A warmer day here today with no wind, and not such a chilly start to the day either.
No worries as I see that you are LOOKING at times like these :)Good to be with you again, and I’m sorry for the gap between posts. I meant to reply yesterday but I got stuck waiting for delayed trains for hours and got home late and weary.
Nice observation of thought waffling (laughing) As you have noticed since having your revelation...that it's all very simple and doesn't need screeds of waffle to give a response. :)I’ll keep my answers short and to the point this time, but I hope you’ll tolerate a very brief preamble: Reading over my last post is remarkable. I feel almost embarrassed and a bit bewildered at how regressive in tone and content much of it seems to be, after the revelation of last week. Way too much efforting went into it and, on reflection, it was as though a wave of defiance swelled up over several days. A protective shell of ‘thinking’—a very ‘selfish’ thing--the surrounding structure of the self thought, ramming me backwards into the old assumptions. It was like walking through mental treacle for several days, but it’s faded away now. I sincerely apologise for wasting your time with waffle.
Yep. Never just believe what thought says…always check it with AE.No humans. ‘Human’ is a label, a concept. Thought interprets raw experience into ‘a human’, which is a construct, just like ‘an apple’, from our first exercise, is a construct.What humans exactly? Do people think? Are people aware? Since there is no ‘you’ that is the thinker of thought, then why would there be others who are thinkers of thought?
A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.
A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.
Can thought observe itself? Does thought have the capacity, the attributes to observe itself?People don’t think. No ‘one’ thinks; there are no thinkers, just thought. People can’t ‘have’ awareness. Awareness is thought observing itself. There are no others who are thinkers of thought.
In other words, thought IS an appearance, and an "appearance" is just another word for THIS (or 'experience') exactly as it is. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience! Thought seems to know a subject (the knower) and an object (the known) but Knowing knows only Knowing. We are that Knowing, and thus we know our Self alone.
And can where thought arises from and subsides to, be found?No.Is there anyone controlling what thoughts appear and when?
When a thought or mental image appears and seems to be referring to past experience…when is that thought actually appearing?Past experience thought stories. ‘Knowledge’. Which are, as previously described, inherently fictitious and routinely misleading.What is it that suggests “human thought will interpret a picture of something as in some way being the actual object that it represents…(etc)
Lovely! YES!It isn’t. Without thought, there can be no knowledge.Without thought, how is it known that “the illusion / impression of ‘experiencing depth’ is powerful and, apparently, necessary for orientation”?
Lovely LOOKING, Glenn :)It isn’t. It’s clearly independent of any deliberate process or controlling thought. It’s just doing it.How is the movement controlled?
Oh I like how you said that….” A bit like getting a cigarette craving after you’ve quit”! That is a perfect way of explaining it.No, definitely not. Interesting to note that familiar ‘looking for a controller who’s not there’ feeling arising though, but it now seems like a faint echo of an old habit rather than a loud, nagging imperative. A bit like getting a cigarette craving after you’ve quit.Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Now…see, this kind of expressiveness is beautiful. This is lovely “waffling” ;) :)Thoughts can’t make decisions—they’re neutral, and for them to have a decision-making capacity would require them to have agency, which they don’t. There was no decision made. I read your instruction then the hand started turning over. That seems like cause and effect, not the product of any decision. Like a cloud ‘telling’ a raindrop to make a flower grow, for instance. The raindrop doesn’t decide to land on the flower. It just falls from the cloud to the earth and the flower grows.How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
LOL! Funny….especially the bit “, not to imply that I expected the observable universe to shrink to the size of a pea before my very eyes” (still laughing)No, that’s not what I meant. I’ve got to be more careful writing things down here. I really didn’t mean that. I just meant to gently underline the facts of the situation, not to imply that I expected the observable universe to shrink to the size of a pea before my very eyes I should have added the qualifying “…though, obviously, their ‘reality’ continues to pervade”. But I didn’t. Sorry for not making that clearer.Oh and so there is an idea here that they should disappear?I’ve seen that spatial and temporal awareness, as conventionally understood, are illusory thought-phenomena. In (my) everyday existence though, their ‘reality’ continues to pervade.
Nice! What did you go see?There is only 2D. Yesterday I went to the cinema, and the 2D-ness of the ‘3D’ world up there on the screen was easily apparent. Colour/shade created the illusion of 3D, as they do in the world outside the cinema too.Can I please have a simple short response to the question. Is there really a 3D dimension or only 2D?
The following exercise will also help with this.
Have a look at the following picture. Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there?
Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?
Lovely! And the label ‘colour’ points to THIS, exactly as it is.No. They are labels / concepts that both point to AE of colour.Is dark different to light? Is black different to white?
Yep…let it percolate.THIS is above and beyond thought and language, because it’s just THIS. I understand what you’ve written but I won’t write more because I’d like to let it percolate unhurriedly overnight.What you think you are ie Glennself, is a thought. It's a thought that points (suggest) to colour, sound, sensation and so on and labels it a ‘me’. However, what you are is not a thought. And a thought is not a thought. It is thought that divides this into those 6 categories and then labels them as thought, sound, colour etc. So THIS is not actually appearing as a thought. It is simply appearing as itself..which then thought labels as being thought! Do you say to yourself when a thought appears….”oh look there I am appearing as a thought?” No! All there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it IS…no divisions…no labels, no descriptions.
And when you are ready to add more coffee grinds to the percolator - try this…
…If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with?