Nick's Practice Notes Number 3

Continued from above..

I give the mind an imaginary push in the desired direction in a swooping sense and I let go and the mind flows in the desired direction seemingly indefinitely. I've tried this with metta, with going very deep in jhana, as well as when i get a seriously negative flow of vibrations on the body during a dark night phase. I swoop the mind in the direction of the sensations and the mind flows indefinitely towards the sensations for longer and longer periods. This way, there is absolutely no distractions via a sense of I AM jumping in to interrupt the flow or let that bending of the mind around the sensation creating a sankhara (mental volition or thought or emotion).

I am not currently interested in AF as a goal but I can imagine naivete can be approached like this. It feels like a recent development. i was never able to do so without that mirage of I AM popping up to push the mind in a different direction or just interrupt the flow. It seems very useful for developing concentration further than i have been.

Another thing I am noticing, due to a conversation i had with triplethink, is the ability of the mind to change the perception of sensations. If they are initially perceived to be negative, perception can be shifted to seeing those same sensations as pleasant and then both pleasant and unpleasant at the same time. This seems very much connected to the mind getting ultra concentrated and more within my control. More on this later.

"Hi Nick,
This is a really great write up. I have some questions:
Where or how do you sense awareness? Does it have location? Does it seem inside you looking out or is it everywhere and unlocatable?

When you go outdoors - say a park or something - do phenomena (including your body, trees etc) seem to simply arise within awareness or is there the sense of you as observer observing what is observed?"

Hi Chuck,

Well, sometimes I could say it feels like there is no location to the awareness. Particularly when I take a 3rd gear approach as in primordial awareness or one taste experience. That gives the impression there is no locus to the awareness. But if the awareness of the body and mind is localized in a specific area,( if we are calling the arising of a sense consciousness awareness), it is then localized to where it has arisen along with it's object. There is nothing that is aware. That is sure. Everything is appearing to be nothing but object when the mind inclines to look carefully. When i look at a tree, there is the tree being seen and perceived. But no-one is seeing the tree in the moments the tree is seen.

What has become blazingly clear is that the phenomena being misread as the sense of I AM pops in and out of any process of an object being seen, heard, touched etc. So I cannot say that there is a sense of an observer observing. There is the seeing in the seen, and then the I AM is a combination of a thought /image and sensations. The tree and any other object arises as just an object without a subject. However, I am giving the impression that this is a permanent way of seeing. it is not. I am more aware of the I AM phenomena popping in to be misread as an observer. But more and more, it's appearing as just another object.

Does that make sense?

Nick

"Does that make sense?

"

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say that your approach to phenomena corresponds with: "In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. ... etc"?

Kind of like, what is your working view?

"What has become blazingly clear is that the phenomena being misread as the sense of I AM pops in and out of any process of an object being seen, heard, touched etc. So I cannot say that there is a sense of an observer observing. There is the seeing in the seen, and then the I AM is a combination of a thought /image and sensations. The tree and any other object arises as just an object without a subject. However, i am giving the impression that this is a permanent way of seeing. it is not. I am more aware of the I AM phenomena popping in to be misread as an observer. But more and more, it's appearing as just another object.

Does that make sense?

Nick

"

It makes sense. In keeping with "...he does not conceive in it..." in MN1. Buddhadhamma 101.

This is good too;
"And the subtle development in being able to take on an angle of seeing all of it as object has allowed me to be able to chose to spend 100% of the mind's attention on the jhanas and the tension felt, without that sense of I AM distracting that focus and energy so to speak. This ability also allows for an amazing power to generate metta. Previously I would feel the I AM jumping in and out of awareness to distract the mind and interrupt the metta generating. But when I resolve to have the sense of growing and multiplying vibrations flowing out of every pore of the body as the only object, the mind does this for longer and longer periods. And the metta flow is unhindered by any distractions."

I suggest trying all 4 of the Viharas and noting the differences in keeping with your other notes here and if you are adventurous try these exercises throughout the day around other people to observe any effects of doing so among other people and beings in your environment. That can be very interesting and demonstrate some of the unseen ways that these mental qualities can interact with the mental qualities of others.

Hey Nick. I've been reading through your notes and I found them very interesting, in general and also from the perspective of my own practice. I found a lot of your thoughts on the "I AM" to be insightful and helpful. One thing I've puzzled over a lot is that the mysterious "I AM" doesn't fit into the traditional Buddhist taxonomy of phenomena. Realizing that eliminating it must mean seeing that it is, as you say, "a composite of sensations and thoughts/images", makes it easier to interpret some parts of the canon, e.g. this from Magandiya Sutta:

"In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma '” 'This is that freedom from Disease; this is that Unbinding' '” and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that Unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to... it was just feeling... just perception... just fabrications... just consciousness that I was clinging to.'"

