Desire and Ill Will - Sample Dialogue 3
Inquiry into Desire and Ill Will
Hi Kevin. I’ve been looking at your article on desire and ill will. Are you saying: look and see there is no inherent connection, nothing findable within what is simply happening in experience, which connects the vedana with the reaction to it? Just stories/thoughts, or some unfindable conditioned knee-jerk...
Sometimes I find it hard to distinguish the vedana from the craving. There's the vedana… then craving/aversion, manifesting as thoughts and clenching in the body. But then that clenching itself has a vedana, and then there's a reaction to that… Any tips?
- - - - -
Hi! Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying :-)
I think the hardest part is staying with just the first dart - what you see that you really want or don't like, and the initial physical and mental sensations that inevitably go with that. Sometimes, the physical sensations are easier to stay with. Also, by phrasing things in the negative, there may be less of a tendency to go into reactions, thus the craving/aversion doesn't kick in.
So, for craving, let's use chocolate. As you sit and think about chocolate, or you walk by a chocolate shop and see and smell the chocolate, what are the initial physical and mental sensations? There may be what feels like an urge to do something, a visceral and even unpleasant full-body feeling that demands action? Watching what is happening in the body can be more straightforward than parsing thoughts and images that come up. The habitual tendency is to act on that sensation, even though it has no specific content.
As for staying with the basic mental/thought sensations, phrased in the negative, it's simply a matter of "I don't have chocolate right now". OK, so what? Why does that have to lead to any further reaction? This is different from saying "I want chocolate!", which merely reinforces the craving. By staying with what's actually happening, that isn't what you want, the physical sensations can recur as well.
- - - - -
The 'So what, why does that have to lead to any further reaction?' feels like the nub of it. More soon.
- - - - -
If you'd like, I can help clarify what it is you're saying "so what?" to - that can be the tricky part sometimes...
- - - - -
Here’s one; I messed up so didn't get a place on a day retreat that I would love to have done!
‘I'm not doing that retreat I wanted to go on’
Initially very strong sensations; pronounced pouting, clenching in belly etc; plus a straining 'forward' - a tantrum-like volition. Reminded me of when frustration used to bring imagining of throwing a brick through a window! Except this time there was nothing specific imagined. There was a directionality, straining, but with just a generalised sense of wanting to move away from current experience.
'I'm not doing that retreat I wanted to go on'
So what, why does that have to lead to any further reactions?
I could see that what led to the reactions was an imagining of the day, especially my friends there. Plus imagining that today would be less inspiring when not on the retreat. Thoughts of 'if only I'd x, y'.
At one point I felt the dukkha of it. i.e., rather than tantrum there was knowing that it is thus, i.e. there is dukkha - bringing soft openness.
At one point, I was with 'I'm not doing the retreat' and not moving away from the moment, not thinking. Then there was no reaction, neutrality.
Right now:
Reactions: a dull flat disappointment. Face is without expression, heavy. Breathing shallow, restricted. Clenching, energy feels low, suppressed.
Repeating 'I'm not doing'…
'So what?'
Initial reaction was a smile… feeling the ridiculousness of craving for spiritual experiences!!
Queasiness in the belly, from conflicting urges… some clinging to 'business as usual' in there… a glimpse of freedom… a fear of it being boring if I don't seek out what I want.
This is rather long, I hope that's ok.
- - - - -
This is good! That straining forward that seems to require you to do or say something, even if nothing specific is being imagined: that's what I suggest staying with. True, we usually come up with something to do or say, thus craving and aversion blossom. However, staying with “I'm not...” can allow you to stay with that unpleasant vedana, that content-free URGE (the word I usually use) and look for the reason why you have to respond, even as one or more specific reactions are trying to ramp up. It might also help see how desire and ill will are two sides of the same coin: you want what you want, and get upset when that's not the case. Both a pulling and pushing at experience.
As you saw, no reaction is necessary: neutrality/equanimity is available as an option. And yes, it can seem ridiculous: perhaps an image of a three-year-old writhing on the floor in a tantrum, screaming “but I'm not at that retreat today!!”, as if that's got some inherent meaning. I think you've directly pointed yourself well through this!
A question: is seeking out what you want to keep life interesting/not boring an underlying tendency/necessity? In other words, is something like “Life isn't always interesting” a more fundamental form of desire, a fact you regularly have difficulty saying “so what??” to? The reason I ask is that the retreat is now over and done with, and thus has perhaps already lost a lot of the energy behind it. Is there a more “chronic” or fundamental sort of issue that you can reliably summon to work with?
PS: the three-year-old on the floor refers to a very vivid impression I had of myself, not you...
- - - - -
Hi, three year old it is....with spectacular pout. Inner tantrums arise easily here. Applied your process to a probate letter I sent not arriving. Notice there's some illusion of potency in the tantrum... and denial of the reality of not being able to do anything about the said non-arrival.
The aversion side of the coin is nearly always felt more intensely.
A more chronic or fundamental issue... No control, having to lump it. 'There's nothing to be done about this'. Or another one would be: 'Again and again we cause ourselves and each other suffering'. The resistance to that is less tantrum, more subtle, a cooler more perplexed warding off, shutting out of that truth. I think a lot of craving/aversion that presents is underpinned by one of those two.
Noticing there's no-one there that wants or doesn't sort of cuts the root, creates a perplexed open space… but doesn't stop the reaction happening in the first place.
- - - - -
Ah, glad there are other three year olds in the world!
A suggestion is to let your sense of “me” be “real” for now, since you’re holding what’s happening to be so real as well. Even once the illusory ego/self evaporated, we still identify with experience quite strongly. I take solace that, with the 8th fetter, one is still grappling with the illusion “I Am”, thus everything up to that point is some sort of “selfing”. To say at this point “heck, there’s no one here” may be a little spiritual bypassing?
If a fundamental issue is “I can’t control what’s happening”, let’s work with that. Without focusing on a particular situation out of your control, but just the basic fact that you’re not in control, what first happens in experience? What is the “felt sense” of that, before the grosser physical manifestations of tightening, etc. occurs? Is there that urge to think/say/do something? If so, what does that urge feel like? If you go off into thoughts and other reactions, try coming back to just the phrase “I can’t control what’s happening”.
And what does the mechanism feel like by which the initial responses arise: does it feel like a button gets pushed, a switch is flipped, a programme runs, etc.? Whatever it is, it obviously won’t show up on an x-ray, but it seems like there is “something in here somewhere”, no? How would you describe the mechanism that converts the basic fact that you can’t control what is happening and makes it mean something in particular to you?
- - - - -
Great, thanks, super clear. Will investigate. But 'I can't control what's happening' is not in the abstract having enough effect! 'I can't prevent suffering' feels more instantly juicy, so thinking to use that?
- - - - -
By all means go with what has juice, that can get the urge going even if you're not in the middle of watching suffering arising (in which case staying with the urge may be difficult anyway, since reactions are likely coming up).
So, "I can't prevent suffering" - where in what is simply happening in experience is the mechanism or reason that has to mean anything: why do you HAVE to react? If it feels like a button is being pushed, where is that button? If words or images come up, those are reactions starting to bubble up: try and stay with the unpleasant sense of what it basically feels like, physically and psychically, to know you can't prevent suffering, and tell me exactly where and what that mechanism/reason is that necessitates a reaction. If a little juice is needed, maybe bring to mind a past instance where this fact played out. This isn't of course about being indifferent or callous to what is happening, anything but. Rather, why do you have to react or respond in any particular way??
- - - - -
Ok so have been looking at this and various other manifestations of craving/aversion.
I've been finding it hard to spot the vedana of thoughts. It's all so quick. Harder to see the vedana of a thought than the vedana of a sensation through one of the other senses. Especially when you are not having a 'spontaneous' thought but saying something to yourself and feeling in to the meaning of that.
Somewhere I read that vedana is neither sensation (which is contact), nor a perception - it is between the two and distinct from both.
Anyway, the aversive reaction to 'I can't prevent suffering' seems to begin with queasiness which feels like the beginning of adrenaline; then follows either a more angry reaction or a more depressed reaction. The depressed one is as I described before, body feels heavy, frozen, face immobile… clenching, but with a cooler more inward-focused energy, sort of caving inwards, body sense of dejection. Angry one: tighter clenching, jaw tight… a sense of wanting to move forward, away, and that goes with an ignoring of DE. The urge to move feels as if it's created by an imagining of the body moving forward. It's as if the imagining creates a tension between the reality of the body's current stationary position and the imagined movement or direction. The result is a sense of frustration, of wanting to complete something.
There were a couple of tiny windows where I could see the fabricated nature of my reaction. I could see that the reaction is just some sensations in the body creating a sense of urge, of urgency. Nothing more. No mechanism or reason that a reaction has to happen.
Recently I was quite cold, so I looked quite a bit at the vedana of cold. The aversion felt instinctual, so that the clenching was almost a reflex.
- - - - -
I think you did some very valuable looking here.
When you say to yourself “I can’t prevent suffering”, and the queasiness-cum-adrenaline manifests: that’s basically the place to be. Before the anger, thoughts, etc. start up: that almost visceral sense of what it basically feels like to know that you can’t prevent suffering. There’s that strong urge to “DO SOMETHING”, as if you absolutely should or have to. You may not even have a clear idea what it is you should be saying or doing, but the urge is there nonetheless. That’s the “zone”. It’s typically a very unpleasant place to be, which may be why we go on to the reactions to get out of that zone. By not reacting as you normally do, there may be the message “but… but… I can’t prevent suffering!!”, as if that has to mean anything in particular.
