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
Ready2end
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:22 pm

Jim is fine doesn’t matter really
All right?
Understand no problem
So please redo the first exercise on how to look at AE, and please post me here your list with the corresponding labels for one period of doing the exercise
Activity- trying to fall back asleep

Close my eyes: sensation
Feel tired but not sleepy: sensation + thought
Hear roosters and dogs: sound
Feel the firmness of the matress: sensation
Think about how it’s like the new mattress back home: thought
Feel the warmth of the comforter: sensation
Heavy breathing: sensation
Frustration at inability to sleep: thought
Look out the window and see the blue sky and a silhouette of a plant: sight
Awareness of being aware of doing this exercise: thought
More heavy breathing: sensation
Acceptance of thoughts: thought
Give a big yawn: sensation
Feel a tear roll down my cheek: sensation
Worries about what to do for the day: thought
Stretch my legs: sensation
Feeling weird the more I put attention on direct experience: thought
Analyze why: thought
The immediacy of doing this makes it seem more real than just mental artifice: more thoughts
Pause and look out the window again: sight
Notice feelings of inadequacy: thought
Hear the rumble of horses on a cobblestone road: sound
Beginning to feel pleasure from practicing this exercise: thought

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:29 am

Hi Jim,

You did a very nice looking.

I gave you this exercise to helps you to differentiate between what is actually happening and what THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT what is happening.

Now let’s move to observing thought. I copy the exercise here for you:

Now we start investigating thoughts.
This exercise has a dual purpose. Firstly, to become aware of each and every though as they appear. Secondly, the careful looking for the gap is an example of how carefully to look when looking for the ‘separate self’.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 5-10 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.
2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.
3. Then wait for the next thought to come.
4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.
5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts:
Looking how they come and go, and
Observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes.

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: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:17 am

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes.
Hi Vivien,

I’ve been practicing this today along with the previous exercise. Since it is the second time doing it, I don’t have the same questions like last time. I sit and observe thoughts come and go. It also happens while I’m in the middle of doing something, like writing a message or cutting vegetables. The only thing worth noting is how easily distracted I become while practicing. But then just continue on anyway.

I’ll continue practicing until going to be later tonight.

Thanks,
Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:40 am

Hi Jim,
I’ll continue practicing until going to be later tonight.
Great. Please let me know how it went.

Looking for gaps between thoughts were a preparation exercise to help you how to observe the coming and going of thoughts and also how to look for the self later.

The whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. So therefore, we will investigate thoughts and thought labels thoroughly.

So then let’s have a deeper look on thoughts. Sit for about 15 minutes or longer and look similarly as you looked for the gaps between thoughts. Look for the ‘answer’ BEFORE thought interpretation kicks in.

Where do thoughts come from?
Where are they going?
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?


Please go through these questions and answer and quote ALL of them one-by-one. Don’t miss any. Try to answer them only from direct experience, and leave aside all intellectual interpretation or understanding. Please, DON’T THINK about the answers, rather LOOK at what is before thoughts. Take your time.

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
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:06 am

Hi Jim,

I just got a message from admin that your email notifications keep bouncing back. Could you please change your email address to another under “User Control Panel”, so your notification will stop bouncing back to admin, and you will actually be able to receive notification when I respond to you.

Thank you,
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: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:13 pm

Good morning Vivien,
Could you please change your email address to another
Ok will do
I’ll continue practicing until going to bed later tonight
Great. Please let me know how it went.
It was similar to my previous description. Thoughts come and go. It was easy to get distracted in them. Then i observe the gaps in between. There’s is always something noticing thoughts. That something feels like ‘l’ but in reality doesn’t have a name. At times while practicing I start investigating what this ‘I’ is. It doesn’t last long before other thoughts distract from the process.

Today I’ll work on the next set of questions and hopefully report back tonight.