"Just" form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness? Well, maybe someone would say that if they had previously seen those things as something other than those things...

"Yes, that makes sense. Would you say that your approach to phenomena corresponds with: "In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. ... etc"?

Kind of like, what is your working view? "

Hi Chuck,

Yes, my working and experiential view is "In the seeing is just the seen." as in the Bahiya sutta: www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

There are just objects. Taking on this view seems to have shifted something in my practice in a very positive way. The I AM has lost some of its weight. Any tips?



Nick

"
I suggest trying all 4 of the Viharas and noting the differences in keeping with your other notes here and if you are adventurous try these exercises throughout the day around other people to observe any effects of doing so among other people and beings in your environment. That can be very interesting and demonstrate some of the unseen ways that these mental qualities can interact with the mental qualities of others."

Excellent. I love this homework! Thanks Nathan!



P.S Glad my notes are helpful, EndInSight.

"One thing I've puzzled over a lot is that the mysterious "I AM" doesn't fit into the traditional Buddhist taxonomy of phenomena. Realizing that eliminating it must mean seeing that it is, as you say, "a composite of sensations and thoughts/images", makes it easier to interpret some parts of the canon. EndInSIght

"

The following quote is from the Khemaka sutta

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters (Anagami), he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I AM' conceit, an 'I AM' desire, an 'I AM' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I AM' conceit, 'I AM' desire, 'I AM' obsession is fully obliterated."

Nick

Can someone describe this "I AM" in more detail?

Here's what I see when an object arises through contact with a sense organ: it is at first a raw signal, then rapidly identified and named, and images and concepts about it arise in the mind. This mind process, dependent origination, creates the subject/object duality. That duality is the point of creation of the "I/me/mine", a conditioned, habitual assumption that "I" am observing something. An ignorant assumption, it turns out, and one that can be seen through. While there is no "location" to any mental activity the mind assumes one, makes one up, inserts the object and an assumed "me" into a mental map that thus assists in the creation of "me" as "I" am located "here" and the object is located "there." This conditioned habit operated all the time if we live in what the Buddha called "ignorance and delusion."

A person can see through this "I/me/mine" construction, either in snippets, in stretches or permanently.

So is that the same thing as the "I AM?"

"As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I AM' conceit, 'I AM' desire, 'I AM' obsession is fully obliterated.""

When I first read that sutta (one of my favorites actually) my best intepretation was "one does mahasi noting until the mysterious I AM goes away", but that never made clear to me what I AM was supposed to be. Now I think a better interpretation may be "one observes the aggregates until the mind no longer composites I AM out of them", which is a little less provincial, and fits I AM into the taxonomy better.

The canon is, in my opinion, extremely clear about a whole range of issues, but now I wish it had been more clear about this one.

"Can someone describe this "I AM" in more detail? "

I'm not sure that I personally can, but I would highlight this important feature of my own experience with it---there is a difference between "seeing through" it, and (temporarily) getting rid of it. Seeing through it is the outcome of lots of vipassana---the result being the permanent recognition "whatever that is, it is not what it appears to be, not me, not generated by me, not observed by me, not other than me". But it still remains afterwards as some vestigial function of the mind, and I have observed that the mind is better off without it (in the instances I experienced where it's fallen away). So one can do mahasi noting until the cows come home and say "there is no more delusion concerning I AM, all experience is empty, non-local, subjectless, and my mind is free", and that may be true in the sense that there is no further tendency to take any experience (including I AM) as a self or belonging to a self or observed by a self, but even so, the vestigial I AM experience remains, and one could also pitch their own experience in different terms (as perhaps the monk in the Khemaka sutta describes his own).

I agree, EndinSight. There is no "I AM" object in my experience, either. But it gets talked about as if it was a real "thing," which adds to the confusion. I think it's best described as an experience, not a thing. "I" am an assumption, a chimera, a conceit, a myth, a trick of mind, an illusion, a mirage

"
So is that the same thing as the "I AM?"

"

Hi Chris,

that sounds like it to me. For myself though, I am getting an obvious turning back into the middle of the brain where the mind's attention falls almost automatically without any volition to do so. They are just sensations coupled with an image and/or a thought of "I" to kind of create this idea of a subject to any object in awareness.