Staying with the phrase and the associated (not so pleasant) sensations, and also recognizing that reactions are uber-ready to take off, you’re in the gap. In a way, you’ve got one hand gripping the phrase/sensations as an anchor, and the other hand is being pulled on by the incipient reactions, such that you’re suspended over the gap. If there was something that connected sensation and reaction, that made the reactions necessary or inevitable, this is the place to look, since both condition and effect are both present.
So, where is that mechanism? It might feel like a button that’s getting pushed, or in more general terms it’s the “reason” you HAVE to say/think/do something about this. It won’t show up on an x-ray, but there certainly seems to be something there nonetheless. Looking deeply and patiently, do you find anything of the sort?
- - - - -
Hi, looking this eve. Felt a clear sense of it all, the sentence, the queasiness, the urge, being suspended in the gap. There were moments when the sentence just felt true, and there was peace. Also moments when it felt meaningless... because no 'I', and even if I changed it to 'suffering can't be prevented', 'prevent', 'suffering' seemed like just words. No moments when any reason why the reactions are necessary or inevitable, or any 'mechanism' was seen. Will keep looking.
- - - - -
Hi! Good that the clarity on what was actually happening, and only that, was there. And yes, the sentence is true, no matter how you phrase it.
A suggestion: let there be an "I" here, at least at the relative level, rather than saying "oh well, I really don't exist, so the issue itself isn't real either". If the inability to prevent suffering leads to a response, it's pretty real at the moment, no?
Can you bring the phrase to mind, and the attendant sensations, and in the gap of not reacting say/ask "So What?" This doesn't mean you're callous or indifferent, but that you're insisting or demanding that experience show you why exactly this fact has to mean anything in particular. No assumptions or inferences, or comparing how others respond. "OK, I can't prevent suffering: so what? Show me the reason!"
Look forward to hearing what you find
- - - - -
I wasn't deliberating recalling 'no I'; it was just there was a patch where the sentence fell apart, lost meaning, was seen as just words. Then the meaning came back in.
- - - - -
I would still suggest the "so what" inquiry...
- - - - -
Yes, sounds good, will do! Thanks v much for your clarity and encouragement.
- - - - -
Noticed myself pouting and tried to feel what the essence of that was. It boiled down to: 'Things are not as I'd want them to be'. So I've also been working a bit with that statement, which seems to evoke aversion more strongly and clearly, without any need to bring in examples for juice.
'So what?' 'Why is the reaction necessary or inevitable?'
There's a satisfying sense of being right on the button with this - as well as the unpleasantness of being suspended over the gap. There's again a range of possible reactions, varieties of sadness and anger. There are moments where the truth of the statement is simply known, and then it's clear that the reaction is not necessary or inevitable. In those moments there is heart softening and there is the space and stopping of thought which I have found comes immediately after insight/clarity.
- - - - -
This sounds very good.
"Things are not as I'd want them to be" sounds much more fundamental.
Suspended over the gap, with the button actively being pressed as it were: look down within what is simply happening in experience - is there really a button there? Watching what is happening in experience (heart softening, noticing of space and clarity, realizing that a reaction is not necessary) is valuable. However, try to keep coming back to the looking for the button/reason itself: is there anything there? Has there ever been?
Maybe mention the phrase a couple times: "things are not as I'd want them to be" - is there anything you can find that necessarily makes that mean anything in particular?
- - - - -
I am looking and not finding, but that not finding is not shifting anything yet. ... it's not like I really see it.
- - - - -
When you find nothing, what happens to the issue: are there any reactions that mature into craving or aversion?
- - - - -
Looking again. There is the basic unpleasantness of knowing the statement. Sometimes my attention is wholly with that, and there are no reactions, or hardly any. There is often the pout - I'm not sure whether that counts as basic unpleasantness or as reaction.
Then usually there are incipient reactions - starting with nausea, then clenching etc. I can't find any reason why these reactions have to follow, anything making them arise. Yet seeing that doesn't stop the issue being live.
I feels as if this is cooking, somehow, but it feels a bit like fumbling in the dark.
The more reaction, the less the statement is allowed, the less it's felt as truth.
- - - - -
Is it possible to just stay with the basic unpleasantness, not even the pout? If the pout, nausea, clenching, etc. start up - can you come back to the phrase and do a "re-set" of sorts? If you're eyes are closed, maybe open them briefly. It seems like you are able to just be with the basic unpleasantness of the fact for a bit, then the reactions start to creep in. Staying with just the basic sensations is very much the challenge here - I think you're doing well
If you intone the phrase "I can't lift a lorry in the air", there's probably little to no reaction, since there's probably little if anything that meets that fact and makes it mean anything in particular. With "things are not as I'd want them to be", what steps out to meet that fact as it were: where does it come from? Does it seem to come from your head? Your heart?
Interesting that it feels like it is cooking: if this rather fundamental issue hasn't been clarified and focused on before, there may be some getting used to it, such that reactions don't as easily creep in here and there.
"The more reaction, the less the statement is allowed, the less it's felt as truth." Very well put!
When you say it is like fumbling in the dark: is there any expectation as to what this search could or should be like? If you did a similar search for the "self", did it feel like fumbling in the dark?
- - - - -
I'm not minding the fumbling in the dark overly. There's an element of 'not sure I'm on track', but also an element of 'Fruitful Darkness'... fruitful not knowing. Searching for the self felt simpler. Doubts sometimes: 'I don't have sufficient clarity to see this'… but doubt is a favourite, bound to come up in some form.
I have worked with craving/aversion/vedana reasonably intensively before, but not for quite a while, and this approach is more intense and stretching.
But today's been a great looking day!
I've been getting a similar thing to when I searched for self. A feeling of following the scent of truth; clearly sensing the truth as opposed to the inauthenticity or artificiality of the self-view or here, the reactions. Even the basic clenching reaction to cold has that same flavour of inauthenticity, I think. Maybe that's a visceral sense of the illusion of separation, how that's not the truth… not sure.
'Where does reaction arise from - head or heart?' Was away today and only just got your message, but I'd written in my journal that it's been feeling like a heart thing; the move away from the truth and into reaction is a closing down of the heart. And separately, I noticed it feels at times as if the reactions start with a move away from DE into mentation. BUT when looking at aversion to cold, I can't find that mentation, if it's there it feels below the radar. Last week I was struggling to distinguish the sensations of cold from the sensations of clenching around them, but today I could distinguish them more, and somehow sense the clenching as optional, even though I often couldn't actually stop it.
I think the mentation might just be a very primitive 'me' ing pulse… can't see this clearly.
- - - - -
Let's try to stay in the heart, where it seems these reactions arise out of. As you bring the phrase to mind, what seems to happen first, after which the reactions start to develop? Staying at that initial unpleasant sensation, what does the mechanism feel or seem like? Is it like a programme runs, a switch gets flipped, a button gets pushed? What sense do you get of the mechanism, as if it's tuned to this sort of unpleasant fact, such that the reactions start up?
Of course, it's not like it would show up on an x-ray, but if the reactions reliably start up, it's as if something senses and interprets that basic knowledge/fact and makes it mean something in particular.
So, what does it seem like is in there somewhere, triggering the reactions and allowing them to proceed?
- - - - -
It's so hard to see clearly. I get palpitations a lot at the moment, plus I'm cold most of the time, and those sensations are like background noise making it harder to see.
Re expectations, there's a hope the process will all unfold as you described it, with a dramatic boom! and consciousness re-booting and everything - and that's probably unhelpful!
I notice stuff that also came up with the LU process. Self-doubt, I don't have enough clarity to do this, it's taking up too much of my guide's time.
If I bring the phrase to mind with my heart fully open to its meaning, there is no discernible reaction, I can feel, know the reality of dukkha. Then if I'm no longer opening to the reality with a soft heart, there's reaction… at the moment it's beginning with the pout and tightening of jaw, and yes that does feel as if an old programme is rolling out. I can't seem to get any more clarity at the moment about the mechanism. There must be an interpretation of the basic knowledge/fact, but I can't actually catch that happening at the moment.
- - - - -
First, you are NOT taking up too much of my time - it's absolutely my privilege to be able to do this. And I think you do have the clarity to do this – you're seeing what's happening in DE very well!
There can be palpitations, some adrenalin, or other physiological responses when bringing to mind unpleasant (or pleasant) stuff but not doing/thinking/saying what you normally do. It's as if there's something wrong – ack! (just curious - as to being cold, are you doing this outdoors?)
Also, sometimes there is a noticeable re-boot etc., and sometimes not, when things fall into place. Not sure what LU was like for you, but seeing through "self" here was not a discernible event at all.
That's great that the mechanism seems like a programme is rolling out, interpreting that basic fact. Brilliant! Once that programme starts to roll out, that the reactions start with perhaps a slight pout and a tight jaw is also quite valuable – they can give you an idea of when to come back to the phrase, or maybe open your eyes for a moment and then settle back in.
You intuitively feel it be be a programme – let's leave it at that, rather than trying to get any of the details about the programme. As you notice the phrase and the basic sensations only to the extent that the urge to do/say/think something arises, just relax and search within DE for the programme itself. If it seems like it's in the heart centre area, perhaps look there first, but give some attention to the rest of the mind/body too.
