High intellect meets high intuition

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:19 am

Hi Jim,
It’s hard to locate. I’ve been re-reading this sentence over and over trying to cast a net and see where I feel a ‘me-ness.’ The body comes to mind. I feel a me-ness there. When I try to get more specific, there seems to be a me-ness in the thoughts behind my head. So I look there and try and feel it. Close my eyes. The trail ends there.
“the body comes to mind. I feel the me-ness there” – where is the me-feeling in the body exactly?

Put the attention to the FEELING of me in the body. And FEEL IT.

Which sensation in the body is the me?
“there seems to be the a me-ness in the thoughts behind my head” – Can the ‘me’ in the thoughts be actually felt?

Can a thought be felt?
Or only sensations can be felt?
Can anything else be felt other than a sensation?

Are thoughts BEHIND the head?
Are thoughts coming from behind the head? If yes, how is it known exactly?


Please don’t try to think about these questions, don’t analyse, just ignore thoughts. Whatever they are telling, just ignore them. And pay attention only to what can be known WITHOUT thoughts. And after, try to use words to describe the experience as precisely as you can without adding anything extra.
I did for some moments. Mostly behind the head. It’s a good exercise.
When you say behind the head, do you mean it literally?
Literally outside of the body, behind the head?

How far behind the head?
Can the space behind the head be actually FELT?

Is there an actual sensation in the space behind the head?
What is actually there behind the head?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: The Search for the Feeling of ‘Me’ and

Postby Ready2end » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:19 pm

Hi Vivien,

Please don’t try to think about these questions, don’t analyse, just ignore thoughts. Whatever they are telling, just ignore them. And pay attention only to what can be known WITHOUT thoughts. And after, try to use words to describe the experience as precisely as you can without adding anything extra.

I feel that I am already doing this and when I try to explain as precisely possible the process of examination using words, you take it the other way.

When you say behind the head, do you mean it literally?
Literally outside of the body, behind the head?
I mean it in the same sense when you wrote to search behind the head, behind the eyes, in the chest, in the throat, etc. Why there is a feeling or sensation of a ‘me’ that exists behind these areas I cannot say. Just does.

I feel like I have to be extremely careful when writing anything with you. When you say or mean something, it’s fine. When I use your same language, it’s isn’t. It’s confusing.
How far behind the head?
Can the space behind the head be actually FELT?
I don’t know how to describe this feeling/sensation of behind the head. I look and try a feel an ‘I’ or a ‘me.’ Most is the time it is greeted with a blankness. Yet at the same time, for whatever reason, that’s the area that felt a presence of me.
(So what is this presence feeling? I don’t know. Can you describe it? Not any more than I can describe the same presence of feeling alive.)
Is there an actual sensation in the space behind the head?
What is actually there behind the head?
I do my best to feel where a ‘me’ or an ‘I’ is located and stick with that. If it’s behind the head, I try and feel it there. Usually the sensation/presence/feeling doesn’t last long. Other thoughts arise, and I get distracted. Then I remember to search again and repeat the process.


The motivation to find an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ is there. It’s confusing though this search for one. On the conventional level, it seems so obvious. And when dealing with conventional life, it’s hard to feel the presence. Beyond the conventional level, when feeling the presence is easier, trying to describe anything becomes blurry and nebulous. I continue trying nonetheless to feel an ‘I’ or a ‘me’.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:31 am

Hi Jim,
I feel that I am already doing this and when I try to explain as precisely possible the process of examination using words, you take it the other way.
Because this is my job. My job is to help you to question everything. This is how this inquiry works. We are deconstructing beliefs here. So everything happens perfectly :)
V: When you say behind the head, do you mean it literally?
Literally outside of the body, behind the head?
J: I mean it in the same sense when you wrote to search behind the head, behind the eyes, in the chest, in the throat, etc. Why there is a feeling or sensation of a ‘me’ that exists behind these areas I cannot say. Just does.
Dear Jim, I didn’t say to search for the self BEHIND the head, I said: behind the eyes, inside the head. But I thought I might have done a typo and accidentally wrote ‘behind the head’ instead of ‘behind the eyes’. So I did a search on the thread, and no, I didn’t make any typo, at least I haven’t found any. But even if I had suggested looking it behind the head, I still have to question everything.