One way I saw this happening was while looking at an object in front of me with my eyes. I would push the mind's attention to the edges of the eyeballs giving the impression that the "seeing" is being done from that vantage point. The very edge of the eyeballs. When I do this, there is no sense of I AM, just the seeing in the seen. If attention can be maintained there with effort then the I AM sense does not arise. When i let this viewpoint go, the mind would then automatically allow attention to jump to the middle of the brain at the Witness spot. And from here the sensations and image/thoughts there would take centre stage as object, then back to the object being seen, then back to that Wintess spot, then back to the object and so on. It gives me this feeling like I am looking at the object from within my brain, as well as the sense that "I AM" looking. But it seems more and more to just be another object (compounded phenomena) being misread as an observer. it doesn't seem to be observing anything as it's not really a subject. This is purely my own experience. I am not sure if this happens to other yogis. I'd be interested to hear about others' experiences. Please keep my disclaimers in mind. No absolutes.

"
I agree, EndinSight. There is no "I AM" object in my experience, either. But it gets talked about as if it was a real "thing," which adds to the confusion. I think it's best described as an experience, not a thing. "I" am an assumption, a chimera, a conceit, a myth, a trick of mind, an illusion, a mirage

"

Yes, I agree and if I have given the impression that it is a thing then my apologies. it isnt a thing at all. it's a misreading of phenomena and thus an experience. Just the magic show.

Nick

"But it seems more and more to just be another object being misread as an observer." -- Nick

See, my description would not have included the word "object" as I have never experienced the "me" as any kind of object. It's more like an inferred subject that can never be found when looked for. See my last post in agreement with EndinSight for more detail, Nick.

Thanks, Nick. I'm a fanatic when it comes to trying to be overly precise in the way we use language around these things but I think it makes a difference, sometimes a huge difference, to folks reading what we're posting. The difference between looking for an object "me" and looking for the processes that cause an implied subject "me" to arise could be pretty significant.

"
"But it seems more and more to just be another object being misread as an observer." -- Nick

See, my description would not have included the word "object" as I have never experienced the "me" as any kind of object. It's more like an inferred subject that can never be found when looked for. See my last post in agreement with EndinSight for more detail, Nick.

"

I am calling the sensations and image that arise in quick succession to be read as I AM as the object/s like any phenomena observed with insight practice. The perception of those phenomena is also taken as object ie. the perception first as I AM, then the more those phenomena are investigated and seen, they appear as the phenomena that they are without that I AM idea attached. Object I guess means what is being looked at. And just to repeat, the "I", "me" "self" is not a thing. That is the illsuion to see through. It is an experiecne, a misreading, misperception of the aggregates. Though, I may well be talking out my arse.

"It gives me this feeling like I am looking at the object from within my brain, as well as the sense that "I AM" looking. But it seems more and more to just be another object being misread as an observer.
(...)
THis is purely my experience. i am not sure if this happens to other yogis. i'd be interested to hear about others' experiences."

Same thing happens to me. Also with hearing, for instance, it feels as if hearing happens, in the sense that it is acknowledged somehow, inside the brain. It is what one seems to be "perceiving through." When this is not operating (in a PCE) hearing happens at the ear drums.

Energetically, for me, it feels a bit like an inner swirl of pressure (a "knot"), happening at a chakra point (usually the ajna/middle of the brain, but more recently it will often be in the throat or crown chakras).

EDIT: When I try to look at this sense of IAM, I will sometimes try to make it an object, by creating another sense of I am from where to look at. This is painful and fruitless tail-chasing. But if I just let it be, I can "perceive it," it is seen happening.

"But it seems more and more to just be another object being misread as an observer." -- Nick

"See, my description would not have included the word "object" as I have never experienced the "me" as any kind of object. It's more like an inferred subject that can never be found when looked for. See my last post in agreement with EndinSight for more detail, Nick." -cmarti

With regard to the use of the word "object" here, it's worthwhile asking if anything arises in consciousness that is not an object. If so, how would you know?

"Yes, my working and experiential view is "In the seeing is just the seen." as in the Bahiya sutta: ... The I AM has lost some of its weight. Any tips?

"

Not sure. Bahiya was not yet a stream winner. This teaching "In reference to the seen, ..." as far as I can see was given to people that had not yet entered the stream. In this way it was a disembedding technique.

There is another sutta, Malunkyaputta Sutta, where they take it to another level.

The general form is "While one is seeing a form '” and even experiencing feeling '” it falls away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not amassing stress, one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding."

In MN149 - this gets very interesting with regard to all this:
"For him '” uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks '” the five clinging-aggregates head toward future diminution. .... His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness."

"He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness". He does not say: 'In ease of body there is just ease of bodyness'.

At a certain point, I found the short form was creating problems for me. It involved a practice which created more tension then was already there.
I ended up dismissing emergent qualities of ease of mind and body that come about naturally with the practice -and are actually qualities used to further the process along - as well as using them for a 'calm abiding here and now'.