If the urge is there, all the conditions are lined up, but no discernible reactions for a period of time, what does that tell you?
- - - - -
Thanks Kevin, that's very reassuring. Thank you.
The palpitations have been going on a lot of the time for many months now, and it's unclear from tests whether they have a physical basis, possibly they do.
Re cold… I'm inside, just feel the cold a lot!
Sitting after I posted, there was far clearer seeing of interpretation/recognition/samjna! I realized that sometimes it's very basic - it's just a label that amounts to 'no', a 'recognition' of an experience as 'fitting' a pre-existing story, then the story rolls out. I went through the same thing with LU; when trying to see 'I' as a thought, a label, it took ages to see that this can be a very crude process that is just a flash of mentation that amounts to a "recognition" of 'me', or in longhand, 'there's me again, those familiar sensations that are me'.
Will post again later re your latest question.
- - - - -
That’s great that you see how it starts with the recognition of something that fits a familiar pattern, after which the programme runs, and the story rolls out. Instead of a quick recognition of “me” as on LU, now it’s a quick recognition of “oh, that issue”?
In essence, the challenge is to stay with “oh, that issue”, and whatever sensations get kicked up such that the urge to respond in some way arises. This is perhaps as opposed to “OMG, it’s that issue which is so gawdawfully…”.
If you can stay in a rather neutral space with the fact and sensations, aware of the reactions that might otherwise start up (and may be tugging at your arm), where is the programme that seems to run: can you find it? Is there actually something inside you somewhere that requires or necessarily leads to any response to that fact?
- - - - -
Hmm, will try again tomorrow, too tired. Btw the heart thing, it wasn't that the programme is felt in the heart, it's that staying in the heart makes it easier to stay with the unpleasant/initial statement. The programme is a move away from the heart.
- - - - -
Sounds good. And yes, look everywhere that the programme might be!
- - - - -
Hi, great sit this morning, really seeing/feeling reactivity as optional! Feeling the freedom in that. A glimpse of truth. Also a real allowing of dukkha.
The various reactivity programmes seem to be King. Then when I resoften the heart and move back into just allowing, it reveals that there is another option.
Right now I can feel the resistance to this: 'surely, surely, surely?' 'but, but, but'. An inertia, holding on to the familiar.
- - - - -
Very good to read this. Yes, a definite freedom in being able to just be with what is happening, rather than going off with all the reactions that seem so necessary and inevitable. Sitting in that neutral space, that we put ourselves through so much unnecessary stuff is seen. As the “surelys” and “buts” arise, does it feel like being in a state of dynamic tension?
“Holding onto the familiar”: exactly. We identify with the reactions and say “this is me, this is mine”. The "self" that evaporated before was like a summary label slapped on all the exquisite crap rising and falling underneath. And yet, this neutral and free space is always available, where it's all seen as optional.
So, keeping the heart soft, and narrowing attention down to intoning 'things are not as I'd want them to be', within that free and “pre-reactive” state, where is the particular programme that seems to run? Each “but...” and “surely...” seem to offer proof that this mechanism exists, but does it? Has it ever? Do you really have to react in any way?
- - - - -
YES, a state of dynamic tension describes it well.
The 'buts' and 'surely'… I see that one of those 'buts' is… 'Isn't this bypassing? Surely all this stuff needs to be given more space to be felt'. Whereas I guess it's really the initial vedana that needs to be given space.
- - - - -
Long 'beditation' this morning full of amazingness.
Found neutrality re 'Things are not….' The reactive programme could not be found. It is not necessary. I also worked with other things, as they arose. Eg 'My Mum died'… varying degrees of equanimity, unsurprisingly! At one point the equanimity brought a formless-style absorbed state, a place that's often arrived at through different routes. There I hit a 'but'. It felt too 'neutral'. This triggered a fear which arose when I spoke to someone else a few weeks back about his experience of this. His description of how the neutrality was too much to bear affected me, and there's still fear from that. When he and I spoke, I mentioned someone else describing that neutrality as 'an acquired taste'.
Also, I found recently that when 'awareness itself' feels flat and lacking heart, it's that there is some subtle holding still. So today I softened further in the heart, remembered the awareness quality of sensitivity, and Amitabha, and then it was different, there was the raw, undefended soft spot, anukampa, compassion.
In that space I could feel into the more visceral level of aversion, separation, selfing; e.g. I was hungry so worked with that, and found equanimity in that too.
'Buts' are of various kinds. There's the 'aren't i bypassing', the fear of grey neutrality. When I reread what I wrote, 'the reactivity is not necessary' there is a 'surely, surely', attachment to 'my' reactivity programmes. I don't want to see and say that it's not necessary!
When you described the 'gap' tension as 'dynamic', I realized it affected my experience of it… I would have more labelled it 'horrible'! So I could see another arrow of aversion in there, based on the perception 'horrible', which shifted when an alternative perception, 'dynamic' was offered! (Though I still revert to 'horrible'). This made me realize that I've expected the gap to be comfortable, free from unpleasantness… it sounds like an empty space, yet it's full of tension and urges… When it's not, there's equanimity and therefore no clinging to have a gap between.
- - - - -
Ooh a day with intense reactivity, showing me where I'm at! A very strong trigger of something That Is Not As I Would Want It To Be, a favourite.... Over several hours there was sadly only one moment when I could manage to open to the basic painfulness... but that one moment of opening my heart, softening, did have a big effect, basically I stopped boycotting what was going on and re-engaged. I think that what gets in the way is identification with not putting up with things being poor, and the illusion that if I vent and rant on about how poor the day was, how much better if could have been, that will actually help matters.
- - - - -
It's really hard to let it be 'It wasn't as I wanted' rather than 'It was rubbish'.
- - - - -
I didn't know 'beditation' had a name! Glad it's a recognized practice
Yes, give the vedana some space instead of seizing and acting on it, so you can see it for what it is.
Maybe see neutrality as 'equanimity'? If you're used to experiencing opposites of considerable joy and sadness, embracing and rejection, this more subtle flavor might be an acquired taste?
If awareness feels flat, it may be flatter than you are used to, or maybe there is expectation of what you should be feeling, how this will look/, etc.?
Bypassing here might take the form of “there's really nothing here to react to, so I'll just shut the door on all this reactivity”. I don't see you doing that: maybe it's that you think something should be there, you should be feeling/thinking a certain way, etc., thus it feels like you're bypassing something?
And yes, it's just the underlying tension and urges from not (yet) seeing everything as it really is. It seems we are wired for this to feel inherently uncomfortable (even horrible?). If before it was a matter of feeling compelled to assemble a "self" to make sense of it all, here it is the urge to nevertheless exert some control.
So yes, by letting sensations be sensations and things be things, there's no gap, just a discontinuity or precipice of sorts, which you can stop at and say “no thanks” to the potential reactions? One person described it as knowing how long a barking dog's leash is, and just remaining a few inches out of reach and staring into its eyes without fear or compulsion to act.
On your last message, it's much more difficult to open to equanimity in the moment, so be glad you managed it once: working with it in meditation is hard enough.
So, assuming you have some time alone now or later today, as you look at all the “usual suspects” that aren't as the “should be”, is there any reason to react to them in any way? Is there a programme or other mechanism you can find in DE that takes the basic awareness of what is happening and converts it to “I have to think/say/do...”? Has there ever been such a thing?
- - - - -
RE bypassing; I think there is a 'shouldn't be feeling the aversion' which has the flavour of bypassing. But mostly I think it's as you suggest, it's just the stories demanding airplay and claiming that to not be given it is bypassing!
Despite no self, 'The urge to nonetheless exert some control' - YES that feels spot on.
Is there a precipice where it's possible to say 'no thanks'? It feels as if there's a precipice in terms of allowing the clenching to turn into think/say/do, ie grasping, but the basic pout/clenching doesn't feel like a 'no thanks' thing.
It's SO challenging! Seeing various times, nothing in DE that necessitates the reaction… but feel that needs to be seen a few zillion times more! Feeling very fruitful, guess I just need to keep doing what you keep pointing to!
- - - - -
Hmmm... instead of a precipice, maybe envision yourself on a leash. When desire and ill will are weakened, it's an elastic leash that allows you to reach tanha, especially the pout and clenching which are nearest, but you also tend to get snapped back. The equilibrium position is in vedana, even if some wild excursions are possible. Eventually the leash hardens into a rope: you see possible reactions, but you reach the end of your leash at vedana, and simply can't go any further.
Perhaps the operative concept is that the reactions are seen as optional, and the “undeniable” urge to think/say/do something is suddenly deniable, even if just partially at first. What used to be a fait accompli softens into a compulsion, then habit, and so on as you put less and less self-referencing energy and interest into the reactions.
Thinking back to the other day, 'It wasn't as I wanted' versus 'It was rubbish': how does that feel at this moment??
- - - - -
I really like the leash metaphor, thank you…very clear, makes me realize progress is happening.
I've been really noticing how the aversion to aversion, 'Oh there's the clenching again, damn' gets in the way, it brings a harshness, so then have to welcome and soften around the aversion, before I can then reel the leash back to the basic vedana.
I see that still energy goes into trying to avoid the aversion by force, which just brings more tension, and diverts from the looking to see how nothing makes it necessary, the discontinuity.
