How to get enlightened

I have a basic simple question. This is the kind of question I think I've never asked because I was afraid it was a "dumb question."
Okay:
I've been able, I think, to do the exercise of naming and noting my sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. I've penetrated the object, and have seen objects arise and pass away. In fact, I could sit down right now and after a short period of noting, I'd start feeling A&P-like raptures of one degree or another.
BUT - I don't really think that I ever really see all these objects and experiences as "not me." I - my awareness - focuses on the objects, notes them, etc. but still just figures it is "my leg" or "my scalp" or "my skin" etc. that is producing the sensations, or if I am feeling something, then, I am feeling something. I. Just because I can note an experience, why does that experience become "not me?"
Now, I do get that there is no permenant self because I know I can't find an "I" or a "me" anywhere that is permenant and unchanging. It's just not there. But, honestly, at each moment or micro moment that the consciousness/awareness in this body right here notes an experience happening in this body there is no sense that "oh, that isn't me." on the contrary, it actually feels like the combination of the sensations/feelings/thoughts and the awareness of them in the moment is "ME" for that moment.
I mean, the awareness contained in this body is aware of experiences from this body, I can't as far as I know note your sensations and you can't note "mine."
Okay, what am I missing?
I get impermanence, I get no self, and I get that it's all very unsatisfactory. But that deeper sense of all three of those things that I think some of you have from disembeddng from your experience I don't think I have.
Cont.

cont.
Pleae note that this is a question inspired by curiousity only. I'm not stressed.

I think this comes down to the following reasoning.

provisional assumptions
1. in awareness, there is subject and object
2. subject and object do not overlap

therefore,
3. whatever is taken as object of awareness (i.e. whatever is noted) is not-subject (i.e. is not "you")

So noting a content (taking it as object) is sufficient to objectify it and make it not-you.

Nonetheless, the not-you-ness of the noted sensation may not always be apparent in immediate experience. I find I can make the not-me-ness of sensations apparent in this direct way by first considering this brief argument:

provisional assumptions
1. in awareness, there is subject and object
2. subject and object do not overlap
3. all contents of awareness are objects
4. all body/mind sensations are contents of awareness
5. "I" am the subject, not any of the objects

therefore,
6. all body/mind sensations are objects, not the subject (from 1-4); so
7. all body/mind sensations (indeed, all contents of awareness) are not-me (from 5-6)

When you say "my leg", "my scalp" or "my skin", this my is absolutely, beyond doubt, 110% a sensation, thought or feeling.
Also when you say "I don't really think that I ever really see all these objects and experiences as not me." Is the "I" that thinks, sees and experiences the same as that which will see these as "not me" .

Everything IS impermanant, not self and unsatisfactory. The "I" to get this or disembedd from experience was created in the making of the statement. The impermance, not self and unsatisfactoriness of everything, it just is - full stop.

If we say to ourselves we create ourselves. So this post has reinforce an illusion except that it be seen through. (I just realized an illusion cannot be reinforced ).

Practice and enquiry might be helpful but the ego has a counterfeit of looking for a state or an insight that is not helpful. The difference can be quite subtle.

[edit] One more comment with regards to Awareness, the idea or concept of Awareness is not Awareness.

thanks gary, I think I really have to ponder:

provisional assumptions
1. in awareness, there is subject and object
2. subject and object do not overlap
3. all contents of awareness are objects
4. all body/mind sensations are contents of awareness
5. "I" am the subject, not any of the objects

therefore,
6. all body/mind sensations are objects, not the subject (from 1-4); so
7. all body/mind sensations (indeed, all contents of awareness) are not-me (from 5-6)

"I think this comes down to the following reasoning..."

I was going to take a crack at writing something like this down too, so I am glad you did that. And it all makes sense intellectually. But I suppose the "trick" then is to understand this not just intellectually, but deep down in your bones. Kind of like seeing someone do some complicated calculus in front of you, where you sorta-kinda follow the steps, and then having to do it again by yourself.

But in a reverse induction argument, where I "get" all the steps and yet I am not enlightened, I therefore have to ask: "what am I missing"?