Don't know if this applies in your case. I had to drop that view. It was just getting in the way once everything started falling apart on its own.

"
At a certain point, I found the short form was creating problems for me. It involved a practice which created more tension then was already there.

I ended up dismissing emergent qualities of ease of mind and body that come about naturally with the practice -and are actually qualities used to further the process along - as well as using them for a 'calm abiding here and now'.

Don't know if this applies in your case. I had to drop that view. It was just getting in the way once everything started falling apart on its own. "

Interesting. i had no idea about the difference between those two suttas. I have a hunch that this past week of non-stop abiding in jhana territory has really increased that "calm abiding here and now". I do feel like cultivating that further.

We'll see where it leads. Thanks for the heads up.

The first law of mapping, according to KF:

Everything looks like everything else.

I like to think of this process as a spiral. At some points, the simplest statement is the most helpful, e.g., "In the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard..."

At other points, that statement can become a stumbling block as it becomes just another thing to cling to. So, something more gentle and nuanced can be useful, e.g., "He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness."

But this too can outlive its usefulness as you spiral into a new phase, in which you might find new life in the simpler version. And then, you might spiral through it all again. Who knows where infinite spirals end up?

We have to be light on our feet, always dancing. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," as Muhammed Ali once said about his boxing style. Use the pointer that works for you in this moment. But be careful about pointing back to the pointer.

Thanks for the advice Kenneth.

I have to say that I have not really focused lately on getting to any particular stage. I feel quite enthused by my current letting go of jhana practice which i have described in a previous post. I do not know of I have even made the 6th stage of the 7 stages of enlightenment that Kenneth recently posted a thread on. So please don't take my descriptions of my practice as a claim to the 6th stage and currenlty working on the getting to the 7th. I have no idea where I am nor am i worried nor do think about it at all. What I have reported are things that just occurred out of the blue and spurred me to share. I could be screaming bloody murder next week due to an emotional upheaval...hehe! So take my descriptions with a grain of salt. They are things that occur and at times drop away to arise at some later date.

All the same, what I am practicing feels like it is taking me to where i wish to be; A place of transformation into a kinder, happier, more compassionate loving Nick. My loving fiancee and pet hedgehog deserves just that.

Metta,

Nick

"The first law of mapping, according to KF:

Everything looks like everything else.

I like to think of this process as a spiral. At some points, the simplest statement is the most helpful, e.g., "In the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard..."

At other points, that statement can become a stumbling block as it becomes just another thing to cling to. So, something more gentle and nuanced can be useful, e.g., "He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness."

But this too can outlive its usefulness as you spiral into a new phase, in which you might find new life in the simpler version. And then, you might spiral through it all again. Who knows where infinite spirals end up?

We have to be light on our feet, always dancing. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," as Muhammed Ali once said about his boxing style. Use the pointer that works for you in this moment. But be careful about pointing back to the pointer. "

Which is why I continue on at ease with 'he/she does not conceive in it'. The specific qualities of ongoing experience continue to change even if subtly but refraining from making someone or something (or not someone or not something) of the given experience remains a consistently beneficial, useful and skillful practice. In practice this is simply, if and when necessary, relaxing and retiring any reflex to fabricate something more substantial from the moment, therefore naturally more 'at ease' than engaging in the whole chain of dukkha that typically proceeds from the process of composing a character and their narrative significances.

For the last month or so I have been practicing a letting go approach jhanas/nanas and whatever state the mind has found itself in in any given moment. You can read a little about it here:
thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com/2011/01/...-go-approach-to.html

Essentially, in any given moment, the mind will focus on the very state its in. It will focus on the way it feels in the mind and in the body. This part is pretty automatic for me these days. Any state will be seen to be conditioned by both mental and physical components in any given moment. The mind will become quickly aware of both. In my experience, these conditioning factors ARE the very state the mind is in. So they will be gently looked at and like an injured bird, I will sit with those factors until the injured bird remembers to use its wings and it flies off. This is a very natural way of letting any tension go in the body. That tension is the very factors that condition any given state of mind.

When I say tension, I don't literally mean muscular tension or something gross like that although that could be a conditioning factor still. When I say tension, I mean a subtle sense of unsatisfactoriness within the mind. It is more mental than anything. It seems to be the way the mind holds any given sensation in the body with either craving (for pleasant sensations), aversion (for any unpleasant sensations) and a kind of dullness (for any neutral sensations). This act of 'holding' a sensation in these ways is the very tension I talk of. It is unsatisfactory regardless of how pleasant a sensation is. The mind creates this tension by placing some sort of condition on top of the sensation. 'It must keep going. It must be permanent. My happiness depends on it etc etc' . This is the tension.