Jim

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:16 am

Hi Vivien,

So throughout the day I’ve been reflecting on these questions. I would take one to two questions at a time and look for 5min...sometimes more.
Where do thoughts come from?
I don’t know. They just appear.
Where are they going?
I don’t know. They just evaporate like smoke into thin air.
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
Yes and no. In the same way I can hold my breath, sometimes I can stop a thought in the middle with willful intent. I admit 99.9% of thoughts run their course without me stopping them.
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
I can try, but generally speaking I cannot predict what will be the next thought.
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I can avoid thinking about something that I know will be painful. No in the sense that I cannot choose which thoughts cause pain or negativity.
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
No I cannot find the ‘I’ source of thoughts.
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
I don’t know who thinks. All I know is that it feels like the thinking that takes place is a part of me.
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’
I would like to say I am the thinker of thoughts. But as previously mentioned, I don’t know who I am. There is jus let a blankness. It feels like since thoughts are generated in my head, I am the thinker of thoughts. Like when there is a problem to be solved, I can think of a solution.
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
I say yes, the thinker of thought appears in experience since everything happens in experience. But no, I cannot find a thinker in it.
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
Good question. I cannot tell if the ‘I’ that thinks is just a thought. In a previous post, I mentioned how there is an I-ness or me-ness that is always present. It is just there with or without my choosing it to be there.
Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?
I say thoughts are generated inside me like the same way the our hearts beat without conscious choice. And so goes with thoughts. They just happen. I could be being thought, I don’t know. Again, all I can find is a blankness.
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
This is similar to the question about stopping negative and painful thoughts. So in that sense yes. But in DE, once a thought is generated, it cannot be prevented. I’m confused though. If I don’t want to think about how I will die someday, I can prevent thoughts of my death with distractions.
I cannot prevent the I thought though. It’s always there.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:55 am

Hi Jim,
V: Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
J: Yes and no. In the same way I can hold my breath, sometimes I can stop a thought in the middle with willful intent. I admit 99.9% of thoughts run their course without me stopping them.
A thought appears saying “I am going to stop the next thought in the middle.”

But what is it exactly that is stopping the next thought in the middle?
When there is a thought, how is it known that it’s just a half thought, an unfinished thought?
What is the actual experience of stopping the next thought in the middle?

Where exactly is the middle of a thought?
Where does one thought end and another begin?

What is the AE of ‘willful intent’? Is it a sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
How is the ‘willful intent’ itself is experienced? Not the thought about it, not an explanation or description of it, but rather actual THE wilful intent itself?
V: Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
J: Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I can avoid thinking about something that I know will be painful. No in the sense that I cannot choose which thoughts cause pain or negativity.
Please describe me in detail the process of avoiding of painful thoughts step-by-step. How do you do it exactly?

Thought 1: I am afraid of spiders.
Thought 2: I don’t like to be afraid, so I will avoid this thought.
Thought 3: Let’s think about the nice holiday we had last year.
Thought 4: Oh great, I successfully avoided the fearful thoughts about spiders.

Does thought 2 or 3 stopped and avoided the thought 1?
Does thoughts have a power to avoid other thoughts?

Is there any ACTUAL avoidance going on, or only thought 4 is talking ABOUT avoidance?
How avoidance as such be actually experienced?
V: “I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
J: I don’t know who thinks. All I know is that it feels like the thinking that takes place is a part of me.
When a sentence starts with ‘if feels like’ or ‘it seems’ then it’s a sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy, just a thought explanation, and NOT the description of AE.

Make a good note of this, since this will come up many times.
It feels like since thoughts are generated in my head, I am the thinker of thoughts. Like when there is a problem to be solved, I can think of a solution.
It FEELS LIKE since thoughts are generated in my head, I am the thinker of thoughts. - It FEELS LIKE – this is just a logical conclusion, only thoughts ‘suggest’ this, but this statement is not in correspondence with experience.
It feels like since thoughts are generated in my head
This is a learned knowledge, it’s not coming from looking at the experience directly.

Close your eyes, and let thoughts come and go.

How ‘thoughts being generated in the head’ is actually experienced?
Can thoughts being generated in the head’ experienced at all? Or only thoughts ‘suggest’ so?

Is there a location where thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that generates thought?

I say yes, the thinker of thought appears in experience since everything happens in experience. But no, I cannot find a thinker in it.
If you cannot find a thinker, then how can you say that thinker appears in experience?
If you cannot find the thinker at all, then how is it known that it appears in experience at all?
Just because a thought ‘say’ so?
Good question. I cannot tell if the ‘I’ that thinks is just a thought. In a previous post, I mentioned how there is an I-ness or me-ness that is always present. It is just there with or without my choosing it to be there.
What is the AE of this I-ness or me-ness? Is it a sound, image/color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
I say thoughts are generated inside me like the same way the our hearts beat without conscious choice
This reply is an intellectual reasoning, and it’s not coming from looking at experience directly.