You mentioned behind the head, that’s why I am questioning it.
We are hunting for a SENSATION that is mistakenly labelled as ‘me’.
That’s why I ask you the followings:

V: You have literally SEARCH THROUGH the whole body from head to toe many-many times. Pay particular attention to the chest and the whole head. Search for the self in the eyes, behind the eyes, at the back of the head, the middle of the head, the top of the head, in the throat. Look everywhere. Search with closed eyes and open eyes too.


So we are hunting for the sensation that is labelled as ‘me’. Since the sense of self is just an ILLUSION.
The illusion is coming from not seeing that it’s just a plain sensation, nothing more.
But sensations cannot be felt outside of the body, behind the head.

That’s why I asked so many questions to point out that whatever you perceive behind the head, is just an ILLUSION.
With my questions I am pointing where to LOOK and SEE what is ACTUALLY there.
I feel like I have to be extremely careful when writing anything with you. When you say or mean something, it’s fine. When I use your same language, it’s isn’t. It’s confusing.
It’s not about who is right or not. It’s about questioning everything. It’s about deconstructing beliefs.

And if I write something it doesn’t mean that that thing won’t be questions 2 posts later.
We are advancing in small steps. You hold the conventional belief that there is a you, whom experiences happening to, who can choose and control things.

So we are starting from this conventional viewpoint, and making statements based on those.
As we advance forward we are gradually questioning this conventional viewpoint.
You got triggered by this, but that is all right. The question is…

What is it exactly that got triggered?
What is it exactly that got angry or frustrated or felt injustice (or whatever emotion came up)?
Where is the YOU that felt that way? – find it
I don’t know how to describe this feeling/sensation of behind the head. I look and try a feel an ‘I’ or a ‘me.’ Most is the time it is greeted with a blankness. Yet at the same time, for whatever reason, that’s the area that felt a presence of me.
(So what is this presence feeling? I don’t know. Can you describe it? Not any more than I can describe the same presence of feeling alive.)
You see, this is THE ILLUSION.
This SEEMING presence behind the head is an ILLUSION.

Only sensations can be felt. Nothing else.
And there are no sensation behind the head.
There are all sorts of sensations inside the head, but not behind.
Can you describe it? Not any more than I can describe the same presence of feeling alive.)
How ‘feeling alive’ is actually experienced?
What is the AE of ‘feeling alive’? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?


Take a cup or any object into your hands. And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?
Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?

Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?
How is presence experienced?

What is the thought label ‘presence’ is pointing to in experience? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

What is actually experienced with the thought expression ‘feeling alive’?

I do my best to feel where a ‘me’ or an ‘I’ is located and stick with that. If it’s behind the head, I try and feel it there. Usually the sensation/presence/feeling doesn’t last long. Other thoughts arise, and I get distracted. Then I remember to search again and repeat the process.
All right. We don’t stop there, just feeling this ‘presence’ but actually SEEING what is ACTUALLY felt there.

Let’s say that the sense of self appears as a sensation in the middle of the head, behind the eyes.
So you put the attention to that sensation, and feel it.
But you don’t just simply feel it, but you also has to SEE what it is that is being feeling there.
The BELIEF is that what is being felt is ‘me’.
But the REALITY IS that what is being felt is just a plain SENSATION, not a ‘me’.
Can you see this?


But if you say that the sense of self is BEHIND the head, then what is it that is ACTUALLY FELT BEHIND the head?
Can you see that only sensations can be felt?
Can you see that there are no ACTUAL sensations behind the head?


So whatever is SEEMINGLY FELT BEHIND the head, is just an ILLUSION.
It’s just an illusion that the sense of self is behind the head.
It’s just an illusion that the ‘me’ is behind the head.
It’s just an illusion that there is a presence behind the head.
Can you see this, even if just intellectually?
The motivation to find an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ is there. It’s confusing though this search for one. On the conventional level, it seems so obvious. And when dealing with conventional life, it’s hard to feel the presence. Beyond the conventional level, when feeling the presence is easier, trying to describe anything becomes blurry and nebulous. I continue trying nonetheless to feel an ‘I’ or a ‘me’.
I might see what’s the problem here, but I’m not sure if my assumption is correct. So please correct me if I am wrong.