'It wasn't as I wanted' versus 'It was rubbish'. Right now, 'It wasn't as I wanted' is felt, with softness, wistfulness, some flatness/sadness - ie a 'cool' rather than the 'hot' reaction. 'No, it was just rubbish' - ie my perspective is reality - is making little attempts, but they are weak, and mostly it's seen as flimsy… the 3 year old!
Looking at this since Saturday, the self-referencing has been so clear - how I identify with being critical, not putting up with rubbish, passionately holding out for excellence.
Earlier I worked with strong hunger pangs. There was some fear in response - I guess a basic 'if eating is seen as optional, survival is threatened!'
Sometimes when I soften it feels like a switch, the basic issue is suddenly simply known rather than meaning something…. then a reactive interpretation comes, it switches back.
- - - - -
Perhaps the possibility of craving and aversion being completely done is tantalizing? Hopes and expectations (i.e. craving and aversion) around craving and aversion – we are so talented!! Glad the “what I wanted/rubbish” scenario is staying soft.
And yes, identifying with experience: that’s basically what it is. In the case of eating, of course you will continue to eat, but maybe the question is: does craving and aversion have to come into play?
Your analogy of a switch is a good one, and may be a good image as to how to respond to craving and aversion when they arise. Get used to turning the switch off, however it is you are able to come back to what is actually happening in experience. I asked myself “why is this coming up?” when I became aware of some pushing or pulling at experience, looking for what was behind the reactions (and of course never found anything). It eventually shortened to “Why?” – I was so used to asking the question and doing a little looking that the internal process became second nature.
How do you feel about people in general at the moment? More connected and/or inclined to them, feeling a bit more separation, about the same?
- - - - -
Well, interesting you should ask how I'm feeling about people, as I am noticing a difference today, less aversive generally, softer, to people and everything. Also the sense of a 'here' and 'there' has been shifting the last couple of days...
It's feels astonishing that I haven't thought to ask the 'why?' before!
I'm thinking… OK, the old doubt samskara must be about to kick in big time!
- - - - -
Glad the whole "other people" thing is going well. Be curious what you mean by 'here and there' shifting?
Yes, why not ask why it is the case? Maybe because we are so used to stating that it is the case?
As you encounter people and issues which have given rise to aversion, what does it feel like to not do what you might normally have done? Are there any internal scripts that run, perhaps "hey, why aren't you..." or "something's wrong: I should be..."? Does it feel like working without a net, are there little adrenaline rushes, or other symptoms of being in strange territory?
- - - - -
Last night after posting I found it all feeling beautifully clear and simple. Equanimity. Reactivity readily dissolving with the 'why, or what in DE makes that necessary?' Delight and freedom. Much the same today so far. Some sort of ebullience, pride, then some shame, aversion to that, then that's seen. Somehow a doorway has opened and I get what you have been pointing to, simply. There's some fear of losing that clarity! And occasional thoughts like 'this is just a bubble and when it bursts it's going to be grim'!
What's it feeling like to not do what I'd normally do. Great!
Overall, there's a peacefulness, though at the same time a subtle edge of manic ebullient restlessness!! There's an edge of quiet joy at times, plus an incredulity; just like no self, it CANNOT be so simple.
The 'here and there' thing… it's so hard to describe. So I've been aware of a remaining sense of self that boils down to a sense of location, 'something here', i.e. some ongoing identification with sensations in the face/head which are then 'joined up' by a mental mapping, and 'recognised' as 'here' aka 'me'. I find it really hard to 'get' that mental mapping, I think it's more a kinesthetic 'map'/thought than a visual one. When I've looked at it before, I've focused on the sense of 'here', e.g. looked at the impermanence of the sensations. But then the other day i thought 'but what about the "there", where's that?', and somehow it was clearer there's no 'there', therefore no 'here'. Rather than on/off it feels like a scale, sometimes quite a lot of here/there, sometimes very little, but overall less at the moment.
- - - - -
Very good to read this. No one has reported the bubble bursting, and like the self, how can it? It’s a Santa Claus moment, if you will. And like the self, it really is as simple as it turned out to be (which makes guiding easier than I thought it would be…).
As desire and ill will start to give way, the next group of illusions around “existence” beckon, such as duality, “thingness”, etc. So, no surprise that inquiry into “here and there” is starting to open up. The sense of “here” is particularly resilient, as is “now”, since space and time are so ingrained in our perspective on experience.
Moving forward, my suggestion is that you continue to be curious as to “why?” reactions should ever come up, as experience settles into this new paradigm. There can be a honeymoon phase, after which craving and aversion can seem to creep back in, whereupon you might question “hey, how that could be??!!” However, it’s as it is now: they arise, but a little mindfulness sees them dissolve away again. There may even be some very white-hot aversions that rise up: the leash still has a fair amount of give to it
- - - - -
Yes, it does feel like a Santa moment happened, the clarity has remained, but at the same time it still feels very new, just a beginning.
Way less reactivity still, but today bit more craving and aversion arising, some dissolving quickly, some needing more looking.
So many parallels with the anatta process; for example a sense of everything needing re-examining, eg all the favourite dukkha routes, through this new lens.
What you wrote about 'here and there' was interesting, as that sense of 'here' has been a source of doubt, ie it made me wonder if there was something missing in the seeing through self-view.
Thank you SO MUCH for your great guiding!! Felt super-supported.
- - - - -
Yes, just accept that reactions will still occur, and that they can be examined a bit and dissolved. The enemy may seem to be falling back and regrouping at the moment: the "new and improved" versions of your favorite likes and dislikes will likely be somewhat different. And yet, the strategy is always the same: just look to see if there's anything behind them.
And exactly: it's another illusion that, looking back, you can see was coloring so much of experience, just like the "self" did. I always had a sense of entitlement, that I was justified in seeing everything in terms of what I wanted and didn't want.
- - - - -
Like the military metaphor - the enemy regrouping... not particularly happening yet, although it seems to have slightly numbed me out today, I've forgotten the amazingness of what's happened… but still the reactivity is way less.
- - - - -
The last week or so there has been a lot of reactivity - my more resilient samskaras coming up. In particular there was a patch of depression, and for a while it felt as if the new paradigm and the depression samskara were in battle, and the depression felt stronger… but then it largely turned around.
Somehow a lot of the time currently there is insufficient mindfulness for the new paradigm to operate. That's disappointing, but at the same time I still know reactivity is optional.
The level of mindfulness that is there sometimes and becomes the base level whilst doing the DP with you seems to be a necessary component for the realisation to be acted on!
At the same time, the last few days I'm having very deep sits with insight, but nothing that appears to particularly abide.
As I write this I see more clearly how I've had a big construction project the last week or so, building a 'woe is me' tale about a particular instance of things not being as …etc etc. This is good as I can now avoid telling that tale in a meeting tomorrow and thereby pumping it up and spreading gloom to others.
- - - - -
As I think you're finding, mindfulness is more straightforward now, and its degree and depth will "catch up" with where you're at, so I wouldn't get too discouraged. Think weeks or months rather than days in order to find a new sort of equilibrium point, such that you are regularly looking at the level of subtlety that corresponds with "where you're currently at". In a way, the question "so, what does this new perspective mean?" takes some time to integrate, just as did the evaporation of the illusory "self".
As for nothing appearing to abide, even though meditation sits are now very deep: consider that there's less of "you" now, so by comparison it seems like there's hardly anyone "there". A lot of the drama and content doesn't show up anymore. What's left of "you" is settling and regrouping, but is still quite able to make its presence known in terms of there being reactions to what's happening.
On the "woe is me" construction project: does it seem as though a lot of tried and true samskaras as to how you've normally responded to experience are still trying to fire and connect, but that a little mindfulness and clarity eventually has you saying "oops, never mind..."?
- - - - -
Thanks for the encouragement!
I'm not sure that mindfulness is more straightforward. It has been feeling elusive the last week or so. There's been a prevailing foggy mental state of grumpiness and generalised 'Things are not as….' The pout has been in place rather a lot!!
'Think weeks or months rather than days in order to find a new sort of equilibrium point,'
Yes, that's fair enough … of course!
When I said nothing appears to abide, I meant the Insight not abiding… it's so clear in the sit, but doesn't seem to stick afterwards in any discernible way.
'does it seem as though a lot of tried and true samskaras as to how you've normally responded to experience are still trying to fire and connect, but that a little mindfulness and clarity eventually has you saying "oops, never mind…"?'
It's more like a whole sub-personality/constellation of samskaras is battling for a comeback!
I notice how sending it love/softening around it seems to be most effective at the moment… melts the reactivity/pout.
- - - - -
Thanks for this - I like how you describe sending it love and softening as an "antidote" to the reactivity and pouting. I also have found great value in embracing whatever is happening that might be triggering the reactions: acknowledging that "yep, this is really what's happening - no use in denying it...". In a way, "owning" what the circumstances of life are in a complete way, rather than seeing them as somehow separate or distinct. It's got me through some rather anxious times
- - - - -
Thanks Kevin. Dukkha re instability in my living situation is readily providing a wonderful opportunity for spiritual growth... and all for free!