I never ask you to THINK ABOUT the questions, but rather to LOOK at EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY, and then describe it with words as precisely as you can what has been seen, without adding anything extra.

“thoughts are generated inside me” – what does the word ‘me’ points to in this sentence?
“inside me” – inside of what exactly?

I’m confused though. If I don’t want to think about how I will die someday, I can prevent thoughts of my death with distractions. I cannot prevent the I thought though. It’s always there.
Thought 1: “Someday I will die.”
Thought 2: “I don’t like thinking about my death, so let’s enjoy this delicious cookie instead.”
Action 3: The hand moves to the cookie, grabs it, a put it into the mouth.
Thought 4: “Ohhh… I like this cookie, it’s so tasty!”
Thought 5: “I successfully prevented thoughts of my death with the distraction of eating this tasty cookie”.

Does thought 2 prevented to thinking more about death?
Or was it the action of eating the cookie?

Does thought 5 know about thought 1, 2, 4, or the action?
If you say yes, the it means that thoughts are entities with certain powers to do things, like stopping, diverting, preventing, manipulating or controlling other thoughts. But are they?

Or is there an unknown, un-experiencable entity or agency behind the scenes pulling the strings without this entity ever being seen, discovered and experienced?


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: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:20 pm

Hi Vivian,
But what is it exactly that is stopping the next thought in the middle?
When there is a thought, how is it known that it’s just a half thought, an unfinished thought?
What is the actual experience of stopping the next thought in the middle?
I don’t know what is stopping a thought. I observed my thoughts some more and noticed I cannot tell where the middle of a thought is. But I can tell when there are a string of thoughts each related to another. Like for instance, this morning I began thinking about a situation where a company did damage to my car and is refusing to pay for it. I noticed thoughts becoming increasingly hostile and sensations of anger arising. I then told myself better to let it go for now rather than get worked up about it. It is easy to feel anger when this string of thoughts arise.
-Where does one thought end and another begin?
I don’t understand how the entire thought process works. To ask how do I know when one thought ends and another begins can be simply answered with ‘I don’t know.’ Which then leads to how do I know anything at all then? Another question I’ve tried to answer and still cannot.
-What is the AE of ‘willful intent’? Is it a sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
How is the ‘willful intent’ itself is experienced? Not the thought about it, not an explanation or description of it, but rather actual THE wilful intent itself?
It’s a thought. I don’t understand the mechanics of how it is experienced.

Thought 1: I will stop my thinking about the dishonest company.
Thought 2: Still feel sensation of anger.
Thought 3: new thoughts unrelated about what to do for the day.
Thought 4: ask myself am I hungry and what should I eat.
Thought 5: yep that company sucks, best to forget about it.
Thought 6: is a salad enough or eggs too

In the example above, I am unable to explain how each thought switched from one to another. What is said to be willful intent is just a thought description of what happened. In AE, there is just a blank. A nothingness.

-Does thought 2 or 3 stopped and avoided the thought 1?
Does thoughts have a power to avoid other thoughts?
No 2 and 3 do not avoid 1. I understand this part well.
But I don’t know where the power comes from to think “I’ll stop thinking about it”. In direct experience there is no explanation. Just blankness.
Is there any ACTUAL avoidance going on, or only thought 4 is talking ABOUT avoidance?
How avoidance as such be actually experienced?
Using the example of the company refusing to pay, the experience of not thinking about it anymore just happened. I did not avoid the initial thought about it. It happened and there is no taking it back. I agree thought 4 is just talking about it.

-Make a good note of this, since this will come up many times
Noted. It’s hard to distinguish at times. I see what you’re pointing to.
-How ‘thoughts being generated in the head’ is actually experienced?
Can thoughts being generated in the head’ experienced at all? Or only thoughts ‘suggest’ so?
I don’t know how they are being generated in AE. How do I experience anything? When I look, there is nothing.
-Is there a location where thoughts appear?
Yes, they happen in awareness. Where is awareness happening then? Inside of me, inside of my body. How can thoughts appear outside of myself? I wouldn’t be able to experience them if they did. What is this ‘me?’ I don’t know. In DE there is just blank.

Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that generates thought?
What do you mean by experience? If there is experience of sensation of feeling cold. Then a thought says, “I feel cold I should get a jacket”. Did the experience of cold lead to the thought of getting a jacket? I ask honestly. In AE, this happened. If I look for why the thoughts happened, I don’t know. They just did. Why did I feel cold to begin with? Just did.
-If you cannot find a thinker, then how can you say that thinker appears in experience?
If you cannot find the thinker at all, then how is it known that it appears in experience at all?
Just because a thought ‘say’ so?f
I said so because thoughts happen in experience. But I was mistaken to say a thinker happens in experience. In AE, only a thought of a thinker exists in experience. Whether there is a thinker or not is still unknown.
What is the AE of this I-ness or me-ness? Is it a sound, image/color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
I don’t know. When I look there is just another blank. Only after does a thought trying to describe it arise.
-thoughts are generated inside me” – what does the word ‘me’ points to in this sentence?
“inside me” – inside of what exactly?
I don’t know. Again, in AE there is nothing to be found.
-Or is there an unknown, un-experiencable entity or agency behind the scenes pulling the strings without this entity ever being seen, discovered and experienced?
Yes I agree with this statement more. I don’t know how or why anything happens at all.

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:23 pm

Just a quick message that there may be some more rejected email notifications. There was an error when I changed it yesterday, and it’s been corrected today.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:23 am

Hi Jim,
I don’t understand how the entire thought process works. To ask how do I know when one thought ends and another begins can be simply answered with ‘I don’t know.’ Which then leads to how do I know anything at all then? Another question I’ve tried to answer and still cannot.
You don’t have to figure out intellectually how thought processes work. This wouldn’t help you at all. We already have lots of intellectual knowledge, and most of them are not in line with the actual experience.

Since the whole illusion of the self is mainly created by thoughts, we cannot see through the illusion with the same tool that is creating it in the first place.


Rather we look at the experience directly, to see if there is anything in experience that would show a ‘thought process’.

So thoughts ‘talk’ about a process, and links between thoughts, and strings of thoughts, etc. So we test these claims by actually LOOKING if we can find and ACTUAL link, or an ACTUAL process, or ACTUAL strings of thoughts, not just the concepts of them.
It’s a thought. I don’t understand the mechanics of how it is experienced.
My reply to this is the same as above. Thoughts claim that there is a mechanism. And yes it’s true conventionally speaking, but we cannot get anywhere with conventional truth. We have to look ‘under’ or ‘behind’ the conceptual overlay which constantly judges, interprets, categorize and conceptualize experience.

Remember, you are answering from AE only and not from the intellect. The term ‘actual experience’ (AE) is used to refer to experience ‘right now,’ and noticing the thought stories about them...so ‘looking’ is just plain looking at what is here right now: image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought as a phenomenon. But the content of a thought is NOT AE.
Thought 1: I will stop my thinking about the dishonest company.
Thought 2: Still feel sensation of anger.
Thought 3: new thoughts unrelated about what to do for the day.
Thought 4: ask myself am I hungry and what should I eat.
Thought 5: yep that company sucks, best to forget about it.
Thought 6: is a salad enough or eggs too

In the example above, I am unable to explain how each thought switched from one to another. What is said to be willful intent is just a thought description of what happened. In AE, there is just a blank. A nothingness.
So you don’t have to give an intellectual explanation how all these works, rather LOOKING at experience directly and SEEING that there is NOTHING else there, than these thoughts.

There is NO actual link between them.
Only other thoughts claim that there is a link or connection between them. Can you see this?
In AE, there is just a blank. A nothingness.
What is the AE of ‘blank’? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
And what is the AE of ‘nothingness’?
But I can tell when there are a string of thoughts each related to another.
And how is it known that the thoughts in your above example are related to each other?
Can an ACTUAL relation or relationship be found between those thoughts?
Or only another thought content suggest so?