"
I get impermanence, I get no self, and I get that it's all very unsatisfactory. But that deeper sense of all three of those things that I think some of you have from disembeddng from your experience I don't think I have.
"

I can totally relate to these feelings. I had them to varying degrees all the way up until 1st path. I always understood "it" experienced the three characteristics continuously but not until I really started seeing the sensations of "I" blip in and out of any bare sensate experience on the body did I realize how the three characteristics were so true of every phenomena that made up this "Nick".

I remember the moment when I saw with great precision how as the sensations on the body were being observed, the mind would register other sensations very quickly elsewhere...a combination of sensations, maybe a sensation at the throat with a sensation of the eyeballs and the space behind the eyeballs and maybe a mental image of a generic face meant to be "me". I started really seeing when the sum of these sensations would blip in and out at great rapidity whenever it was just observation in observing a sensation (no "I"). This would create the illusion of "I" am observing these sensations...they are "my" sensations, "my" leg.

continued from above

I really wanted those sensations of "I" to stop...I fought and fought them thinking I had to destroy them somehow until I realized those sensations, that were being read by the evaluating part of the mind as "I", would arise and pass away regardless. So it was my job to see those sensations as just sensations like every other sensation. That is, they were not subject, they were object just like everything else experienced within the body. Subject became one with object and the sensations of "I" were just seen as some more sensations mixed in with the sensations already being observed.

Hahaha!, Does this make sense?

Anyway up until the moment when the "I" no longer was being read and ceased being subject and then there was just sensations being experienced, my understanding and feelings about the three characterisitics was similar to how you are feeling, Mike.

When all those sensations without an "I" blipping in and out were seen as anicca, just sensations dancing about, disappearing as soon as they arose, anatta, just substancelesss fluff, the "I" was so substanceless and just fluff, those two understandings made soooooo much sense, so much more than ever before and because of that the dukkha characateristic made so much more sense too and then I went through the dukkha door at that moment of realization.

I think I've rambled on a bit and hope this just helps you relax (I know your not stressed hehe) about being where you are. Having that vague idea of the three charactersitics is ok right up until 1st path because that is when you get "it" completely for the 1st time. And what gets you over the line in my opinion.

Each path though makes it clearer and clearer. Hopefully some 3rd and 4th pathers can back me up as I am not there yet.

"I was going to take a crack at writing something like this down too, so I am glad you did that. And it all makes sense intellectually. But I suppose the "trick" then is to understand this not just intellectually, but deep down in your bones. Kind of like seeing someone do some complicated calculus in front of you, where you sorta-kinda follow the steps, and then having to do it again by yourself.

But in a reverse induction argument, where I "get" all the steps and yet I am not enlightened, I therefore have to ask: "what am I missing"?"

When I used to read Ingram's stuff a lot to try and get to the heart of "fruitions" all I could think of was that if one observed a sensation enough times in just the right way then --boom -- fruition, cessation, enlightenment. It was never clear how many tmes and in what way. I've concluded that a lot of it is just luck or grace and you just have to put yourself in the right place to get the the grace when it comes.
In fact, Dr. Ingram even told me once that the liklihood was greatest when one was aware of ALL sensations and experience in their entire sense field for at least "three distinct moments." (I realize I'm probably misquoting)
Kenneth's instructions are different.
Who knows?

"Anyway up until the moment when the "I" no longer was being read and ceased being subject and then there was just sensations being experienced, my understanding and feelings about the three characterisitics was similar to how you are feeling mike.
When all those sensations without and "I" blipping in and out were seen as anicca, just sensations dancing about, disappearing as soon as they arose, anatta, just substancelesss fluff, the "I" was so substanceless and just fluff, those two understandings made SOO much sense, so much more than ever before and because of that the dukkha characatersitic made so much more sense too and then I went through the dukkha door at that moment of realization.

I think I rambled on a bit and hope this just helps you relax (I know your not stressed hehe) about being where you are. Having that vague idea of the three charactersitics is ok right up until 1st path because that is when you get "it" completely for the 1st time. And what gets you over the line in my opinion.

Each path though makes it clearer and clearer. Hopefully some 3rd and 4th pathers can back me up as I am not there yet. "

Thanks, very helpful.
It really seems like you are saying that it has to be "seen" really clearly and that it can't really be explained or figured out. One must look and look and look and see it.
My experience so far is like maybe I've put on bifocals so I can see more of the world but I really need to look through the microscope.
I'm fine with where I am at. In fact, I like where I am at right now. seriously.