- - - - -
I can report that the cycle has come around back to clarity, heart, equanimity. Quite intense, a tearful few days... seeing more subtle levels of resistance to experience, disguised as spiritual seeking. A sense of utter longing (not craving) to come home to This. As Thich Nhat Hanh puts it: 'I have arrived. I am home. In the here... and in the now'.
Sometimes I find it hard to distinguish the vedana from the craving. There's the vedana… then craving/aversion, manifesting as thoughts and clenching in the body. But then that clenching itself has a vedana, and then there's a reaction to that… Any tips?
- - - - -
Hi! Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying :-)
I think the hardest part is staying with just the first dart - what you see that you really want or don't like, and the initial physical and mental sensations that inevitably go with that. Sometimes, the physical sensations are easier to stay with. Also, by phrasing things in the negative, there may be less of a tendency to go into reactions, thus the craving/aversion doesn't kick in.
So, for craving, let's use chocolate. As you sit and think about chocolate, or you walk by a chocolate shop and see and smell the chocolate, what are the initial physical and mental sensations? There may be what feels like an urge to do something, a visceral and even unpleasant full-body feeling that demands action? Watching what is happening in the body can be more straightforward than parsing thoughts and images that come up. The habitual tendency is to act on that sensation, even though it has no specific content.
As for staying with the basic mental/thought sensations, phrased in the negative, it's simply a matter of "I don't have chocolate right now". OK, so what? Why does that have to lead to any further reaction? This is different from saying "I want chocolate!", which merely reinforces the craving. By staying with what's actually happening, that isn't what you want, the physical sensations can recur as well.
- - - - -
The 'So what, why does that have to lead to any further reaction?' feels like the nub of it. More soon.
- - - - -
If you'd like, I can help clarify what it is you're saying "so what?" to - that can be the tricky part sometimes...
- - - - -
Here’s one; I messed up so didn't get a place on a day retreat that I would love to have done!
‘I'm not doing that retreat I wanted to go on’
Initially very strong sensations; pronounced pouting, clenching in belly etc; plus a straining 'forward' - a tantrum-like volition. Reminded me of when frustration used to bring imagining of throwing a brick through a window! Except this time there was nothing specific imagined. There was a directionality, straining, but with just a generalised sense of wanting to move away from current experience.
'I'm not doing that retreat I wanted to go on'
So what, why does that have to lead to any further reactions?
I could see that what led to the reactions was an imagining of the day, especially my friends there. Plus imagining that today would be less inspiring when not on the retreat. Thoughts of 'if only I'd x, y'.
At one point I felt the dukkha of it. i.e., rather than tantrum there was knowing that it is thus, i.e. there is dukkha - bringing soft openness.
At one point, I was with 'I'm not doing the retreat' and not moving away from the moment, not thinking. Then there was no reaction, neutrality.
Right now:
Reactions: a dull flat disappointment. Face is without expression, heavy. Breathing shallow, restricted. Clenching, energy feels low, suppressed.
Repeating 'I'm not doing'…
'So what?'
Initial reaction was a smile… feeling the ridiculousness of craving for spiritual experiences!!
Queasiness in the belly, from conflicting urges… some clinging to 'business as usual' in there… a glimpse of freedom… a fear of it being boring if I don't seek out what I want.
This is rather long, I hope that's ok.
- - - - -
This is good! That straining forward that seems to require you to do or say something, even if nothing specific is being imagined: that's what I suggest staying with. True, we usually come up with something to do or say, thus craving and aversion blossom. However, staying with “I'm not...” can allow you to stay with that unpleasant vedana, that content-free URGE (the word I usually use) and look for the reason why you have to respond, even as one or more specific reactions are trying to ramp up. It might also help see how desire and ill will are two sides of the same coin: you want what you want, and get upset when that's not the case. Both a pulling and pushing at experience.
As you saw, no reaction is necessary: neutrality/equanimity is available as an option. And yes, it can seem ridiculous: perhaps an image of a three-year-old writhing on the floor in a tantrum, screaming “but I'm not at that retreat today!!”, as if that's got some inherent meaning. I think you've directly pointed yourself well through this!
A question: is seeking out what you want to keep life interesting/not boring an underlying tendency/necessity? In other words, is something like “Life isn't always interesting” a more fundamental form of desire, a fact you regularly have difficulty saying “so what??” to? The reason I ask is that the retreat is now over and done with, and thus has perhaps already lost a lot of the energy behind it. Is there a more “chronic” or fundamental sort of issue that you can reliably summon to work with?
PS: the three-year-old on the floor refers to a very vivid impression I had of myself, not you...
- - - - -
Hi, three year old it is....with spectacular pout. Inner tantrums arise easily here. Applied your process to a probate letter I sent not arriving. Notice there's some illusion of potency in the tantrum... and denial of the reality of not being able to do anything about the said non-arrival.
The aversion side of the coin is nearly always felt more intensely.
A more chronic or fundamental issue... No control, having to lump it. 'There's nothing to be done about this'. Or another one would be: 'Again and again we cause ourselves and each other suffering'. The resistance to that is less tantrum, more subtle, a cooler more perplexed warding off, shutting out of that truth. I think a lot of craving/aversion that presents is underpinned by one of those two.
Noticing there's no-one there that wants or doesn't sort of cuts the root, creates a perplexed open space… but doesn't stop the reaction happening in the first place.
- - - - -
Ah, glad there are other three year olds in the world!
A suggestion is to let your sense of “me” be “real” for now, since you’re holding what’s happening to be so real as well. Even once the illusory ego/self evaporated, we still identify with experience quite strongly. I take solace that, with the 8th fetter, one is still grappling with the illusion “I Am”, thus everything up to that point is some sort of “selfing”. To say at this point “heck, there’s no one here” may be a little spiritual bypassing?
If a fundamental issue is “I can’t control what’s happening”, let’s work with that. Without focusing on a particular situation out of your control, but just the basic fact that you’re not in control, what first happens in experience? What is the “felt sense” of that, before the grosser physical manifestations of tightening, etc. occurs? Is there that urge to think/say/do something? If so, what does that urge feel like? If you go off into thoughts and other reactions, try coming back to just the phrase “I can’t control what’s happening”.
And what does the mechanism feel like by which the initial responses arise: does it feel like a button gets pushed, a switch is flipped, a programme runs, etc.? Whatever it is, it obviously won’t show up on an x-ray, but it seems like there is “something in here somewhere”, no? How would you describe the mechanism that converts the basic fact that you can’t control what is happening and makes it mean something in particular to you?
- - - - -
Great, thanks, super clear. Will investigate. But 'I can't control what's happening' is not in the abstract having enough effect! 'I can't prevent suffering' feels more instantly juicy, so thinking to use that?
- - - - -
By all means go with what has juice, that can get the urge going even if you're not in the middle of watching suffering arising (in which case staying with the urge may be difficult anyway, since reactions are likely coming up).
So, "I can't prevent suffering" - where in what is simply happening in experience is the mechanism or reason that has to mean anything: why do you HAVE to react? If it feels like a button is being pushed, where is that button? If words or images come up, those are reactions starting to bubble up: try and stay with the unpleasant sense of what it basically feels like, physically and psychically, to know you can't prevent suffering, and tell me exactly where and what that mechanism/reason is that necessitates a reaction. If a little juice is needed, maybe bring to mind a past instance where this fact played out. This isn't of course about being indifferent or callous to what is happening, anything but. Rather, why do you have to react or respond in any particular way??
- - - - -
Ok so have been looking at this and various other manifestations of craving/aversion.
I've been finding it hard to spot the vedana of thoughts. It's all so quick. Harder to see the vedana of a thought than the vedana of a sensation through one of the other senses. Especially when you are not having a 'spontaneous' thought but saying something to yourself and feeling in to the meaning of that.
Somewhere I read that vedana is neither sensation (which is contact), nor a perception - it is between the two and distinct from both.
Anyway, the aversive reaction to 'I can't prevent suffering' seems to begin with queasiness which feels like the beginning of adrenaline; then follows either a more angry reaction or a more depressed reaction. The depressed one is as I described before, body feels heavy, frozen, face immobile… clenching, but with a cooler more inward-focused energy, sort of caving inwards, body sense of dejection. Angry one: tighter clenching, jaw tight… a sense of wanting to move forward, away, and that goes with an ignoring of DE. The urge to move feels as if it's created by an imagining of the body moving forward. It's as if the imagining creates a tension between the reality of the body's current stationary position and the imagined movement or direction. The result is a sense of frustration, of wanting to complete something.
There were a couple of tiny windows where I could see the fabricated nature of my reaction. I could see that the reaction is just some sensations in the body creating a sense of urge, of urgency. Nothing more. No mechanism or reason that a reaction has to happen.
Recently I was quite cold, so I looked quite a bit at the vedana of cold. The aversion felt instinctual, so that the clenching was almost a reflex.
- - - - -
I think you did some very valuable looking here.
When you say to yourself “I can’t prevent suffering”, and the queasiness-cum-adrenaline manifests: that’s basically the place to be. Before the anger, thoughts, etc. start up: that almost visceral sense of what it basically feels like to know that you can’t prevent suffering. There’s that strong urge to “DO SOMETHING”, as if you absolutely should or have to. You may not even have a clear idea what it is you should be saying or doing, but the urge is there nonetheless. That’s the “zone”. It’s typically a very unpleasant place to be, which may be why we go on to the reactions to get out of that zone. By not reacting as you normally do, there may be the message “but… but… I can’t prevent suffering!!”, as if that has to mean anything in particular.