So just because thoughts ‘talk’ about a relationship or a link, does it mean that there is an ACTUAL relationship or link?
But I don’t know where the power comes from to think “I’ll stop thinking about it”. In direct experience there is no explanation. Just blankness.
I suggest you to give up the desire to understand this intellectually. The point of this whole investigation is to question or test the validity of thoughts.

And yes, in DE there is no explanation, since explanation is nothing else than a concept, or an idea, which appears only in thought content.

Without thoughts there is no such thing as explanation. Can you see this?

So we are testing that what can be seen or known without thoughts. Can you see this?
V: -How ‘thoughts being generated in the head’ is actually experienced?
Can thoughts being generated in the head’ experienced at all? Or only thoughts ‘suggest’ so?
J: I don’t know how they are being generated in AE. How do I experience anything? When I look, there is nothing.
Only sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation and thought as a phenomenon can be experienced.
Everything else is just a conceptual overlay, a thought interpretation on the experience.


So thoughts make the claim that ‘thoughts are generated in the head’. And now we are testing if this is in line with experience. Whether it can be actually seen or noticed that thoughts are coming out, or floating out of the head. We are trying to find in experience the exact location of the thought-generator, if there is such thing. And we are trying to observe the actual process of thought generation. Since this is what thoughts claim. We took this claim for granted, without ever actually checking if it’s in correspondence with the experience.
V: Is there a location where thoughts appear?
J: Yes, they happen in awareness. Where is awareness happening then? Inside of me, inside of my body. How can thoughts appear outside of myself? I wouldn’t be able to experience them if they did. What is this ‘me?’ I don’t know. In DE there is just blank.
Your above comment is just a thought speculation.

Thoughts make all sorts of claims, and now we are testing if these claims are in line with experience.
V: Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that generates thought?
J: What do you mean by experience?
Thoughts claim that THERE IS SOMETHING that is GENERATING thoughts. And now we are SEARCHING for this something, searching for the thought-generator.

By experience I mean, anything that can be known without thoughts.
If we ignore ALL thoughts, then what can be known about a thought-generator? Can it be actually found?

If no thought-generator can be found in experience (when the contents of thoughts are ignored) then it means that the thought that claims that there is something which is generating thought is NOT in line with experience. Can you see this?

I said so because thoughts happen in experience. But I was mistaken to say a thinker happens in experience. In AE, only a thought of a thinker exists in experience. Whether there is a thinker or not is still unknown.
That’s why we are searching for it. Since thoughts ASSUME that there is a thinker.

If there is an ACTUAL thinker, then it MUST be found.


When you are not sure if your keys are in your pocket, you have 2 options:

1. You either ASSUME and thus BELIEVE it it’s not in your pocket
2. Or you ACTUALLY SEARCH your pocket by LOOK INSIDE, and you can actually SEE that it’s not there.

Can you see the difference?
Just a quick message that there may be some more rejected email notifications. There was an error when I changed it yesterday, and it’s been corrected today.
Thank you.

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: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:40 am

Hi Vivien,

I am still absorbing your last message. But I wanted to let you know I enjoyed all the redirects given. Made me smile. I’m beginning to see what you’re pointing to. Forget content...it leads nowhere. Like a little aha.

I’m amazed how glued I am to content and explanations. It just happens automatically. It’s like you have to rub my nose in it for me to see.

So thanks for that,
Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:29 am

Hi Jim,
But I wanted to let you know I enjoyed all the redirects given. Made me smile. I’m beginning to see what you’re pointing to. Forget content...it leads nowhere. Like a little aha.
Yes, wonderful :)

Please be look at each comments and questions carefully.

I am looking forward to your reply,
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: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:02 pm

Hey Vivien,

When I awoke this morning, I found myself back in a more defensive mood as compared to last night. Then as I continued responding back to yesterday’s message, I became more open to what you’re saying.
I don’t understand how the entire thought process works. To ask how do I know when one thought ends and another begins can be simply answered with ‘I don’t know.’ Which then leads to how do I know anything at all then? Another question I’ve tried to answer and still cannot.
You don’t have to figure out intellectually how thought processes work. This wouldn’t help you at all. We already have lots of intellectual knowledge, and most of them are not in line with the actual experience.
To be fair you kept asking many times over how do I know this or that etc... I felt backed into a corner and responded as best I could. As you mentioned, conventionally speaking there are mechanisms at play. And I’m starting to see that we have to look beyond those.