"When I used to read Ingram's stuff a lot to try and get to the heart of "fruitions" all I could think of was that if one observed a sensation enough times in just the right way then --boom -- fruition, cessation, enlightenment. It was never clear how many tmes and in what way. I've concluded that a lot of it is just luck or grace and you just have to put yourself in the right place to get the the grace when it comes.
In fact, Dr. Ingram even told me once that the liklihood was greatest when one was aware of ALL sensations and experience in their entire sense field for at least "three distinct moments." (I realize I'm probably misquoting)
Kenneth's instructions are different.
Who knows? "

And Daniel once said to me "grace favours the prepared mind". I don't know if it is a deliberate or accidental misquote, but this wording is very appropriate to our situation I think.

"Thanks, very helpful.
It really seems like you are saying that it has to be "seen" really clearly and that it can't really be explained or figured out. One must look and look and look and see it.
My experience so far is like maybe I've put on bifocals so I can see more of the world but I really need to look through the microscope.
I'm fine with where I am at. In fact, I like where I am at right now. seriously. "

Hey Mike,

Yes, you really just have to look and look and look until what is staring us in the face all along just makes sense finally. That was my feeling when it happened. I just thought laughing to myself how profound this insight into the three characteristics and the illusion of self had been there all along and I'd been looking and looking at it for so many years without fully realizing it. The looking and looking and invesitagting did its job finally.

When I say I was seeing all these sensations including the sensations of "I", it was when I was in equanimity of formations stage where the mind difuses somewhat and meditation becomes automatic and "everything" that makes up the experience of self is easily seen.

A quote by sayagi ub khin goes something like you need to swing on a rope back and forth each time picking up speed for awhile until you get the height and distance to be able to let go and land on the other side. Getting up to high equanimity stage and then going back down in the dukkha nanas, going back up and coming back down etc is like the swinging on the rope. Eventually you will get high enough to be able to clearly see it all as it is and then you can let go. It WILL eventually happen. You just have to keep swinging on the rope, looking and looking and investigating the hell out of it all.

Something else that might be helpful...when I got to high equanimity and investigated the sensations of "I", my focus was quite a wide focus which took up the entire upper part of the body, the head inside and out and the upper chest. That way I caught every sensation that arose, including the "I" ones.

Hope this is helpful

"
Something else that might be helpful...when I got to high equanimity and investigated the sensations of "I", my focus was quite a wide focus which took up the entire upper part of the body, the head inside and out and the upper chest. That way I caught every sensation that arose, including the "I" ones.

Hope this is helpful"

Thanks again Nikolai. You are a great example.
I could be wrong but I have a hunch that the awareness of the way things are that comes from total surrender if done enough times will also let one see through the illusions.
The other day I was sitting in a chair in my room that faces a large window. Out the window is my side yard with a fence. On the fence are flowering plants. As I sat i watched the plants, I watched the flowers, I watched the bees going from flower to flower, I watched the wind on the plants and flowers. As my mind emptied and slowed I saw that the flowers,plants, bees, fence and wind were empty. And that I was empty. It was lovely.
I wasn't doing vipassana. I was "just sitting and breathing" -- nothing else, as my eye wandered up to the window.
I don't know if that kind of state leads to a "fruition" but I think it might in the right conditions.

Hi Mike,
I don't think you're alone in having this curiosity... you asked a worthy question. Let's see if this helps:

The body with all it's tissues, bones, nerves, organs, brain, etc is a vessel whereby we can experience this conventional reality. Keep in mind the cause and effect of karma (many lifetimes).
From the moment of conception, "your" body is continuously changing... thus, impermanent.

Primordial Awareness, Buddha Nature, Dao, or what ever you want to call it -- it is without beginning, and without end (no cause and effect).
Everything else, all phenomena (sensations, perceptions, object, subject, or whatever other label) is all inherently dependent - Emptiness.
What do you know about Primordial Awareness? You know that there is no subject or object. -- Nondual. Not Two. No separateness what-so-ever.
What does "I" mean? Doesn't "I" imply separateness? Is there "I" in Primordial Awareness?