Staying with the phrase and the associated (not so pleasant) sensations, and also recognizing that reactions are uber-ready to take off, you’re in the gap. In a way, you’ve got one hand gripping the phrase/sensations as an anchor, and the other hand is being pulled on by the incipient reactions, such that you’re suspended over the gap. If there was something that connected sensation and reaction, that made the reactions necessary or inevitable, this is the place to look, since both condition and effect are both present.
So, where is that mechanism? It might feel like a button that’s getting pushed, or in more general terms it’s the “reason” you HAVE to say/think/do something about this. It won’t show up on an x-ray, but there certainly seems to be something there nonetheless. Looking deeply and patiently, do you find anything of the sort?
- - - - -
Hi, looking this eve. Felt a clear sense of it all, the sentence, the queasiness, the urge, being suspended in the gap. There were moments when the sentence just felt true, and there was peace. Also moments when it felt meaningless... because no 'I', and even if I changed it to 'suffering can't be prevented', 'prevent', 'suffering' seemed like just words. No moments when any reason why the reactions are necessary or inevitable, or any 'mechanism' was seen. Will keep looking.
- - - - -
Hi! Good that the clarity on what was actually happening, and only that, was there. And yes, the sentence is true, no matter how you phrase it.
A suggestion: let there be an "I" here, at least at the relative level, rather than saying "oh well, I really don't exist, so the issue itself isn't real either". If the inability to prevent suffering leads to a response, it's pretty real at the moment, no?
Can you bring the phrase to mind, and the attendant sensations, and in the gap of not reacting say/ask "So What?" This doesn't mean you're callous or indifferent, but that you're insisting or demanding that experience show you why exactly this fact has to mean anything in particular. No assumptions or inferences, or comparing how others respond. "OK, I can't prevent suffering: so what? Show me the reason!"
Look forward to hearing what you find
- - - - -
I wasn't deliberating recalling 'no I'; it was just there was a patch where the sentence fell apart, lost meaning, was seen as just words. Then the meaning came back in.
- - - - -
I would still suggest the "so what" inquiry...
- - - - -
Yes, sounds good, will do! Thanks v much for your clarity and encouragement.
- - - - -
Noticed myself pouting and tried to feel what the essence of that was. It boiled down to: 'Things are not as I'd want them to be'. So I've also been working a bit with that statement, which seems to evoke aversion more strongly and clearly, without any need to bring in examples for juice.
'So what?' 'Why is the reaction necessary or inevitable?'
There's a satisfying sense of being right on the button with this - as well as the unpleasantness of being suspended over the gap. There's again a range of possible reactions, varieties of sadness and anger. There are moments where the truth of the statement is simply known, and then it's clear that the reaction is not necessary or inevitable. In those moments there is heart softening and there is the space and stopping of thought which I have found comes immediately after insight/clarity.
- - - - -
This sounds very good.
"Things are not as I'd want them to be" sounds much more fundamental.
Suspended over the gap, with the button actively being pressed as it were: look down within what is simply happening in experience - is there really a button there? Watching what is happening in experience (heart softening, noticing of space and clarity, realizing that a reaction is not necessary) is valuable. However, try to keep coming back to the looking for the button/reason itself: is there anything there? Has there ever been?
Maybe mention the phrase a couple times: "things are not as I'd want them to be" - is there anything you can find that necessarily makes that mean anything in particular?
- - - - -
I am looking and not finding, but that not finding is not shifting anything yet. ... it's not like I really see it.
- - - - -
When you find nothing, what happens to the issue: are there any reactions that mature into craving or aversion?
- - - - -
Looking again. There is the basic unpleasantness of knowing the statement. Sometimes my attention is wholly with that, and there are no reactions, or hardly any. There is often the pout - I'm not sure whether that counts as basic unpleasantness or as reaction.
Then usually there are incipient reactions - starting with nausea, then clenching etc. I can't find any reason why these reactions have to follow, anything making them arise. Yet seeing that doesn't stop the issue being live.
I feels as if this is cooking, somehow, but it feels a bit like fumbling in the dark.
The more reaction, the less the statement is allowed, the less it's felt as truth.
- - - - -
Is it possible to just stay with the basic unpleasantness, not even the pout? If the pout, nausea, clenching, etc. start up - can you come back to the phrase and do a "re-set" of sorts? If you're eyes are closed, maybe open them briefly. It seems like you are able to just be with the basic unpleasantness of the fact for a bit, then the reactions start to creep in. Staying with just the basic sensations is very much the challenge here - I think you're doing well
If you intone the phrase "I can't lift a lorry in the air", there's probably little to no reaction, since there's probably little if anything that meets that fact and makes it mean anything in particular. With "things are not as I'd want them to be", what steps out to meet that fact as it were: where does it come from? Does it seem to come from your head? Your heart?
Interesting that it feels like it is cooking: if this rather fundamental issue hasn't been clarified and focused on before, there may be some getting used to it, such that reactions don't as easily creep in here and there.
"The more reaction, the less the statement is allowed, the less it's felt as truth." Very well put!
When you say it is like fumbling in the dark: is there any expectation as to what this search could or should be like? If you did a similar search for the "self", did it feel like fumbling in the dark?
- - - - -
I'm not minding the fumbling in the dark overly. There's an element of 'not sure I'm on track', but also an element of 'Fruitful Darkness'... fruitful not knowing. Searching for the self felt simpler. Doubts sometimes: 'I don't have sufficient clarity to see this'… but doubt is a favourite, bound to come up in some form.
I have worked with craving/aversion/vedana reasonably intensively before, but not for quite a while, and this approach is more intense and stretching.
But today's been a great looking day!
I've been getting a similar thing to when I searched for self. A feeling of following the scent of truth; clearly sensing the truth as opposed to the inauthenticity or artificiality of the self-view or here, the reactions. Even the basic clenching reaction to cold has that same flavour of inauthenticity, I think. Maybe that's a visceral sense of the illusion of separation, how that's not the truth… not sure.
'Where does reaction arise from - head or heart?' Was away today and only just got your message, but I'd written in my journal that it's been feeling like a heart thing; the move away from the truth and into reaction is a closing down of the heart. And separately, I noticed it feels at times as if the reactions start with a move away from DE into mentation. BUT when looking at aversion to cold, I can't find that mentation, if it's there it feels below the radar. Last week I was struggling to distinguish the sensations of cold from the sensations of clenching around them, but today I could distinguish them more, and somehow sense the clenching as optional, even though I often couldn't actually stop it.
I think the mentation might just be a very primitive 'me' ing pulse… can't see this clearly.
- - - - -
Let's try to stay in the heart, where it seems these reactions arise out of. As you bring the phrase to mind, what seems to happen first, after which the reactions start to develop? Staying at that initial unpleasant sensation, what does the mechanism feel or seem like? Is it like a programme runs, a switch gets flipped, a button gets pushed? What sense do you get of the mechanism, as if it's tuned to this sort of unpleasant fact, such that the reactions start up?
Of course, it's not like it would show up on an x-ray, but if the reactions reliably start up, it's as if something senses and interprets that basic knowledge/fact and makes it mean something in particular.
So, what does it seem like is in there somewhere, triggering the reactions and allowing them to proceed?
- - - - -
It's so hard to see clearly. I get palpitations a lot at the moment, plus I'm cold most of the time, and those sensations are like background noise making it harder to see.
Re expectations, there's a hope the process will all unfold as you described it, with a dramatic boom! and consciousness re-booting and everything - and that's probably unhelpful!
I notice stuff that also came up with the LU process. Self-doubt, I don't have enough clarity to do this, it's taking up too much of my guide's time.
If I bring the phrase to mind with my heart fully open to its meaning, there is no discernible reaction, I can feel, know the reality of dukkha. Then if I'm no longer opening to the reality with a soft heart, there's reaction… at the moment it's beginning with the pout and tightening of jaw, and yes that does feel as if an old programme is rolling out. I can't seem to get any more clarity at the moment about the mechanism. There must be an interpretation of the basic knowledge/fact, but I can't actually catch that happening at the moment.
- - - - -
First, you are NOT taking up too much of my time - it's absolutely my privilege to be able to do this. And I think you do have the clarity to do this – you're seeing what's happening in DE very well!
There can be palpitations, some adrenalin, or other physiological responses when bringing to mind unpleasant (or pleasant) stuff but not doing/thinking/saying what you normally do. It's as if there's something wrong – ack! (just curious - as to being cold, are you doing this outdoors?)
Also, sometimes there is a noticeable re-boot etc., and sometimes not, when things fall into place. Not sure what LU was like for you, but seeing through "self" here was not a discernible event at all.
That's great that the mechanism seems like a programme is rolling out, interpreting that basic fact. Brilliant! Once that programme starts to roll out, that the reactions start with perhaps a slight pout and a tight jaw is also quite valuable – they can give you an idea of when to come back to the phrase, or maybe open your eyes for a moment and then settle back in.
You intuitively feel it be be a programme – let's leave it at that, rather than trying to get any of the details about the programme. As you notice the phrase and the basic sensations only to the extent that the urge to do/say/think something arises, just relax and search within DE for the programme itself. If it seems like it's in the heart centre area, perhaps look there first, but give some attention to the rest of the mind/body too.