-
So you don’t have to give an intellectual explanation how all these works, rather LOOKING at experience directly and SEEING that there is NOTHING else there, than these thoughts.

There is NO actual link between them.
Only other thoughts claim that there is a link or connection between them. Can you see this?
I see what you are pointing to, and feelings of dissatisfaction ensue. Is this a common reaction?

It’s like there are less places to take shelter once we remove the content that links thoughts together. There is still a strong resistance to accepting no linkage. Something inside knows that linkage doesn’t exist in AE. But a refusal to accept it remains.
-What is the AE of ‘blank’? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
And what is the AE of ‘nothingness’?
I don’t know. Words fail. It’s like a lack of content. The very definition of nothing is a lack of anything right? Awareness is there waiting for something to fill a gap. Nothing comes except the feeling of waiting for something to come. Other noises can be heard, like the birds or people talking in the background. Breathing continues. But those fill the space of nothingness.
-And how is it known that the thoughts in your above example are related to each other?
Can an ACTUAL relation or relationship be found between those thoughts?
Or only another thought content suggest so?

So just because thoughts ‘talk’ about a relationship or a link, does it mean that there is an ACTUAL relationship or link?
Yes without involving content, linkage cannot exist. Is it bad that I still catch myself believing in content without meaning to?
Without thoughts there is no such thing as explanation. Can you see this?

So we are testing that what can be seen or known without thoughts. Can you see this?
Kind of yes...more so now than 24hrs ago. Hard to know something without the aide of thoughts. There is fear I will fail this process because of my addiction to content. It seems like I am still waiting for a grand ‘aha’ moment. Mention it only so that I put it out there in the open instead of holding onto it like a secret.
-Only sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation and thought as a phenomenon can be experienced.
Everything else is just a conceptual overlay, a thought interpretation on the experience.
As I write this message and pause for reflection throughout, I notice thoughts passing in an observational way more frequently. There really is nowhere to hide. If you ask me who wants to hide...I couldn’t tell you. I look and the thought/feeling arises. Are feelings thoughts?

-By experience I mean, anything that can be known without thoughts.

So if I touch a hot surface, only the sensation can be known. The content of the thoughts that say “this is hot” and “this is painful” are false?

-If we ignore ALL thoughts, then what can be known about a thought-generator? Can it be actually found?
No it cannot. No more than a generator of sights and sounds and sensations can be found. Everything just happens.
-If no thought-generator can be found in experience (when the contents of thoughts are ignored) then it means that the thought that claims that there is something which is generating thought is NOT in line with experience. Can you see this?
Yes I think so. It’s difficult to accept. I don’t know why. Perhaps I’m more comfortable with conditioned responses and not this new territory of AE.
-If there is an ACTUAL thinker, then it MUST be found.
Can you see the difference?
It’s easy to see the difference when it comes to physical objects like keys. There is resistance when it comes to intangible things like thoughts of who I am. Overall, you’re pointers are doing their job. Let’s continue looking. I won’t lie, I feel a little dejected. That’s ok. Just a note.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:09 am

Hi Jim,
To be fair you kept asking many times over how do I know this or that etc... I felt backed into a corner and responded as best I could. As you mentioned, conventionally speaking there are mechanisms at play. And I’m starting to see that we have to look beyond those.
When our dearly held beliefs are questioned then it’s normal if we feel defensive, this is part of the human nature. But it’s good that your defensiveness lessened a bit.
I see what you are pointing to, and feelings of dissatisfaction ensue. Is this a common reaction?
Yes :) the dissatisfaction and defensiveness come from my beliefs being questioned. We humans have a strong tendency to identify with our beliefs and points of view, and when somebody just slightly suggests that our beliefs might not be correct we feel as if we ourselves would have been attacked, hence the reaction.
It’s like there are less places to take shelter once we remove the content that links thoughts together. There is still a strong resistance to accepting no linkage. Something inside knows that linkage doesn’t exist in AE. But a refusal to accept it remains.
Please ask the questions:

What would happen if it turned out that there is REALLY no linkage between thoughts?
What would it mean for me?
What is the problem with it?
Awareness is there waiting for something to fill a gap. Nothing comes except the feeling of waiting for something to come.
There is no awareness waiting in the background for something to fill the gap. This ‘awareness in the background’ is the basis of the illusion of the self. But I don’t want to push your resistance to hard, at least not yet :) we will look at this later.
Yes without involving content, linkage cannot exist. Is it bad that I still catch myself believing in content without meaning to?
Believing the content of a thought is a conditioned habit. You did it in whole life. So please be patient and gentle with yourself.
There is fear I will fail this process because of my addiction to content. It seems like I am still waiting for a grand ‘aha’ moment. Mention it only so that I put it out there in the open instead of holding onto it like a secret.
Thank you for sharing this with me.
Not just you are ‘addicted to the contents of thoughts’ but all humans! This is in the ‘package’ of being a human :)

It would be very good if you could let go or at least put aside what you imagine how seeing through the self should happen or how quickly it should happen.
Seeing through the self often happens in several small steps and not with one big aha moment with fireworks. And the only way to fail in this to give it up. If you are committed that you will do the inquire honestly and thoroughly and you are open to question your beliefs and assumptions, then seeing through the self WILL happen. And it doesn’t matter if it happens in a month, or two or three.
There really is nowhere to hide. If you ask me who wants to hide...I couldn’t tell you. I look and the thought/feeling arises.
Good. Look for this one, look for the ‘me’ throughout the day as often as you can. It’s the constant looking looking and looking and not finding what brings about the realisation (or several small realizations).
Are feelings thoughts?
It depends on what you mean by feelings. If you mean emotions, then an emotion has 2 components: thought + sensation.
If you mean by feelings as sensation, then no, since a sensation is not a thought.
But we will investigate sensations and emotions later.
So if I touch a hot surface, only the sensation can be known. The content of the thoughts that say “this is hot” and “this is painful” are false?
I’m not saying that the thoughts “this is hot” or “this is painful” are false, rather I would say that they are not real, meaning that the contents of thoughts don’t contain experience. The thought “this is hot” is there, it is the experience of the phenomenon of an arising thought, but the content, what the thought is about ‘hotness’ is not experience.

If the contents of thoughts were experienced, then the word ‘hot’ could be felt, and the word ‘sweet’ could be tasted. Can you see this?
No more than a generator of sights and sounds and sensations can be found. Everything just happens.
Exaclty.
V: -If no thought-generator can be found in experience (when the contents of thoughts are ignored) then it means that the thought that claims that there is something which is generating thought is NOT in line with experience. Can you see this?
J: Yes I think so. It’s difficult to accept. I don’t know why. Perhaps I’m more comfortable with conditioned responses and not this new territory of AE.
Please ask yourself:

What would happen if it turned out that the assumption of there being a thought-generator is not in line with experience?

What would happen if it turned out that only thoughts talk about a thought-generator, but actually these thoughts have no idea what they are talking about?

What would happen if it turned out that there is nothing generating thoughts, that thoughts arise by themselves, without anyone or anything doing it?
It’s easy to see the difference when it comes to physical objects like keys. There is resistance when it comes to intangible things like thoughts of who I am.
And why? Because there is no identification with keys. Thoughts don’t say: “I am a key”. But thoughts say: I am this or that” or that “I am”.
Overall, you’re pointers are doing their job. Let’s continue looking. I won’t lie, I feel a little dejected. That’s ok. Just a note.
Resistance can be a hindrance of going further. But actually, resistance is nothing more than a protective mechanism, and it does its job well. There is a belief, a story somewhere about pain or negative consequences to seeing the illusion of the self. And the fear tries to protect you from these supposed negative consequences. So let’s find out what this story is about and see if they are real threats or not.

What I’d like you to do is to investigate this resistance. Examine it closely. Feel it. Don’t try to fix it or solve it, just sit with it.

Ask the resistance as if it were a some kind of entity:
What do you want to protect me from?
What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?


Observe what visual thoughts and stories come up ‘justifying’ its right to resist.
If you ignore the stories (thoughts) and visual thoughts what is BEHIND the resistance?

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: Google [Bot] and 1 guest