Try this, ask yourself "what is it that continues after this body dies" or you can go the other end of the body-life spectrum and ask "what was my face before I was born" (btw, a useful Zen koan). You can take this later one even further by asking "what is this original 'existence' before any lifetimes." In asking these questions, is there an "I" that exists separate from Primordial Awareness? What is the True Nature of "Mike"? Are you the bodily sensations, experiences, etc? Are your bodily sensations your True Nature? Or is your True Nature this that I've been calling Primordial Awareness?
Not separate, Not Two.

Sorry if I went over the top with this explanation, I hope it is in some way helpful pointing.
- Tina

Tina: very nice, thanks.
I get emptiness in the sense that I really feel that I see it. but, when I see it maybe I've leapfrogged over some insight that might be gotten from vipassana practice and into the nondual experience. It's like my fake I will just stop sometimes.

"I was going to take a crack at writing something like this down too, so I am glad you did that. And it all makes sense intellectually. But I suppose the "trick" then is to understand this not just intellectually, but deep down in your bones. Kind of like seeing someone do some complicated calculus in front of you, where you sorta-kinda follow the steps, and then having to do it again by yourself.

But in a reverse induction argument, where I "get" all the steps and yet I am not enlightened, I therefore have to ask: "what am I missing"?"

Yeah, for me it's useful as a conceptual aid during practice. Just as sometimes it might be useful to remind myself about equanimity or balancing effort and concentration, etc., sometimes it is also useful to remind myself of this argument. The "deep down in the bones" part can be helped along by already being in a good noting/vipassana groove, and also really feeling the force of the argument. If you don't really buy it or get it it probably won't do much. But if you really feel like it forces you into a corner conceptually, if you really can't argue with the assumptions or the logic and so you totally accept where the argument takes you, something interesting might happen, especially if you have already peeled back a few vipassana layers and can notice some of the subtler sensations associated with the thinking/feeling/evaluating/doing mind. (These are known to awareness, and so objects, and so not the subject.

Of course, like most other things in meditation, it's best to be process-oriented rather than results-oriented. That is, try out techniques, do them diligently, but don't be too concerned about what experience does or doesn't ensue. One thing I've found really helpful relating to all this that Kenneth has told me is, "It doesn't matter if you feel that you are objectifying the phenomena. You can't label them without objectifying them."

What a great thread! Thanks, everybody. It's good for me to hear this discussion and to remember that I did this practice for years before it became obvious that noting IS objectification. U Pandita used to tell us in Rangoon that noting was part time enlightenment and that later it would be full time enlightenment. I used to listen to him and wonder if I was doing it wrong, because I was noting and I didn't feel enlightened. So, Brian's advice is right on: take a process-oriented approach and trust that each moment of noting is doing irreparable harm to your ego. Also, Brian's logical reflection is priceless. This whole thread is priceless. Mike, Brian, Gary, Tomo, Nick, Tina, you all made my day. Thanks!

Kenneth

"
Something else that might be helpful...when I got to high equanimity and investigated the sensations of "I", my focus was quite a wide focus which took up the entire upper part of the body, the head inside and out and the upper chest. That way I caught every sensation that arose, including the "I" ones.

Hope this is helpful"

So of course it comes back to the important equanimity jhana/nana. To me, that seems the *critical* milestone on the first Path.

"I suppose the "trick" then is to understand this not just intellectually, but deep down in your bones."

I've been thinking about this subject (no pun intended) a bit as well.
If the unification of subject/object is 12 on a clock face, going clockwise around the clock might be to say, "the thinker is the thought itself; the observer is the observed." So a Krishnamurti or Eckhart Tolle would have you just pay attention until thought subsided enough that you were at 12.
Sorry to mix metaphors, but going counterclockwise would be to paint the sense of I into a corner by objectifying all objects, from gross to subtle in the scaffolded approach that Kenneth teaches. The problem with the clockwise approach is that it doesn't seem to involve conscious objectification of anything other than thought--there's a disproportionate emphasis on thought that, to me, seems to make it much harder to "get it," not just intellectually, but deep in your bones. The advantage is that it's very simple and doesn't leave you wondering about questions of "me" or "not me."

Some might say that you preserve the subject/object relationship by objectifying in the counterclockwise approach, but Kenneth solves this by acknowledging and embracing 2nd and 3rd gear. It's understood that you will eventually turn the light of awareness back on itself and keep on going with that process until you're at 12, but you've objectified everything from the feeling of your leg on the cushion to the suddhavasa jhanas. (It's all about the leg on the cushion for me right now!)