If the urge is there, all the conditions are lined up, but no discernible reactions for a period of time, what does that tell you?
- - - - -
Thanks Kevin, that's very reassuring. Thank you.
The palpitations have been going on a lot of the time for many months now, and it's unclear from tests whether they have a physical basis, possibly they do.
Re cold… I'm inside, just feel the cold a lot!
Sitting after I posted, there was far clearer seeing of interpretation/recognition/samjna! I realized that sometimes it's very basic - it's just a label that amounts to 'no', a 'recognition' of an experience as 'fitting' a pre-existing story, then the story rolls out. I went through the same thing with LU; when trying to see 'I' as a thought, a label, it took ages to see that this can be a very crude process that is just a flash of mentation that amounts to a "recognition" of 'me', or in longhand, 'there's me again, those familiar sensations that are me'.
Will post again later re your latest question.
- - - - -
That’s great that you see how it starts with the recognition of something that fits a familiar pattern, after which the programme runs, and the story rolls out. Instead of a quick recognition of “me” as on LU, now it’s a quick recognition of “oh, that issue”?
In essence, the challenge is to stay with “oh, that issue”, and whatever sensations get kicked up such that the urge to respond in some way arises. This is perhaps as opposed to “OMG, it’s that issue which is so gawdawfully…”.
If you can stay in a rather neutral space with the fact and sensations, aware of the reactions that might otherwise start up (and may be tugging at your arm), where is the programme that seems to run: can you find it? Is there actually something inside you somewhere that requires or necessarily leads to any response to that fact?
- - - - -
Hmm, will try again tomorrow, too tired. Btw the heart thing, it wasn't that the programme is felt in the heart, it's that staying in the heart makes it easier to stay with the unpleasant/initial statement. The programme is a move away from the heart.
- - - - -
Sounds good. And yes, look everywhere that the programme might be!
- - - - -
Hi, great sit this morning, really seeing/feeling reactivity as optional! Feeling the freedom in that. A glimpse of truth. Also a real allowing of dukkha.
The various reactivity programmes seem to be King. Then when I resoften the heart and move back into just allowing, it reveals that there is another option.
Right now I can feel the resistance to this: 'surely, surely, surely?' 'but, but, but'. An inertia, holding on to the familiar.
- - - - -
Very good to read this. Yes, a definite freedom in being able to just be with what is happening, rather than going off with all the reactions that seem so necessary and inevitable. Sitting in that neutral space, that we put ourselves through so much unnecessary stuff is seen. As the “surelys” and “buts” arise, does it feel like being in a state of dynamic tension?
“Holding onto the familiar”: exactly. We identify with the reactions and say “this is me, this is mine”. The "self" that evaporated before was like a summary label slapped on all the exquisite crap rising and falling underneath. And yet, this neutral and free space is always available, where it's all seen as optional.
So, keeping the heart soft, and narrowing attention down to intoning 'things are not as I'd want them to be', within that free and “pre-reactive” state, where is the particular programme that seems to run? Each “but...” and “surely...” seem to offer proof that this mechanism exists, but does it? Has it ever? Do you really have to react in any way?
- - - - -
YES, a state of dynamic tension describes it well.
The 'buts' and 'surely'… I see that one of those 'buts' is… 'Isn't this bypassing? Surely all this stuff needs to be given more space to be felt'. Whereas I guess it's really the initial vedana that needs to be given space.
- - - - -
Long 'beditation' this morning full of amazingness.
Found neutrality re 'Things are not….' The reactive programme could not be found. It is not necessary. I also worked with other things, as they arose. Eg 'My Mum died'… varying degrees of equanimity, unsurprisingly! At one point the equanimity brought a formless-style absorbed state, a place that's often arrived at through different routes. There I hit a 'but'. It felt too 'neutral'. This triggered a fear which arose when I spoke to someone else a few weeks back about his experience of this. His description of how the neutrality was too much to bear affected me, and there's still fear from that. When he and I spoke, I mentioned someone else describing that neutrality as 'an acquired taste'.
Also, I found recently that when 'awareness itself' feels flat and lacking heart, it's that there is some subtle holding still. So today I softened further in the heart, remembered the awareness quality of sensitivity, and Amitabha, and then it was different, there was the raw, undefended soft spot, anukampa, compassion.
In that space I could feel into the more visceral level of aversion, separation, selfing; e.g. I was hungry so worked with that, and found equanimity in that too.
'Buts' are of various kinds. There's the 'aren't i bypassing', the fear of grey neutrality. When I reread what I wrote, 'the reactivity is not necessary' there is a 'surely, surely', attachment to 'my' reactivity programmes. I don't want to see and say that it's not necessary!
When you described the 'gap' tension as 'dynamic', I realized it affected my experience of it… I would have more labelled it 'horrible'! So I could see another arrow of aversion in there, based on the perception 'horrible', which shifted when an alternative perception, 'dynamic' was offered! (Though I still revert to 'horrible'). This made me realize that I've expected the gap to be comfortable, free from unpleasantness… it sounds like an empty space, yet it's full of tension and urges… When it's not, there's equanimity and therefore no clinging to have a gap between.
- - - - -
Ooh a day with intense reactivity, showing me where I'm at! A very strong trigger of something That Is Not As I Would Want It To Be, a favourite.... Over several hours there was sadly only one moment when I could manage to open to the basic painfulness... but that one moment of opening my heart, softening, did have a big effect, basically I stopped boycotting what was going on and re-engaged. I think that what gets in the way is identification with not putting up with things being poor, and the illusion that if I vent and rant on about how poor the day was, how much better if could have been, that will actually help matters.
- - - - -
It's really hard to let it be 'It wasn't as I wanted' rather than 'It was rubbish'.
- - - - -
I didn't know 'beditation' had a name! Glad it's a recognized practice
Yes, give the vedana some space instead of seizing and acting on it, so you can see it for what it is.
Maybe see neutrality as 'equanimity'? If you're used to experiencing opposites of considerable joy and sadness, embracing and rejection, this more subtle flavor might be an acquired taste?
If awareness feels flat, it may be flatter than you are used to, or maybe there is expectation of what you should be feeling, how this will look/, etc.?
Bypassing here might take the form of “there's really nothing here to react to, so I'll just shut the door on all this reactivity”. I don't see you doing that: maybe it's that you think something should be there, you should be feeling/thinking a certain way, etc., thus it feels like you're bypassing something?
And yes, it's just the underlying tension and urges from not (yet) seeing everything as it really is. It seems we are wired for this to feel inherently uncomfortable (even horrible?). If before it was a matter of feeling compelled to assemble a "self" to make sense of it all, here it is the urge to nevertheless exert some control.
So yes, by letting sensations be sensations and things be things, there's no gap, just a discontinuity or precipice of sorts, which you can stop at and say “no thanks” to the potential reactions? One person described it as knowing how long a barking dog's leash is, and just remaining a few inches out of reach and staring into its eyes without fear or compulsion to act.
On your last message, it's much more difficult to open to equanimity in the moment, so be glad you managed it once: working with it in meditation is hard enough.
So, assuming you have some time alone now or later today, as you look at all the “usual suspects” that aren't as the “should be”, is there any reason to react to them in any way? Is there a programme or other mechanism you can find in DE that takes the basic awareness of what is happening and converts it to “I have to think/say/do...”? Has there ever been such a thing?
- - - - -
RE bypassing; I think there is a 'shouldn't be feeling the aversion' which has the flavour of bypassing. But mostly I think it's as you suggest, it's just the stories demanding airplay and claiming that to not be given it is bypassing!
Despite no self, 'The urge to nonetheless exert some control' - YES that feels spot on.
Is there a precipice where it's possible to say 'no thanks'? It feels as if there's a precipice in terms of allowing the clenching to turn into think/say/do, ie grasping, but the basic pout/clenching doesn't feel like a 'no thanks' thing.
It's SO challenging! Seeing various times, nothing in DE that necessitates the reaction… but feel that needs to be seen a few zillion times more! Feeling very fruitful, guess I just need to keep doing what you keep pointing to!
- - - - -
Hmmm... instead of a precipice, maybe envision yourself on a leash. When desire and ill will are weakened, it's an elastic leash that allows you to reach tanha, especially the pout and clenching which are nearest, but you also tend to get snapped back. The equilibrium position is in vedana, even if some wild excursions are possible. Eventually the leash hardens into a rope: you see possible reactions, but you reach the end of your leash at vedana, and simply can't go any further.
Perhaps the operative concept is that the reactions are seen as optional, and the “undeniable” urge to think/say/do something is suddenly deniable, even if just partially at first. What used to be a fait accompli softens into a compulsion, then habit, and so on as you put less and less self-referencing energy and interest into the reactions.
Thinking back to the other day, 'It wasn't as I wanted' versus 'It was rubbish': how does that feel at this moment??
- - - - -
I really like the leash metaphor, thank you…very clear, makes me realize progress is happening.
I've been really noticing how the aversion to aversion, 'Oh there's the clenching again, damn' gets in the way, it brings a harshness, so then have to welcome and soften around the aversion, before I can then reel the leash back to the basic vedana.
I see that still energy goes into trying to avoid the aversion by force, which just brings more tension, and diverts from the looking to see how nothing makes it necessary, the discontinuity.
'It wasn't as I wanted' versus 'It was rubbish'. Right now, 'It wasn't as I wanted' is felt, with softness, wistfulness, some flatness/sadness - ie a 'cool' rather than the 'hot' reaction. 'No, it was just rubbish' - ie my perspective is reality - is making little attempts, but they are weak, and mostly it's seen as flimsy… the 3 year old!
Looking at this since Saturday, the self-referencing has been so clear - how I identify with being critical, not putting up with rubbish, passionately holding out for excellence.
Earlier I worked with strong hunger pangs. There was some fear in response - I guess a basic 'if eating is seen as optional, survival is threatened!'
Sometimes when I soften it feels like a switch, the basic issue is suddenly simply known rather than meaning something…. then a reactive interpretation comes, it switches back.
- - - - -
Perhaps the possibility of craving and aversion being completely done is tantalizing? Hopes and expectations (i.e. craving and aversion) around craving and aversion – we are so talented!! Glad the “what I wanted/rubbish” scenario is staying soft.
And yes, identifying with experience: that’s basically what it is. In the case of eating, of course you will continue to eat, but maybe the question is: does craving and aversion have to come into play?
Your analogy of a switch is a good one, and may be a good image as to how to respond to craving and aversion when they arise. Get used to turning the switch off, however it is you are able to come back to what is actually happening in experience. I asked myself “why is this coming up?” when I became aware of some pushing or pulling at experience, looking for what was behind the reactions (and of course never found anything). It eventually shortened to “Why?” – I was so used to asking the question and doing a little looking that the internal process became second nature.
How do you feel about people in general at the moment? More connected and/or inclined to them, feeling a bit more separation, about the same?
- - - - -
Well, interesting you should ask how I'm feeling about people, as I am noticing a difference today, less aversive generally, softer, to people and everything. Also the sense of a 'here' and 'there' has been shifting the last couple of days...
It's feels astonishing that I haven't thought to ask the 'why?' before!
I'm thinking… OK, the old doubt samskara must be about to kick in big time!
- - - - -
Glad the whole "other people" thing is going well. Be curious what you mean by 'here and there' shifting?
Yes, why not ask why it is the case? Maybe because we are so used to stating that it is the case?
As you encounter people and issues which have given rise to aversion, what does it feel like to not do what you might normally have done? Are there any internal scripts that run, perhaps "hey, why aren't you..." or "something's wrong: I should be..."? Does it feel like working without a net, are there little adrenaline rushes, or other symptoms of being in strange territory?
- - - - -
Last night after posting I found it all feeling beautifully clear and simple. Equanimity. Reactivity readily dissolving with the 'why, or what in DE makes that necessary?' Delight and freedom. Much the same today so far. Some sort of ebullience, pride, then some shame, aversion to that, then that's seen. Somehow a doorway has opened and I get what you have been pointing to, simply. There's some fear of losing that clarity! And occasional thoughts like 'this is just a bubble and when it bursts it's going to be grim'!
What's it feeling like to not do what I'd normally do. Great!
Overall, there's a peacefulness, though at the same time a subtle edge of manic ebullient restlessness!! There's an edge of quiet joy at times, plus an incredulity; just like no self, it CANNOT be so simple.
The 'here and there' thing… it's so hard to describe. So I've been aware of a remaining sense of self that boils down to a sense of location, 'something here', i.e. some ongoing identification with sensations in the face/head which are then 'joined up' by a mental mapping, and 'recognised' as 'here' aka 'me'. I find it really hard to 'get' that mental mapping, I think it's more a kinesthetic 'map'/thought than a visual one. When I've looked at it before, I've focused on the sense of 'here', e.g. looked at the impermanence of the sensations. But then the other day i thought 'but what about the "there", where's that?', and somehow it was clearer there's no 'there', therefore no 'here'. Rather than on/off it feels like a scale, sometimes quite a lot of here/there, sometimes very little, but overall less at the moment.
- - - - -
Very good to read this. No one has reported the bubble bursting, and like the self, how can it? It’s a Santa Claus moment, if you will. And like the self, it really is as simple as it turned out to be (which makes guiding easier than I thought it would be…).
As desire and ill will start to give way, the next group of illusions around “existence” beckon, such as duality, “thingness”, etc. So, no surprise that inquiry into “here and there” is starting to open up. The sense of “here” is particularly resilient, as is “now”, since space and time are so ingrained in our perspective on experience.
Moving forward, my suggestion is that you continue to be curious as to “why?” reactions should ever come up, as experience settles into this new paradigm. There can be a honeymoon phase, after which craving and aversion can seem to creep back in, whereupon you might question “hey, how that could be??!!” However, it’s as it is now: they arise, but a little mindfulness sees them dissolve away again. There may even be some very white-hot aversions that rise up: the leash still has a fair amount of give to it
- - - - -
Yes, it does feel like a Santa moment happened, the clarity has remained, but at the same time it still feels very new, just a beginning.
Way less reactivity still, but today bit more craving and aversion arising, some dissolving quickly, some needing more looking.
So many parallels with the anatta process; for example a sense of everything needing re-examining, eg all the favourite dukkha routes, through this new lens.
What you wrote about 'here and there' was interesting, as that sense of 'here' has been a source of doubt, ie it made me wonder if there was something missing in the seeing through self-view.
Thank you SO MUCH for your great guiding!! Felt super-supported.
- - - - -
Yes, just accept that reactions will still occur, and that they can be examined a bit and dissolved. The enemy may seem to be falling back and regrouping at the moment: the "new and improved" versions of your favorite likes and dislikes will likely be somewhat different. And yet, the strategy is always the same: just look to see if there's anything behind them.
And exactly: it's another illusion that, looking back, you can see was coloring so much of experience, just like the "self" did. I always had a sense of entitlement, that I was justified in seeing everything in terms of what I wanted and didn't want.
- - - - -
Like the military metaphor - the enemy regrouping... not particularly happening yet, although it seems to have slightly numbed me out today, I've forgotten the amazingness of what's happened… but still the reactivity is way less.
- - - - -
The last week or so there has been a lot of reactivity - my more resilient samskaras coming up. In particular there was a patch of depression, and for a while it felt as if the new paradigm and the depression samskara were in battle, and the depression felt stronger… but then it largely turned around.
Somehow a lot of the time currently there is insufficient mindfulness for the new paradigm to operate. That's disappointing, but at the same time I still know reactivity is optional.
The level of mindfulness that is there sometimes and becomes the base level whilst doing the DP with you seems to be a necessary component for the realisation to be acted on!
At the same time, the last few days I'm having very deep sits with insight, but nothing that appears to particularly abide.
As I write this I see more clearly how I've had a big construction project the last week or so, building a 'woe is me' tale about a particular instance of things not being as …etc etc. This is good as I can now avoid telling that tale in a meeting tomorrow and thereby pumping it up and spreading gloom to others.
- - - - -
As I think you're finding, mindfulness is more straightforward now, and its degree and depth will "catch up" with where you're at, so I wouldn't get too discouraged. Think weeks or months rather than days in order to find a new sort of equilibrium point, such that you are regularly looking at the level of subtlety that corresponds with "where you're currently at". In a way, the question "so, what does this new perspective mean?" takes some time to integrate, just as did the evaporation of the illusory "self".
As for nothing appearing to abide, even though meditation sits are now very deep: consider that there's less of "you" now, so by comparison it seems like there's hardly anyone "there". A lot of the drama and content doesn't show up anymore. What's left of "you" is settling and regrouping, but is still quite able to make its presence known in terms of there being reactions to what's happening.
On the "woe is me" construction project: does it seem as though a lot of tried and true samskaras as to how you've normally responded to experience are still trying to fire and connect, but that a little mindfulness and clarity eventually has you saying "oops, never mind..."?
- - - - -
Thanks for the encouragement!
I'm not sure that mindfulness is more straightforward. It has been feeling elusive the last week or so. There's been a prevailing foggy mental state of grumpiness and generalised 'Things are not as….' The pout has been in place rather a lot!!
'Think weeks or months rather than days in order to find a new sort of equilibrium point,'
Yes, that's fair enough … of course!
When I said nothing appears to abide, I meant the Insight not abiding… it's so clear in the sit, but doesn't seem to stick afterwards in any discernible way.
'does it seem as though a lot of tried and true samskaras as to how you've normally responded to experience are still trying to fire and connect, but that a little mindfulness and clarity eventually has you saying "oops, never mind…"?'
It's more like a whole sub-personality/constellation of samskaras is battling for a comeback!
I notice how sending it love/softening around it seems to be most effective at the moment… melts the reactivity/pout.
- - - - -
Thanks for this - I like how you describe sending it love and softening as an "antidote" to the reactivity and pouting. I also have found great value in embracing whatever is happening that might be triggering the reactions: acknowledging that "yep, this is really what's happening - no use in denying it...". In a way, "owning" what the circumstances of life are in a complete way, rather than seeing them as somehow separate or distinct. It's got me through some rather anxious times
- - - - -
Thanks Kevin. Dukkha re instability in my living situation is readily providing a wonderful opportunity for spiritual growth... and all for free!
- - - - -
I can report that the cycle has come around back to clarity, heart, equanimity. Quite intense, a tearful few days... seeing more subtle levels of resistance to experience, disguised as spiritual seeking. A sense of utter longing (not craving) to come home to This. As Thich Nhat Hanh puts it: 'I have arrived. I am home. In the here... and in the now'.