Do you believe that we are looking for an actual me, or for an actual sense of presence?
That the aim of this investigation to ACTUALLY find something that can be called my ‘real Self’ or ‘my presence’?


I make these assumptions based on this comment: “And when dealing with conventional life, it’s hard to feel the presence.”

What are we searching for with this investigation?
What are we trying to find?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:09 pm

HI Vivien,

Just read your post. I see where you are coming from. And I have to admit I was loose with my language description of ‘behind the head.’ Which at the time signified the same as ‘in the back of the head.’
I’ll try and be more responsible moving forward.

Listen, I’m in that period as previously mentioned last week where I have to go part-time for the next several days. Currently with relatives and have nearly zero time to self. Which doesn’t mean I’m not practicing...I continue doing so under the radar. So I’ll check back in late tonight or tomorrow. Not sure if it needs mentioning again, but thank you for the assistance. Feeling grateful :)

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:41 am

Hi Jim,

Thank you for letting me know. Even if you can't post, look as often as you can.

I'm looking forward to your replies.

Have a nice day,
Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:41 pm

Hi Vivien,

-
What is it exactly that got triggered?
What is it exactly that got angry or frustrated or felt injustice (or whatever emotion came up)?
Where is the YOU that felt that way? – find it.


I don’t feel it anymore like I did two days ago. For now, it’s just a thought. I had a thought saying it isn’t about being right or wrong. There was another thought about sometimes is feels unfair you get to use terms and I don’t. The emotional energy behind them though is lost. So we can re-examine this when it surfaces again.
How ‘feeling alive’ is actually experienced?
What is the AE of ‘feeling alive’? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
When I looked, I became aware all I am capable of experiencing are sounds, sights, tastes, smells, sensations and thoughts. Alive is a concept.
And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?
Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?

Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?
How is presence experienced?
After looking, I suppose not. I’ll continue this experiment with other situations to see if it’s possible. Don’t feel satisfied quite yet.
What is the thought label ‘presence’ is pointing to in experience? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

What is actually experienced with the thought expression ‘feeling alive’?
Same question as above. Turns out they’re just concepts pointing to the five senses + thoughts.


This is all I can complete for now. I’ll try to get to the rest later tonight.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:44 am

Hi Jim,

I will reply back when you answered all questions.

Have a nice day,
Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:56 pm

Hey Vivien,

Part 2:
Do you believe that we are looking for an actual me, or for an actual sense of presence?
That the aim of this investigation to ACTUALLY find something that can be called my ‘real Self’ or ‘my presence’?
Yes. That is how this search began. I didn’t know who I was after 30+ years and could no longer stand feeling unstable inside. Eventually the search led to non duality, self inquiry, Jed McKenna, LU among others.

So the bet here is whether there is an actual self or not. How that self is defined has yet to be determined. What I do know is that I still haven’t found it. And I continue to follow your guidance to see if what you (LU) and the others say is really true...that there isn’t one.
“And when dealing with conventional life, it’s hard to feel the presence.”
-
What are we searching for with this investigation?
What are we trying to find?
I don’t understand the difference between this question and the previous one.

When I wrote about having trouble feeling a self in conventional life, I mean it is hard to get beyond the obviousness that there is a body with a heart and a mind known as Jim. Who is separate from the outside world and has a seemingly infinite number of stories about himself. So to ask myself where do I sense the presence of a me, it seems so obvious that it’s ridiculous to even question it.

As pointed out by you, that’s just me falling for content of thought and not AE. Fair enough, I haven’t been able to prove AE wrong so far. Yet this persistence in conventional thinking is there. And it’s this struggle I’m pointing to. In order to search for a me, it helps to have a little space from conventional life/thinking.

I find practicing direct looking and the other exercisers help disrupt the habitual patterns of conventional thinking. I’d say I’m up to doing it a dozen or so times during the day. When we first began, it was half that or less.

