She looked at the phone, almost as if willing it to ring. But it didn’t. She wanted it to, but it didn’t! At this point, agitation welled up within her, and the thinking of one thought led to another.

In the space of several minutes, what had been the simple observation of a mobile phone turned into hundreds of ideas about the phone. Whereas before her observation of a phone that was not ringing was a ‘fact’, her ideas about the phone were now a ‘non-fact’!

She tried to suppress and control her emotions. Yet this did nothing to assuage the conflict. Her feelings of hate, jealousy, anxiety, fear and insecurity remained. Upon reflection, it is indeed remarkable to consider just how strong the emotions are, and that their expression accurately represents the inglorious passion of suffering. Is one aware of this phenomenon on a level that can be understood? And, are the attachments that one may have to both people and things, based on these emotions?  

The fact is not the idea. It is possible to create an idea about the phone, but the phone is a fact. The phone can be touched and picked up. One can look at it and see the shape of it, the colour of it. Is the attachment to it a concept, an idea, or is it a fact?

When one observes the fact, not the idea, not the conclusion or judgment about the fact, but the fact itself, is the fact different from the one who is observing?

When one observes the fact through an idea, one is not looking at the fact. How does one look at the fact? Is attachment a part of oneself or separate from oneself? The phone is separate from oneself. Yet the attachment to the phone and the emotions arising from having ideas about the phone are part of oneself.

Attachment is ‘me’. If there is no attachment, there is no ‘me’. Awareness of one’s emotions is therefore, part of one’s nature. If one is looking at oneself, there is only attachment, the fact, the feeling, the possessiveness in attachment. This is ‘me’. It is a fact!

What is one to do with this fact then? Previously when there was division between ‘me’ and attachment, one tried to do something about attachment. If attachment is ‘me’, one cannot do anything! All one can do is observe it. One cannot act upon it because it is already ‘me’.

There is only observation. If in the observation one begins to choose, and in choosing makes a judgment, saying “One must not be attached”, one is actually saying that attachment is not ‘me’. True observation means therefore that there is no choice.

The pure observation of a fact without reaching a conclusion or forming an opinion about the fact naturally dissolves it. The energy is totally centred in observation and there is complete dissipation of attachment.

Working through the exercise then, she observes the phone. What does she see? She sees a phone. It is turned off. It has buttons and a screen. Now she has an idea about the phone. What is that idea? She also has strong emotions attached to the idea about the phone. What are those emotions?

The phone is a fact. The observation is clear and pure. Her idea about the phone is a ‘non-fact’. It is not real. Her idea about the phone is that it should ring. Why? She wants the phone to ring because she wants to know that somebody has made her a priority. Somebody having made her a priority gives her a sense of self-worth. She has therefore looked for self-worth outside of herself, from another.

She has strong emotions about her idea of the phone. She has become agitated because of her idea of the phone and this has led her to projecting these emotions into the future. Now she has wild imaginings based on the idea she had of the phone.

The wild imaginings based on the idea she had of the phone and sustained by agitation are the speculations gathered together by her when reaching the conclusion that she is not recognised as a priority in someone’s life.

The phone is something apart from her. But attachment, the emotion, is part of herself. Therefore, awareness of her emotions, her attachments, is part of her structure.

If she looks at herself there is no division; there is no duality as the ‘me’ and attachment. There is only attachment, not the word but the fact, the feeling, the emotion, the possessiveness in attachment. That is a fact. That is ‘me’.

What is she to do with ‘me’? If there is ‘me’ and attachment, she could try to suppress it. But if it is ‘me’, what can she do? She can’t do anything. She can only observe. Before, she acted upon it. Now she can’t because it is HER. All she can do is observe.

Observation becomes all important, not what she does about it.