Where Am I? Location, Time, and Will
¿Dónde estoy? Ubicación, tiempo y voluntad
A student describes how the question "where am I?" has opened a new way of looking. The teacher explores the subtle construct of an observing entity, the antidote of "no seer," and the deeper illusion of a separate, independent will.
Where Am I? Location, Time, and Will
A student describes how the question "where am I?" has opened a new way of looking. The teacher explores the subtle construct of an observing entity, the antidote of "no seer," and the deeper illusion of a separate, independent will.
I find I turn my camera off because my body goes absolutely like lead. I just have to be horizontal. Everything just falls away, but I'm still there, still with it. And I found "where am I?" really useful, rather than the usual "who am I?" When you asked "where am I?", that was an interesting, different way to look.
You can also ask, "When am I?"
Yes, you said something about time as well, and place. But then there's also the question of who's looking and who's asking.
Or what, if anything. We have to consider the possibility that there is nothing looking. We talk about the looking, but what if there is no looking? "The looking" is language, right? And words also have problems. One can say, "I am what is looking," but there's a problem there. It implies something that looks and something looked at.
Stepping stones
It's not real, but it helps if we are stuck believing we are something that is appearing. If I believe I am what I'm constructing in imagination and in sensations of the body, then it helps to start recognizing that there's something that seems more real: something that is knowing the experience of thoughts and knowing the experience of sensation. But then there can still be an image in the mind of an observing entity, observing something that is separate from what is observed. It's a more subtle thought, but it's still a thought.
In a sense, these are stepping stones toward a more real recognition. Suppose I'm totally captivated by imagination, by the narrative and the story of myself, and I've been doing that for decades. Then I suddenly realize, "Wow, that's just imagination. That character isn't what I am." There can be the experience of something looking that is here, knowing the narrative, knowing the character. That breaks the spell of identification with the narrative. But it usually becomes a stepping stone to a more subtle object: a more subtle construct of some vaguer entity, an observing entity that is separate from what is being observed.
The antidote: no seer
So one can go the other way and consider that there is no entity observing the experiences. What is real? This is the opposite of what I usually say, but it can actually be taken as a true, correct path, like an antidote. Only what is seen is real, only what is felt, what is thought. There is no thinker, there is no seer, there is no sensor. There is only the thought, only the seeing, only the sensation, only the sound. No hearer.
This is the antidote: to see that consciousness is not a separate thing. It's not an object. It's not an observing entity. It's not a thinker. It's not a seer.
In relation to the "where am I?" question, that almost feels like being in everything.
Exactly. Nowhere, everywhere. But "everything," "nowhere," and "everywhere" are just words. The reality those words point to needs to be known very clearly, in direct experience, not as an interpretive belief.
Usually the seeing of that is very trippy. It's like, "Oh God, wow." It's not like, "Oh, hi, got it." It's a complete shift in the experience of reality, and it is really mind-boggling.
That's like real expansion.
Yes, but those tastes are breadcrumbs to follow, right? Once it's known and seen very clearly, that shock dissipates, and it just becomes normal day-to-day experience.
So I should keep looking at "where am I?"
Using what works, then dropping it
Yes. When something really clicks or creates this kind of shift, it's always great to run with it, and then drop it when it stops having much of an effect. Otherwise it becomes a routine.
Location, time, and will
Where am I, what am I, when am I: all of these questions look at the fundamental attributes of identification. This empty beingness, or knowingness, identifies with what appears, and what appears has qualities. There is the quality of being located, the quality of appearing to be in time, the quality of having an independent will that arises from its own separate nature, and the attribute of acting from this separate, independent will. All of what I just named are illusions. What I am is not located. It's not in time. It does not have a separate, independent will, acting from separate, independent volition or choice.
We can look into all of those aspects. "What am I?" looks at all of it, while "when am I?" and "where am I?" look at being located and being in time. The tricky one is the sense of separate, independent will. That's at the root of it, because I can see through being located and still believe in having a separate will.
Yes, and it's the fiercest. It doesn't want to be disbelieved.
Exactly. It doesn't mean there is no will. It doesn't mean there is no choice. It has to do with the misinterpretation of the nature of that which chooses. The nature of that from which will arises is not separate. It's not independent.
The subtle construct of a chooser
Even so, this leaves room for a subtle construct: "What I am is not independent, not separate, not located, but it is still that which wills and chooses." Then it might seem that there isn't anything separate, but within that subtle construct there is still the illusion of separation. So it also has to be obvious, obvious in the sense of being so clear that it needs no exploration, that there is no choice. There is no will.
I often say there's the choice to identify or not, to be free or not. But simultaneously, fundamentally, there is no choice. There is only freedom. There is only reality. One cannot really choose not to be free.
Refining in steps
At first, though, there are steps. There's a certain progression in how things usually work, and trying to go for the ultimate from the beginning usually won't work. It's a refining. So go with whatever resonates, whatever creates an unlocking, an expansiveness, a well-being, a taste of peace, a taste of satisfaction that comes from now and not from something in time.
If the sense of well-being and satisfaction is "Oh, tomorrow I'm going to get somewhere," that's not it. If the satisfaction is "Oh, now that I get this, tomorrow or the next moment I will finally get there," that's not it. It's about a satisfaction and well-being that is tasted here and now, no matter what's happening. That's it. Whatever gets us to taste that here and now, no matter what's happening, more and more often, is the right tool: the right method, technique, approach, practice, whatever you call it. Often one thing works for a while, then the next, then the next. It's never one thing.
Yes, that's been my experience of this process so far. Little bits being chipped away.
It's like disassembling a big house. It's not something we usually do, but imagine disassembling a big structure that's built in different, complex ways. We need different tools and approaches at different stages. It's deconstructing the illusion, which is very complex. Fundamentally it's very simple; it's just the mind. But the mind creates an entity that appears to be very complex.
Anything else?
No, that's good. There are probably other things, but not for now. Thank you.