Does that help clear things up?

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:52 am

Hi Jim,
When I looked, I became aware all I am capable of experiencing are sounds, sights, tastes, smells, sensations and thoughts. Alive is a concept.
Exactly!

Often sensations are misinterpreted or mislabelled as ‘aliveness’.
For example the tingling sensations in the hands are sometimes are mislabelled as ‘aliveness’.
But what actually is there is just a sensation. Can you see this?
V: And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?
Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?
Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?
How is presence experienced?
J: After looking, I suppose not. I’ll continue this experiment with other situations to see if it’s possible. Don’t feel satisfied quite yet.
How else could you experience a cup outside the 5 senses?
V: What is the thought label ‘presence’ is pointing to in experience? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
What is actually experienced with the thought expression ‘feeling alive’?
J: Same question as above. Turns out they’re just concepts pointing to the five senses + thoughts.
“FEELING alive” – only sensations can be felt.
So with the statement ‘feeling alive’ – what is actually felt is a SENSATION.
And this sensation is mislabelled as ‘aliveness’. Can you see this?

So the ‘feeling alive’ SEEMS so real, because the SENSATION is real. The sensation is there. It’s felt. It cannot be denied.

But when the sensation is labelled as ‘aliveness’ or ‘presence’: BUMMM! – the ILLUSION of aliveness or presence arise. Can you see this?

Next time, when there is an SEEMING ‘aliveness’ or ‘presence’ there, LOOK for the SENSATION that is mislabelled as ‘aliveness’ or ‘presence’. Let me know how it goes.
So the bet here is whether there is an actual self or not. How that self is defined has yet to be determined. What I do know is that I still haven’t found it.
Self can be defined only, if it’s found.
So first find it, and just after bother with defining it. Otherwise, you just waste your time.
Trying to define what might not even exist… is a hard task.

Hint: Maybe the reason why it’s so hard to define it, because it’s not there…
When I wrote about having trouble feeling a self in conventional life, I mean it is hard to get beyond the obviousness that there is a body with a heart and a mind known as Jim. Who is separate from the outside world and has a seemingly infinite number of stories about himself. So to ask myself where do I sense the presence of a me, it seems so obvious that it’s ridiculous to even question it.
This is a trap!!! A big one! Making the conclusion that that the me is so obvious that it’s ridiculous to even question it. This thought conclusion is a protective mechanism to actually find out that there is no self. It’s a huge trap!

Because if in that moment when the me feels so obvious, you would stop, and ACTUALLY SEARCH FOR that obvious self/me/Ben, it could easily turn out that the me is not so obvious at all!

But believing that above thought is preventing you from realizing this. Very tricky! Can you see this?

Ben, there are still resistance for the possibility that there might not be a self/me anywhere. Do you see this?

I find practicing direct looking and the other exercisers help disrupt the habitual patterns of conventional thinking. I’d say I’m up to doing it a dozen or so times during the day. When we first began, it was half that or less.
Very good.
Does that help clear things up?
Yes, it helped, thank you. Your explanation showed how fear/resistance is trying to protect the illusion of the self.

You have to ESPECIALLY SEARCH FOR the self/me when it feels the most obvious. And not believing those thoughts that would suggest doing otherwise. Can we agree on this?

Hint: Only sensations can be felt. So when it feels so obvious, maybe it’s a mislabelled/misinterpreted sensation that feels so obvious. So look for the obvious sensation that is labelled as ‘me’, ‘presence’, ‘aliveness’, ‘Jim’.

Let me know what you find when you search for the self when it feels the most obvious.
V: What is it exactly that got triggered?
What is it exactly that got angry or frustrated or felt injustice (or whatever emotion came up)?
Where is the YOU that felt that way? – find it.
J: I don’t feel it anymore like I did two days ago. For now, it’s just a thought. I had a thought saying it isn’t about being right or wrong. There was another thought about sometimes is feels unfair you get to use terms and I don’t. The emotional energy behind them though is lost. So we can re-examine this when it surfaces again.
Can you see what you did (or rather did not) in this case? – You did not LOOK!

Just because the emotion is gone, it doesn’t mean that the ‘me’ is gone with it too, right?

