching taught me non-dual perspective, and his conversations with other prominent thinkers like Bernard Kastrup resonated with my rational mind. I began following a number of Tantric practices.

However there are elements of the Tantra practice that do not work for me, so I have continued exploring many other approaches including Judith Blackstone's somatic approach, a podcast called Wisdom of the Masters, which utilises the teachings of many teachers throughout history on non-dual realisation, and Adyashanti. All of these things work as one to help illuminate the true nature of reality from various perspectives.

Christopher Wallis spoke with Eeshwar Segabond who mentioned Liberation Unleashed - my first knowledge of this place. When listening to other interviews with Eeshwar, I stumbled across Ilona's podcast 'Awakening Now' - my second touchpoint.

Ilona spoke of Jed McKenna, so I went and read a number of his books which were very important in helping me detach from the 'teacher' as an important factor. Learning Jed is a (likely) non-existent individual alongside his teachings of "not" being seduced by a teacher was paradoxical. I read a blog-post written by "Jed" informing everyone that he was not a real person, nor was he enlightened which initially struck me as upsetting and sparked a feeling of foolishness, before seeing that this is a very important, probably the MOST important thing to accept: "the teacher is not the taught". It unlocked the chain that was unconsciously holding me to the teacher, and freed me up to listen to the lesson, and forced me to ultimately decide on it's truth by myself. It made no difference if Jed was a real person or not. Were the words he was speaking true to me or not?

I started listening to Illonas podcast more frequently and it resonated with me. Her simplicity and orientation have been helpful, as have her discussions with seekers, and guides that were on LU, such as Vince Schubert.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

[davjak]

Hello Cabs,
My name is David and I would be happy to be your guide if you like. If so, here is a question to start off. You say:

When my mind is engaged by a task, especially one that requires considered thought (such as a conversation / interaction with another human, when being asked a question or told information, executing a function with technology/machinery, problem solving, etc), I am immediately and unconsciously sucked back into a 'self' acting independently - it's as though these tasks cannot be accomplished or experienced without the utility of a separate entity.

Is what seems to be a separate entity actually a separate entity? How do you know this?

You say "I am immediately sucked back into a self..." Are you sure about this? Is this something that is actually happening?



If you haven't already read the disclaimer, please have a look:

http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/


Below is a link to the video with instructions on using the Quote Function. Please watch it. Use the PREVIEW button to make sure your text looks right before you hit "SUBMIT."

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

And lastly, what would you like for me to call you, and what time zone are you in?

[Cabs]

Hi David, thanks for your reply, I appreciate your willingness to be a guide.

My name is Dan, and my timezone is Australian Eastern Daylight Time (Melbourne, Australia).

There are a few ways I could practically respond to your questions (e.g. try to be succinct, or write freely, etc). Please advise which you feel would be preferable / more effective for us both.

In this instance, my instinct is to write freely (aka; ramble), partly because I'm not actually certain of how to answer the question succinctly. It's my hope that you will be able to see the discourse that tends to unfold in my brain and identify things that will be useful. Still, I do tend to overthink things like this, which could be an important factor. In any case, I hope you will feel free to guide my response method as much as my awareness!

Is what seems to be a separate entity actually a separate entity? How do you know this?

This strikes me as paradoxical because to have a sense of 'knowing' this currently requires breaking free from the distraction to look, hence my issue.

To explore it I am considering what is happening during these times that provides the illusion that I am a separate self. In situations like this, my mind is engaged in such a way that its processes drown out other perceptions. I'm not aware of my body all that much - although I am getting better at bringing body awareness into the total picture during these times, but it feels like an intentional balancing act that requires constant peripheral awareness like juggling - it's not relaxed or harmonious.

Reading your question again, the answer is that I can't KNOW it's a separate entity. If I can't observe it clearly as non-self, that doesn't necessarily mean that it IS a self. It's just not being recognised as non-self.

If I don't have a clear sense of non-self awareness - which I would classify as; a clarity that all the thoughts and feelings in my conscious and unconscious awareness are disentangled and seen as inter-related things but not a 'whole' form - I assume 'self' is the default. But perhaps it's not the case?

It's probably better to define those states as 'unconscious'. There is no clarity. It's mess, noise. Mostly noise happening in thoughts. I know upon reflection that the thoughts are not all there is - I know that some thoughts are tied to stories that are being spawned by feelings, emotions, fears, physical sensations, as well as from other thoughts such as memories and future imaginations... In fact while reflecting I struggle to imagine thoughts coming from anything other than these things. Regardless, when I'm lost in this unconscious thinking cyclone, the thoughts themselves obscure the clarity.

Thought presents as the dominant force. It blocks everything until stopping to look at it. Even then, it can be hard to look past it. At least for a while.

I don't know if it's even possible to carry the clarity of discernment at all times, or whether that is an illusory goal I have invented.

I need to observe myself in this state and see how I am coming to the conclusion that I am being sucked back into a separate self.

You say "I am immediately sucked back into a self..." Are you sure about this? Is this something that is actually happening?

No I am not sure. The paradox is that I could only be sure if I stopped to observe, and if I did that then I would probably have the capacity to see that I am not.

So perhaps the more refined way of putting my dilemma is that I am sucked out of conscious awareness and presence of the moment and pulled into identifying with feelings and thoughts. These then propagate more feelings and thoughts that have their own perpetuity. Until I have the spark of recognition to stop and look, or until a natural space presents itself (like a walk, sleep, meditation, etc) and things calm down.

I guess what is actually happening is disorientation cause by identification.

Like even right now, I am thinking about how to express this - so I'm reflecting on situations, and then realising that even right at this moment I am identifying with these thoughts and reflections in an attempt to see how I am identifying with them! haha. There is a distinct illusion that there is a "me" considering what is creating the illusion of "me". I am looking right at it. Conceptually. It's (seemingly) clear, but not felt. It feels like a trick my mind is playing on me to stop me seeing through it.

In truth, I'm untrusting of my mind. I have spent years relying on it, strengthening it, benefitting from it, putting it on a pedestal - Now I'm trying to look at it through a different lens and it's not letting go very willingly. It wants to be involved and to claim ownership of any realisations. It knows it's being investigated and it's doing a very good job of outwitting me. This observation feels disengaging in some way, but also feels impermanent. As I write more, it's re-engaged. Its also telling me that thinking like that is only causing separateness - as though there is a me that can be separate from the mind.

It's like a damn MC Escher painting in here! haha.

[davjak]

Nice to meet you dan.
My preference on how we respond is to be freely succinct, without over-thinking or analyzing, but let's see how it goes.
The picture I get is of a noisy mind that feels complicated and confusing. Perhaps there are a lot of what seem to be conflicting thoughts, feelings, impulses, etc. There is nothing at all unusual about this.

Let me ask, do you have any say in how the mind seems to be? Are you responsible for its state, tendencies or apparent content?

And as we begin, let me put this out there as a consideration in our conversation: We won't assert or speak of things for which we find no basis. If we have no basis, then we won't see, imagine or speculate on what cannot be found. I may be reminding you of this frequently, but let's see.

[Cabs]

Nice to meet you too David :)

Thanks for the reply, the suggestions, and the questions. I have spent some time contemplating this, this morning.

Let me ask, do you have any say in how the mind seems to be? Are you responsible for its state, tendencies or apparent content?

I do not have full belief that I have a say in how the mind seems to function. There are simultaneously feelings of control and of no control. There is a nice feeling of relaxedness that comes with noticing no responsibility for it's state, tendencies and content, but it comes with some innate caution, I think in the form of thought.

As I sat in meditation with these questions in mind, to observe in quiet concentration, I can clearly observe what was uninvited thought, and subsequent threads that flow on - this is not necessarily a new experience for me, but it did feel somehow different due to the specificity of the question you posed. I observed that sometimes the thought-thread would take me quite some distance before realising I had been swept up - but upon returning to the objective there is also what appears to be some kind of direction/orientation of the thought stream.

I feel pretty confident in saying that I have tested and verified I cannot wilfully stop thoughts - not for long anyway - so I quite honestly don't see how I can be in control of them, yet when considering questions such as yours, it appears as though I can orient them in a general direction and somewhat 'guide the flow', albeit without the ability to determine the specific content... I would liken it to a broken hose that cannot be turned off... the flow of water cannot be stopped, but the hose can be pointed in a particular direction. Am I directing that flow, or is the returning of the question the true orienting agent... How did that question return to re-direct the attention after distraction? Not sure I can explain that?

The other notable question that arose some time into this focussed contemplation was "what is observing and acknowledging this?". As I observe the free flow of thought through my mind, there is a clear feeling of assessing, confirming, commenting - a 'voice?" that feels like 'me' prompting me to look at the experience through via the question posed. Is that just a thought too? I then see that I'm looking at THAT observer through the lens of yet another observer... an observer, watching an observer, watching thought... stepping back obviously becomes infinite in it's potential, but there is a distinct illusion that 'something' is at the core - something looking. I can't say it feels like whatever it might be is in control, but it seems to be performing a task. There is a task that is being be observed... and it's being acknowledged by something.

We won't assert or speak of things for which we find no basis. If we have no basis, then we won't see, imagine or speculate on what cannot be found.

I don't think I entirely succeeded in your request. I tend to reframe a lot of thought and experience into analogy/metaphor to help accurately express it - both to myself and the person I am communicating with. This does seemingly incorporate both what feels 'known' with what feels possibly real but elusive. Also sometimes unverifiable sensations feel like they are hinting at something important and that I'm not seeing it. These feel important to mention, although they are not clear to me. Please feel free to offer examples of where I am unwittingly confusing baseless information and imagination as something useful.

[davjak]

I can clearly observe what was uninvited thought

Can thought be invited or disinvited? What is present in relation to thought to act upon it?

I observed that sometimes the thought-thread would take me quite some distance before realising I had been swept up - but upon returning...

Again, what is present in relation to thought to be swept up or to return? Is swept up and returning happening, or is this just more thought?

I cannot wilfully stop thoughts - not for long anyway - so I quite honestly don't see how I can be in control of them, yet when considering questions such as yours, it appears as though I can orient them in a general direction and somewhat 'guide the flow', albeit without the ability to determine the specific content...

Or it's nothing more than a prompt from a question that triggers an apparent response.

Do you have any say in what happens? Are you responsible for your speech or actions? What is there in relation to (separate from) the totality of experience to act upon it, control it, to have a say in it?

I then see that I'm looking at THAT observer through the lens of yet another observer... an observer, watching an observer, watching thought... stepping back obviously becomes infinite in it's potential,

Is there stepping back? Back where? What is present in relation to the thought that can step back from it? Or is this all just more thought

[Cabs]

Can thought be invited or disinvited? What is present in relation to thought to act upon it?

No, I can see that thought can't be invited or disinvited. I suppose I more accurately meant that I observed thoughts that were irrelevant to any specific objective. The only thing I can currently say is present to act upon thought is more thought itself.

Again, what is present in relation to thought to be swept up or to return? Is swept up and returning happening, or is this just more thought?

This could more accurately be referring to 'awareness'... Being "swept up" would refer to being lost in thought and thinking, whereas "returning" would refer to the awareness that I was not noticing this happening, and upon returning to awareness the thoughts and thinking were more in focus - being observed more consciously, and kept on task. I concur that this is thought acting upon itself, but in this instance at least, awareness seems to be involved. There is a (seemingly) distinct contrast between thinking / thought from an unaware state vs an aware state - when focused/aware my body feels engaged, there is more broad awareness of sensations outside of thought, and clarity in thinking; including holding onto the objective of the thinking process itself. So it IS more thought, but there's something else active that I can only call 'awareness', 'consciousness' or 'wakefulness' at this point...

Do you have any say in what happens? Are you responsible for your speech or actions? What is there in relation to (separate from) the totality of experience to act upon it, control it, to have a say in it?

The 'awareness' I mentioned above appears to offer the opportunity for responsibility. In day to day interactions for example, functioning (reacting) from a state of unconsciousness results in automated/habitual reactions - no different to being lost in thoughts actually, just outward rather than inward. Once awareness of this is engaged, these reactions seem more 'controllable" - at least outwardly - and they, along with the thoughts behind them, can be seen more clearly (less detached?) and resultantly they begin to fall away. Perhaps 'controllable' isn't the right word, maybe they just lose their energy once awareness of them is present.

Is there stepping back? Back where? What is present in relation to the thought that can step back from it? Or is this all just more thought

Only awareness seems capable of stepping back. Awareness of anything (thought/thinking in this instance) is what appears as the observer I suppose, as it gives the sense of behind 'behind the lens'.

The recurring question you have asked is; "What is there in relation to / separate from thought". Awareness seems to be that thing... My instinct is that it does have control to act or orient, but for anything to actually happen requires thought first - so the awareness isn't the actor at all. Thought is. But awareness somehow feels involved in spawning the thought. But then again, this doesn't explain how thoughts emerge and flow when I'm seemingly unaware. If awareness is involved in spawning thought, then how does thought come about when unaware?

[davjak]

The only thing I can currently say is present to act upon thought is more thought itself.

Thought can act? Are you sure about this? Remember, we are not here to imagine or speculate. Can a thought do anything?

Looking in a mirror, where are thoughts happening? Are they ever in a process of taking action of any kind? Where do they come from, and where do they go?

The 'awareness' I mentioned above appears to offer the opportunity for responsibility. In day to day interactions for example, functioning (reacting) from a state of unconsciousness results in automated/habitual reactions - no different to being lost in thoughts actually, just outward rather than inward. Once awareness of this is engaged, these reactions seem more 'controllable" - at least outwardly - and they, along with the thoughts behind them, can be seen more clearly (less detached?) and resultantly they begin to fall away. Perhaps 'controllable' isn't the right word, maybe they just lose their energy once awareness of them is present.

It sounds like where you are going with the rest of your answers is that there is an aware presence in relation to everything. And because of this, there is a possibility of responsibility and some measure of control, and this presence can engage and disengage, get lost and return, step back, observe, notice and fail to notice, etc.

So, it sounds like you leave the door open for choosing, controlling, taking action, etc. In other words, this aware presence is independently acting and somehow separate unto itself. Is this your finding?

I suppose I more accurately meant that I observed thoughts that were irrelevant to any specific objective.

Is this one who observed thoughts the aware presence? The statement was that I meant that I observed thoughts... What is going on here?

[Cabs]

Ha ha, I'm not sure why I find myself smiling at this while simultaneously feeling like there's an intensity to it. My brain feels like it's being given a very challenging mental puzzle...

Thought can act? Are you sure about this? Remember, we are not here to imagine or speculate. Can a thought do anything?

No. Thought cannot act. It appears to be reactionary, because of the apparent sequential nature of thoughts - one leading to another, etc - but that is different to acting... or is it? I suppose reacting is an action. My initial response was that thought can cause reactions, but it really doesn't cause them, as much as appear amongst what I'm perceiving as reactions, correlating sensations. I suppose it's a flow, and perhaps has no cause. It could all be just one long flow I'm witnessing pass by.

Looking in a mirror, where are thoughts happening? Are they ever in a process of taking action of any kind? Where do they come from, and where do they go?

Do you mean literally looking in a mirror? If so, they seem to be happening in front of my body. When I actively try to place them in my brain, it doesn't seem to work. Strange that I've never noticed that before. The thoughts themselves can't take any actions. Only the body seems to act, and while I would have previously said the action was at least initiated by the thought, it appears not to be the case when really observing it. The body 'acts', but it may or may not have been the action the thought was appearing to instigate - I definitely observed action I did not think to initiate, and I also saw the body not acting in response to thoughts that prompted it to.

Where do they come from and where do they go? Oof. I have no idea. I just stared at myself in the mirror for a few minutes asking this question in my mind. I noticed the question itself repeating over and over in front of my face, while observing duller background thoughts seeming to exist in my my ears - haha. If attention was put on them, they came to the foreground. So they seem to manifest around my head, but where do they go? They go nowhere? The just cease existing? They disappear.

It sounds like where you are going with the rest of your answers is that there is an aware presence in relation to everything. And because of this, there is a possibility of responsibility and some measure of control, and this presence can engage and disengage, get lost and return, step back, observe, notice and fail to notice, etc.

So, it sounds like you leave the door open for choosing, controlling, taking action, etc. In other words, this aware presence is independently acting and somehow separate unto itself. Is this your finding?

In case you are referring to an entity of some kind when you said aware 'presence', no I don't experience it as an entity as such - at least I don't think so, I'll need to observe that and see. By presence I was referring to being present... but now that I write that, I can see that it implies something that can be present. I'm not sure how else to put it. Being aware and fully present in the moment. It's not so much that awareness can turn on or off, go away and return, or step back... however, it is my experience that that state can be noticed or unnoticed.

I'm not knowingly leaving the door open for choosing/controlling/taking action as far as I am aware. That sounds intentional, as though there's a choice involved. Perhaps this thing I'm calling awareness does appear to me as independent in some way, at least insofar as it appears as the space within which these happenings are noticed. But then again, it does carry the impression of noticing. The noticing doesn't feel one with the noticed, so that does imply independent. But I wouldn't say it's independently 'acting', because it doesn't seem to do anything - like a light being on in a room, it's illuminating but not doing anything - just noticing. Or is noticing 'doing'? I suppose it is. It's a verb after all. If that is the case, then I guess I do experience awareness of these things as something that feels independent doing something!

[davjak]

Do you mean literally looking in a mirror?

Yes.

If so, they seem to be happening in front of my body.

And what can this 'seeming to happen in front of my body' be made of other than more visual/spatial thoughts and maybe some sensations? Can thoughts be 'out there'? Can they be 'in here'? Is there 'out there' and 'in here'?

Are you starting to see how the person lives in a conceptual fog?

Is there ever anything available other than what is seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled or cognized? Is there any other element, if so, what?

If attention was put on them, they came to the foreground.

Back to a central question, are you something that has the capability to place attention? Are you a willful, responsible agent/participant? Are you something that has agency, operational control, choice? Is that what is happening?

My initial response was that thought can cause reactions, but it really doesn't cause them, as much as appear amongst what I'm perceiving as reactions, correlating sensations. I suppose it's a flow, and perhaps has no cause. It could all be just one long flow I'm witnessing pass by.

You say thought appears amongst what I'm perceiving, so it sounds like you are assuming to be the aware witnessing space/presence in which things appear. It's there again when you say you witness a flow passing by. Am I inferring correctly?

In case you are referring to an entity of some kind when you said aware 'presence', no I don't experience it as an entity as such - at least I don't think so, I'll need to observe that and see.

Do you see the core contradiction here? Can you see it throughout all you've written? If you are going to observe and see, do you need to be an entity of some sort?

[Cabs]

And what can this 'seeming to happen in front of my body' be made of other than more visual/spatial thoughts and maybe some sensations? Can thoughts be 'out there'? Can they be 'in here'? Is there 'out there' and 'in here'?

Seemingly not, despite appearance to the contrary.

Are you starting to see how the person lives in a conceptual fog?

Yes. Fog is a good descriptor - everything is very obscured and distorted.

Is there ever anything available other than what is seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled or cognized? Is there any other element, if so, what?

My instinctive response is/was 'attention' - as in, recognition of anything at all. But when really drilling down into this, it's difficult to separate the recognition of a sense object from the object itself because once recognised, it instantly becomes the object of recognition. Like how the present instantly becomes the past the moment it is recognised.

Hmmm. That feels significant.

The chicken or the egg question keeps arising in my mind - which was first? But the only answer that seems feasible is neither. Because 'first' would imply separateness... but they must be inseparable. Recognition couldn't occur without something to recognise, but the recognised only exists due to it's recognition (as far as I know for certain).

This feels right, but it also feels elusive.

Back to a central question, are you something that has the capability to place attention? Are you a willful, responsible agent/participant? Are you something that has agency, operational control, choice? Is that what is happening?

It's funny, after haven't listened to a lot of discourse on the nature of this, I am noticing things I've heard others say appearing in my mind. It's creating an interesting experience; trying to discern what is something I've heard spoken about vs something I truly and individually experience. When I feel it is my direct experience, the relevant teachings are attaching to it, confirming it... entangling my experience with the teachings. Confusing.

Under the premise of my previous comment, no, I don't have agency/control/choice. The apparent relevance of the recognition/recognised creates a very compelling sense of agency however. But when looking, the source of everything I am deeming it relevant to was not due to anything I could claim responsibility for. Relevance is apparent, but not really chosen or intentional as it appears.

You say thought appears amongst what I'm perceiving, so it sounds like you are assuming to be the aware witnessing space/presence in which things appear. It's there again when you say you witness a flow passing by. Am I inferring correctly?

You are inferring correctly - I can see that now. After the above discourse, I would concur that I don't know what "I" am at all in reference to this.

I was previously assuming the role of the recogniser/observer - under the guise of awareness - but now it feels more accurate to say that there is no recogniser as such, just the recognition/recognised singularity.

This insight feels right, yet somewhat tenuous - easily obscured by habit and conditioning. Easily swallowed up when caught back up in day to day activity (unconsciousness). Perhaps that is just something requiring practice and time?

Do you see the core contradiction here? Can you see it throughout all you've written? If you are going to observe and see, do you need to be an entity of some sort?

Yes I can see the contradiction.

[davjak]

My instinctive response is/was 'attention' - as in, recognition of anything at all. But when really drilling down into this, it's difficult to separate the recognition of a sense object from the object itself because once recognised, it instantly becomes the object of recognition. Like how the present instantly becomes the past the moment it is recognised.

Yes, good. The recognized needs a recognizer. It was just another concept. That apparently leaves what is seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled or cognized. But who can say?

The chicken or the egg question keeps arising in my mind - which was first? But the only answer that seems feasible is neither.

To say one or the other is to take a position. Where is the footing for a position that is the correct, permanent, inviolable footing? Tell me something that has such a footing?

You are inferring correctly - I can see that now. After the above discourse, I would concur that I don't know what "I" am at all in reference to this.

I was previously assuming the role of the recogniser/observer - under the guise of awareness - but now it feels more accurate to say that there is no recogniser as such, just the recognition/recognised singularity.

The recognition/recognized is not singular, it's still a duality, still conceptualizing. If recognizing is happening, something is doing recognizing.

Again, what is there in addition to what is apparently seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled or cognized? Does the seen need something seeing it? Does the heard need something hearing it? Does the apparent sensation need something to feel it? Does the thought need something to think it?

What is this mysterious thing we believe is at the center of everything? Is something there? Is there a center? From what position is the center known? From what position is anything identified as what it is? Where is the footing on which this thing called I stands? Is there a footing?

[davjak]

I see that in my first response I was misreading you. I read your answer to mean you were doing away with the idea of recognizing/recognition, but I see you were maintaining it. The point is that no basis is to be found for a belief in this mechanism called recognizing, because then we would have to find the recognizer. Recognizing is more of the conceptual fog. It cannot be found.

[Cabs]

The recognition/recognized is not singular, it's still a duality, still conceptualizing. If recognizing is happening, something is doing recognizing.

When I said singularity, I meant that there is no distinction between noticing and the thing that is noticed - they are one. Noticing is only appearing to happen in indistinguishable tandem with the object being noticed.

Again, what is there in addition to what is apparently seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled or cognized? Does the seen need something seeing it? Does the heard need something hearing it? Does the apparent sensation need something to feel it? Does the thought need something to think it?

Need? No. It just happens as one. They cannot be isolated.

What is this mysterious thing we believe is at the center of everything? Is something there? Is there a center? From what position is the center known? From what position is anything identified as what it is? Where is the footing on which this thing called I stands? Is there a footing?

I remember hearing someone say once that if the universe is infinite, then everywhere is the centre. That's kinda how it feels when looking into this question. It does somehow feel like there is a vantage point from which everything is appearing, but I can sense nothing solid at the core - no centre as such. It doesn't feel spherical, it feels 2 dimensional in that sense. Just a vantage point. I have a sense of it being like a reflection, A 2-dimensional representation of everything, but with no substance... I cannot grasp a clear seeing of this though. It feels vague.

I see that in my first response I was misreading you. I read your answer to mean you were doing away with the idea of recognizing/recognition, but I see you were maintaining it. The point is that no basis is to be found for a belief in this mechanism called recognizing, because then we would have to find the recognizer. Recognizing is more of the conceptual fog. It cannot be found.

Before you added this remark, I had spent some time meditating on the recognising/recognised insight, in combination with your previous questions about what it is that is seeing, hearing, etc. and the concept of non-dual... if there is no observer, then what is observing/observed? Exploring this, I could find no possibility until the thought arose that everything is experiencing itself.

I felt awake to the sense (or at least the real possibility) that when noticing is occurring, the noticed must be present AS it, and simultaneously it is producing its own experience. I'm struggling to put this into words, and also having trouble accurately understanding what I was seemingly understanding yesterday. There was a period of it seeming obvious, but now I can't formulate it.

When I read that you said "recognising is more of the conceptual fog", it kind of broke that down somehow. I agree that recognising in isolation - as an isolated act performed by a separate recogniser - is conceptual, but when it's an element within a singular loop - recogniser>recognising>recognised>recogniser>recognising... etc it seems plausible - at least it did for the moment I was seeing it.

Admittedly though, the fact that even this was being witnessed seemed to cancel itself out, unless that occurrence is equally regarded as a witnesser>witnessing >witness loop taking place

[davjak]

When I said singularity, I meant that there is no distinction between noticing and the thing that is noticed - they are one. Noticing is only appearing to happen in indistinguishable tandem with the object being noticed.

Yes, I understand exactly, and it's still coming from concepts. Noticing is no different from recognizing, realizing, aware-ing, etc. If noticing is happening, there is the one who notices. This isn't just word games. Concepts won't penetrate the fog.

'One' is conceptual and implies two. If there is one, it has been recognized and designated as such. Something has to identify oneness.

Indistinguishable means same, one not distinguishable from the other. Verbal gymnastics won't get around the subject-object duality. Noticing requires a noticer. Noticing is a concept, and it retains the subjective presence to do noticing.

Need? No. It just happens as one. They cannot be isolated.

Again, there is no one, and there is no they. We can simply let this soak in for awhile though, no need to hammer away at it now.

I remember hearing someone say once that if the universe is infinite, then everywhere is the centre. That's kinda how it feels when looking into this question. It does somehow feel like there is a vantage point from which everything is appearing, but I can sense nothing solid at the core - no centre as such. It doesn't feel spherical, it feels 2 dimensional in that sense. Just a vantage point. I have a sense of it being like a reflection, A 2-dimensional representation of everything, but with no substance... I cannot grasp a clear seeing of this though. It feels vague.

Without going into concepts, did you ever see, hear, touch, taste, smell or cognize a universe? Did you ever experience everywhere, everything or a center? There simply is NO mental model for this, none whatsoever.

Before you added this remark, I had spent some time meditating on the recognising/recognised insight, in combination with your previous questions about what it is that is seeing, hearing, etc. and the concept of non-dual... if there is no observer, then what is observing/observed? Exploring this, I could find no possibility until the thought arose that everything is experiencing itself.

How could everything experience itself? It would have to separate itself to look back upon itself. Everything has no position outside itself to reflect upon itself, because it's everything. Another mental model falls apart.

I felt awake to the sense (or at least the real possibility) that when noticing is occurring, the noticed must be present AS it, and simultaneously it is producing its own experience. I'm struggling to put this into words, and also having trouble accurately understanding what I was seemingly understanding yesterday. There was a period of it seeming obvious, but now I can't formulate it.

Noticing will always have you as the noticer, and concepts can only maintain separation. There is no way around this.

Without conceptualizing or thinking, what is present with a thought to notice it? Is there something, or is there only the thought? We have no idea what a thought is. All models are useless. Without reference to ANYTHING other than the thought, is there anything but the thought? Is there location, orientation, dimension, top/bottom, large/small, good/bad, near/far? With sound, is there anything but the sound? Where is the witness? Where is the 'seat', the universe or everything or anything?