But you avoided looking saying that the emotion is gone. And then what? Are you gone with the emotion too?
Don’t you BELIEVE that that you are a constant while emotions are coming and going?

So if an emotion is not there, Jim is still supposed to be there, isn’t he?


The BELIEF is that with or without emotions the ‘I’ is always there.

We are not hunting for an emotion; we are hunting for the ONE that is HAVING emotions.


So stop right now, and find this ‘I’.

Where is the ‘me’ that is feeling emotions?
Where is the ‘me’ that can be triggered?
Where is the FEELER? – regardless of the presence or the absence of an emotion, the feeler is supposed to be always there. – So where is it?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:43 pm

Hi Vivien,

Today is the final day of travels and relatives. I’ll be back in full swing tomorrow.

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:40 pm

Hi Jim,

Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:55 pm

Hi Vivien,
But what actually is there is just a sensation. Can you see this?
Did I not confirm it’s sensation in the very same quote you referenced?
How else could you experience a cup outside the 5 senses?
I don’t know. I’ll let you know after I have the chance to experiment with it some more. Just now settling back into regular life and have more time and space to look without distractions.
But when the sensation is labelled as ‘aliveness’ or ‘presence’: BUMMM! – the ILLUSION of aliveness or presence arise. Can you see this?
Yes in the abstract I see this.
So if an emotion is not there, Jim is still supposed to be there, isn’t he?
Yes he is still there. But the Jim that was emotionally triggered no longer exists. The way I interpreted your original question is that you asked to look for the ‘me’ that FELT triggered:
Where is the YOU that felt that way? – find it.
I believe my response stands. How can I look for something that happened in the past and no longer appearing in the here and now?
But you avoided looking saying that the emotion is gone. And then what? Are you gone with the emotion too?
That’s not what you asked originally. Jim is still here. But this Jim is different than that emotionally triggered Jim. See the difference?
Don’t you BELIEVE that that you are a constant while emotions are coming and going?
I believe I am constantly changing from one moment to the next.
So if an emotion is not there, Jim is still supposed to be there, isn’t he?
Yes Jim would still be there. It would be a different Jim than the Jim that felt the emotion.
Where is the ‘me’ that is feeling emotions?
Where is the ‘me’ that can be triggered?
Where is the FEELER? – regardless of the presence or the absence of an emotion, the feeler is supposed to be always there. – So where is it?
The answer to all these questions is: I don’t know. I look and still can’t find. So the search continues.
But believing that above thought is preventing you from realizing this. Very tricky! Can you see this?

Ben, there are still resistance for the possibility that there might not be a self/me anywhere. Do you see this?
Yes and I feel I’ve admitted as much many times.
You have to ESPECIALLY SEARCH FOR the self/me when it feels the most obvious. And not believing those thoughts that would suggest doing otherwise. Can we agree on this?
We can agree that the search for self/me should remain constant every day as much as possible. Thank you for the heads up to pay special attention to this scenario.


Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:54 am

Hi Jim,
V: But what actually is there is just a sensation. Can you see this?
J: Did I not confirm it’s sensation in the very same quote you referenced?
No you didn’t.

Do you get annoyed/frustrated/offended by my questions?
If yes, why?
Even if I ask you repeated questions, what is the problem with that?

This whole looking is about repetition, seeing things again and again, from every possible angle.
And no, you didn’t confirm that it was a sensation, you wrote that aliveness is a concept.

But even if you wrote sensation, what is the problem if I ask the questions again to MAKE YOU LOOK AGAIN?
This is what I quoted before:
V: How ‘feeling alive’ is actually experienced?
What is the AE of ‘feeling alive’? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
J: When I looked, I became aware all I am capable of experiencing are sounds, sights, tastes, smells, sensations and thoughts. Alive is a concept.
V: Exactly!
Often sensations are misinterpreted or mislabelled as ‘aliveness’.
For example the tingling sensations in the hands are sometimes are mislabelled as ‘aliveness’.
But what actually is there is just a sensation. Can you see this?
J: Did I not confirm it’s sensation in the very same quote you referenced?
Please Jim read my comments more carefully. It’s my job to spot every belief you hold about the self.
V: How else could you experience a cup outside the 5 senses?
J: I don’t know. I’ll let you know after I have the chance to experiment with it some more.
Please look at this again.

How else could you experience a cup outside the 5 senses?
V: But you avoided looking saying that the emotion is gone. And then what? Are you gone with the emotion too?
J: That’s not what you asked originally. Jim is still here. But this Jim is different than that emotionally triggered Jim. See the difference?
No. There is no difference between an emotionally triggered Jim and an non-triggered Jim.
There is ZERO difference between the two.
Since both of them is just a FANTASY.
V: Where is the YOU that felt that way? – find it.
J: I believe my response stands. How can I look for something that happened in the past and no longer appearing in the here and now?
You believe? – you might not see it, but you AVOID LOOKING where my questions pointing at, on based on intellectual arguments and reasoning.

Jim, this investigation is not about being right and wrong.
I’m not writing my questions to offend you, or to question you (in the conventional sense).
I’m only questioning the beliefs you hold about yourself.
This is my job.

My job is to question every single belief I can spot. And question it repeatedly again and again.
And your job is to take all my questions one-by-one and investigate those EXPERIENTIALLY again and again and again.
This is how this investigation works.
V: So if an emotion is not there, Jim is still supposed to be there, isn’t he?
J: Yes Jim would still be there. It would be a different Jim than the Jim that felt the emotion.
This is a belief. There is NO DIFFERENCE between a Jim with or without emotions. NONE.
Jim is just a FANTASY. With or without emotions.
V: there are still resistance for the possibility that there might not be a self/me anywhere. Do you see this?
J: Yes and I feel I’ve admitted as much many times.
It’s not enough to admit it. You have to work with this resistance. You have to find out why you have a resistance. Since this resistance is preventing you from looking at experience based on excuses why not to look (like emotion is present or not, or “it’s so obvious that it’s even ridiculous to question”).

Please have a deep look on the resistance to this investigation. Find out what it’s about. You have to deal with it, if you want to go further. Let me know what you find.

What would happen if it turned out that Jim is just a fantasy?
What would happen if it turned out that there is no ‘me’ inside the body, having and governing life?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:13 pm

Hi Vivien,

I appreciate your guidance, truly. Especially given the voluntary nature of it. Thing is, I don't want to get into this too much since it distracts from truly looking. So I'll be as brief as possible, and hopefully we can move forward.
Do you get annoyed/frustrated/offended by my questions?
If yes, why?
Even if I ask you repeated questions, what is the problem with that?
Yes, I do. If I say something, and then you act as if I didn't, then this isn't a fair communication. I might as well be talking to a wall. You get annoyed if I ignore what you tell me. So why do you think it doesn't happen vice-versa? If you want me to look at something again, then tell me to look again. Please don't act as if it went unsaid to begin with. I'm not here to be ignored. I do my best to express and reveal all my thoughts so they can be examined in the open.

This is suppose to be an exchange between the two of us. Not a one-sided top-down exchange. I have as much right to challenge what you tell me as you challenge my beliefs. If you can't handle that, then let's stop now. Cause you'd be no better than any other self-aggrandizing guru. My right to challenge what you say is fair game.

How else could you experience a cup outside the 5 senses?
I was able to look again for a little bit. It did sink in that I can only know what a cup is via the senses. I still want to experiment some more.

You believe? – you might not see it, but you AVOID LOOKING where my questions pointing at, on based on intellectual arguments and reasoning.
I disagree. There is no avoidance. To me, your question is impossible to complete since what you asked me to do was to look into was something that happened in the past. If you want me to look at what is present...then tell me to look at what is present instead of something that was in the past. I am open to questioning whatever is present. Your question didn't do that though.

If you want to make the point that there is no difference between the Jim that experienced an emotion yesterday and the emotionless Jim of today...FINE. I can see what you mean based on your claim that both are fairy tales. BUT, to tell me to try and experience something that already happened, and then say I'm making excuses and avoiding is wrong. Try stating your pointer better rather than asking someone to do the impossible and judge them for not completing it. It seems moot to continue arguing over this. I can only look at what's happening now period. This is a fact..not an intellectual reasoning or avoidance.
I’m not writing my questions to offend you, or to question you (in the conventional sense).
I’m only questioning the beliefs you hold about yourself.
This is my job.
Again, I appreciate your assistance. Want I don't like is the one-sidedness of this exchange.

I don't like it when you take what I write out of context. Such as when I said: "it’s so obvious that it’s even ridiculous to question," I was explaining that this is what it feels like when I'm in full conventional mode taking care of daily life (which by the way, you said is normal to still believe in thoughts since there is a lifetime of habitual patterns of thoughts and beliefs). I then added that when I have taken care of everything for the day, and have more time and space, it is easier for me to go beyond conventional thinking and really look in AE. How is this excuse making?? Please explain in detail.

Me describing what the process feels like on the inside is not excuse making. It's a description. If you cannot see what I am saying, then perhaps it's better to end our correspondence. Because this squabbling back and forth is taking energy from actual looking.

Also, if you want me to look at something more than once, then please tell me to look again or to look some more. Don't ask me, "can you see this?" after I confirmed that I can. It would be the same as if I asked you to look at a bird, and then asked, "can you see the bird?" You reply, "yes." And then kept asking you over and over, "can you see it?" Would you not get frustrated? I don't see why I'm even having to explain this. You would and you know it.

So let's just drop all this please and get back to actually looking.

Have a good rest of your day,
Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:42 am

Hi Jim,
If I say something, and then you act as if I didn't, then this isn't a fair communication. I might as well be talking to a wall. You get annoyed if I ignore what you tell me.
You ignored my explanation in my previous comment. I cannot add more than what I already said.
My questions are neutral. There is nothing personal in them.
However, you are taking them personally, get offended and react defensively.
I cannot do anything about that, other than saying that my questions and comments are neutral.
You are seeing things in my comments which are not there, not intended.
You are misinterpreting my words, then you react to those misinterpretation.
Please don't act as if it went unsaid to begin with.
You ignored a great deal of my previous post. You are angry. I understand. But this anger is preventing you to see what I write to you.
Also, if you want me to look at something more than once, then please tell me to look again or to look some more. Don't ask me, "can you see this?" after I confirmed that I can.
You didn’t confirm that. And I explained it to you in my previous post.
BUT, to tell me to try and experience something that already happened, and then say I'm making excuses and avoiding is wrong.
If we continue with this investigation, then I will explain what it is that you have been misunderstanding with my questions.
But as long as you are triggered, you are not able to read my comments neutrally.
If you cannot see what I am saying, then perhaps it's better to end our correspondence. Because this squabbling back and forth is taking energy from actual looking.
We don’t have to do this investigation; nobody is forcing you.
This investigation is for you. It’s not about me. I’ve already seen it.
It would be the same as if I asked you to look at a bird, and then asked, "can you see the bird?" You reply, "yes." And then kept asking you over and over, "can you see it?" Would you not get frustrated? I don't see why I'm even having to explain this. You would and you know it.
You are taking things personally.
You are seeing things in my comments that are not there.
You are misinterpreting my words, then you react to those misinterpretation.
This is suppose to be an exchange between the two of us. Not a one-sided top-down exchange. I have as much right to challenge what you tell me as you challenge my beliefs. If you can't handle that, then let's stop now. Cause you'd be no better than any other self-aggrandizing guru. My right to challenge what you say is fair game.
This is an experiential based guiding and is not a discussion or a debate. It’s not about winning or losing. It’s not about who is right or wrong. It’s not a game. It’s not a challenge.

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to do it.

I understand that you are angry and frustrated, but with your above comment you overstepped your boundaries.

If you are so annoyed with this guiding style, then maybe it’s not for you.
If you frequently get triggered by my questions, then we cannot do this.
You will spend your time with being angry and defending yourself, instead of looking.
So let's just drop all this please and get back to actually looking.
But can you do that?

Think through want you want. But if you want to continue with me then you have to accept this style and manage your emotions and reactions.

If you decide that you cannot do that and you would rather stop this, that’s all right with me too.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests