Discovering Truth

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:23 am

Hi Vivien,
I'm definitely still here, I'm just going to take an extra day for the reply.

Have a nice day,
Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:37 am

Hi Daniel,

All right. 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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:55 pm

Hi Vivien,
What proofs to do need other than seeing that the chooser is not there?
It's that proving that it can't be found in AE doesn't necessarily imply that it doesn't exist. Now it's coming up that I probably take two different views on reality. One is AE and the other is the conventional one. Like two ways of looking. And in the conventional one it's clear that there is a source of thoughts, decisions, memories which is called mind. I know that mind is a label, but isn't it a label that's pointing to something real that just can't be experienced with the senses?

I know I'm probably taking a step back to when we were trying to understand AE, but this is what is coming up now.
And what is the proof of the existence of a chooser? Is there any?
I don't think there is any formal proof. Doubts are now coming up, what if I'm missing something, what if using the AE way of looking is limited and doesn't describe everything in the outer reality. The outer reality can be known only in thoughts, but does that necessarily prove that what it points to isn't real but just can't be experienced directly?

I think I made a backward step here and for the sake of simplicity I will end the reply here knowing that more of your questions are left unanswered and we can come back to those later if that's ok.

Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:39 am

Hi Daniel,
It's that proving that it can't be found in AE doesn't necessarily imply that it doesn't exist. Now it's coming up that I probably take two different views on reality. One is AE and the other is the conventional one. Like two ways of looking.

I don't think there is any formal proof. Doubts are now coming up, what if I'm missing something, what if using the AE way of looking is limited and doesn't describe everything in the outer reality. The outer reality can be known only in thoughts, but does that necessarily prove that what it points to isn't real but just can't be experienced directly?
Yes, you are mixing the two.

Yes, conventionally speaking outer reality, like electricity or gravity exist. But when we investigate the self, we cannot get anywhere with conventional ‘truths’. Since conventional truths are the results of thinking, which is exactly what is creating the illusion of the self, by creating concepts. We have to look ‘behind’ this conceptual overlay, and see what is really there without concepts.

Conventionally speaking the mind is a useful concept, just as many other concepts. But when we want to see through the illusion, we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself.
And in the conventional one it's clear that there is a source of thoughts, decisions, memories which is called mind. I know that mind is a label, but isn't it a label that's pointing to something real that just can't be experienced with the senses?
This statement is not even true in conventionally speaking either. The mind is ONLY a concept, none of the scientists could ever find a mind. Mind is just inferred. They can only find a brain. But they cannot even find a memory. There isn’t a specific spot or slot in the brain where memories are stored. And when scientists observe a functioning brain, they cannot see thoughts directly. The can only measure electric currents in the brain, and they just make a conclusion that those currents are the thoughts. But they cannot see or experience the thoughts directly. They just infer it.

They cannot even find decision. Actually science has already discovered that there is no such thing as free will, that a self making decisions. I will show you a video about this later, but not now. I want you to see this clearly for yourself, and after that I will show that science has already discovered what we are looking at experientially.

Thought will always ‘want’ to understand and intellectualize everything, this is what thoughts are ABOUT: analysing, interpreting, and putting everything into categories or into order, and most of all, conceptualizing the actual experience.
And it’s not problematic in and of itself. But for this investigation we have to stick to the pure experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

Why? Because the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. The self is just a concept. It’s not a real thing. It’s a fantasy. It’s a mirage in the desert. For a newborn baby, there is no concept of self. For the newborn there is only pure experiencing. And just later, when language is introduced, the concept of a self emerges, out of the thin air. It’s just a fabrication, but with time this fabrication is taken as reality. And what is the problem with that? It’s suffering. Only a self could suffer.

So for the infant there is only pure experiencing. Sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation. She is in direct contact with experience. But as cognition develops she starts to conceptualize her experience. Putting everything into categories, labelling the experience, etc. And of itself it’s not problematic. But this conceptualization is overlaying the experience, and it gets thicker and thicker. And at some point she hardly can access her direct experience, since she can only see the conceptual overlay. Like seeing everything through a pink tinted glass. At some point pinkness gets so natural (used to), that she even stops knowing/seeing that everything is just coloured pink, but not in reality. And at that point this conceptual overlay is believed to be THE TRUTH. Pink becomes the ultimate truth. The pinkness distorts our perception of what is really going on.

Whatever thoughts ‘say’, is the truth/reality from now on. This is how humans live their lives. We hardly can connect with our immediate experience since we believe that the overlaying thought concepts are all there is. And of course concepts are very useful when solving a problem, building a bridge or a house. But concepts/thoughts are just tools. But for humans the tool itself is overthrown what is really happening and creating all sorts of problems. This tool cannot be turned off. It’s like having a hammer as tool. The hammer is very useful for hitting the nail into the wall, but it’s not so useful for making dinner. But for humans, thoughts (the hammer) cannot be switched off, and we hammer everything with thoughts.
Thoughts, as a tool, has its place and value when a problem needs to be solved, but when the task is done, we should be able to put the tool (thoughts) down and just rest in the natural peace of experience. But thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay in and of itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.

This is why we have to stick to our immediate experience while doing this investigation. Not to devaluate thoughts and concepts, but rather to see what is really going on ‘behind the scenes’. When investigating the nature of reality and the self we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself on the first place.

So, from now on, please try to put aside all doubting thoughts, and just trust the process. Trust your immediate direct experience. Trust that this process will yield result. If you stay with the actual experience and just keep looking and looking, you will be able to distinguish what is really happening and what is just a fabrication. At the end, many of your intellectual answers will be answered by your direct experience.

It’s the process of looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about of the realization.
So, can you trust this process?

Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about 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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:55 pm

Hi Vivien,

thanks a lot for writing this. I really needed to hear it. I'm trusting the process and will leave the doubting thoughts alone not giving them extra energy.
It’s the process of looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about of the realization.
So, can you trust this process?
Yes, let's continue and see through the illusion clearly.
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?
Yes, I'm committed to that. I just thought it important to state the contents of thoughts regarding the whole process.

So back to your questions from before:
And also thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser"....so look and see if thought is correct...look and see if you can find this chooser that thought keeps pointing to. Can you?
Just yesterday I was deciding something that will influence the next year of my life in some ways and it felt like I was trying to make the right decision. Then I looked closer at the AE and there were arguments popping up but there was no one creating them, they just appeared on their own. Then a decision appeared, but why at that particular moment? It just appeared at the moment that it did and then new thoughts appeared explaining 'I decided this way because such and such'. So when looked at directly it was clear that there was no 'me' making the decision that it was unfolding freely.
And although thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser “ - but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this?
The thoughts talk about an 'I' as main character but when looked at directly there is nothing there.
So every time you LOOK you can see that there is no chooser, right?
Yes, when there is a sense of 'me' watching something, deciding, talking etc. a new thought can appear that reveals that the 'me' was empty.
How is it known exactly that sensations are floating in space?
It's not real space, it's just a description of how those sensations appear.
What is the AE of space?
None, it can't be experienced, it's a label.
What is the AE of ‘boundless space’? Is it a sound, image/color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
No direct experience. It's a label to attempt to describe the direct experience of a sensation.
The image/colour in the mirror is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of color only. Can you see this?
The sensation labelled body is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensation only. Can you see this?
Yes, it's only a thought that labels the skin color as 'body'. So there is AE that through thoughts is attributed to the label 'body' but there is no direct experience of actual body.
So what is the AE of body?
Body is a label and label can't be experienced directly, only as a content of thoughts.

Best wishes,
Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:46 am

Hi Daniel,
thanks a lot for writing this. I really needed to hear it. I'm trusting the process and will leave the doubting thoughts alone not giving them extra energy.
I’m glad that it helped.
Just yesterday I was deciding something that will influence the next year of my life in some ways and it felt like I was trying to make the right decision. Then I looked closer at the AE and there were arguments popping up but there was no one creating them, they just appeared on their own. Then a decision appeared, but why at that particular moment? It just appeared at the moment that it did and then new thoughts appeared explaining 'I decided this way because such and such'. So when looked at directly it was clear that there was no 'me' making the decision that it was unfolding freely.
So is this totally clear that there is no chooser, choice or free will?
Is there any doubt left?


Here is the video I was talking about that even science had discovered that decision and free will are just illusions. Sometimes I’m a bit reluctant showing this because at the second half of the video the explanation of the self is really off. Scientists discovered that this is just an illusion, but then they try to interpret it through the belief in the self, so don’t take the second half too seriously :)

https://vimeo.com/90101368

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?
When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Let’s see if there is a connection between a visual image and sensations.

Here is an exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from the visual image/color meaning the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’).


1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the image/color, the ‘object’ seen (hand).

But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?


So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you 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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:19 pm

Hi Vivien,
So is this totally clear that there is no chooser, choice or free will?
Is there any doubt left?
Yes, I believe it's quite clear at this moment.
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
No, there is no notion of hand.
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?
No, hand and table are thoughts that interpret the sensation. The sensation doesn't know anything about any objects.
When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?
Just pure sensation, it can be described with labels like texture, pressure but it doesn't carry any more meaning.
Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
None can be found in experience. There is just the sensation without an 'I' having to be there to watch it.
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
I don't see how it could be anything else.
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?
Both the image and sensation are seen as happening separately and only thought binds them together into a label 'hand' or other body part.
Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
Yes, both are happening at the same time but are separate. When a touch at some point on skin happens it can be seen and it can be felt and it's only a thought that draws the conclusion and connects the two together.
So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?
Yes, they are two independent experiences.
What do you find?
I investigated all body parts and could see the image and sensations as being separate.

Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:36 am

Hi Daniel,
V: Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
D: None can be found in experience. There is just the sensation without an 'I' having to be there to watch it.
What do you mean by “there is just the sensation without an ‘I’ having to be there to watch it”? Do you mean that there is no I there watching it? Or that the presence of the I is not necessary?

Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s start to investigate them, and see what they really are.
Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing visual thoughts about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:39 pm

Hi Vivien,
What do you mean by “there is just the sensation without an ‘I’ having to be there to watch it”? Do you mean that there is no I there watching it? Or that the presence of the I is not necessary?
I meant to say that it can be seen that the sensation is just happening and when there is a thought 'I am sensing' it's clearly an unnecessary overlay that is not necessary for the experience of sensation to happen.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
No, there is plain sensation, the rest is thoughts interpreting the sensation and giving it labels - pleasant, unpleasant, love, joy.

I couldn't find the '(c) visual thought about a certain body part' to be part of experience of an emotion.
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?
Yes, it's just labelling thoughts. And in my experience it leads to further thoughts, pleasant -> want more of it, unpleasant -> want to be rid of it.
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
It's neutral in a sense that without thoughts about it, it can't be told whether the sensation is good or bad or any other subkind.
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?
There are specific sensations that these labels point to. The sensations are real, the labels that point to the sensations aren't real.
So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?
When what we call suffering happens, there are real sensations behind it and accompanying thoughts that interpret it as 'suffering'. So the 'suffering' is a label without inherent existence. The 'sufferer' is an implied subject within the thought 'I am suffering now', but the suffering is only interpretation, a thought, an illusion, and since the existence of suffering is an illusion, there is nothing real that could experience it.

Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:26 am

Hi Daniel,
I meant to say that it can be seen that the sensation is just happening and when there is a thought 'I am sensing' it's clearly an unnecessary overlay that is not necessary for the experience of sensation to happen.
Thanks for explaining it. Yes, nice looking.
Yes, it's just labelling thoughts. And in my experience it leads to further thoughts, pleasant -> want more of it, unpleasant -> want to be rid of it.
We will look at this want and don’t want soon.
When what we call suffering happens, there are real sensations behind it and accompanying thoughts that interpret it as 'suffering'. So the 'suffering' is a label without inherent existence. The 'sufferer' is an implied subject within the thought 'I am suffering now', but the suffering is only interpretation, a thought, an illusion, and since the existence of suffering is an illusion, there is nothing real that could experience it.
Great looking!

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?


Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?


And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?


Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?


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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:17 pm

Hi Vivien,
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
Yes, in essence they were similar. But the sensations weren't necessarily unpleasant. It was more the memory of what the feeling is associated with is what is unpleasant. Like aversion to the thoughts that accompany the feeling. The feeling itself was just sensations and I couldn't find anything inherently negative about it.
And only the labels make them seemingly different?
The different feelings appear differently in various body parts but the main thing that sets them apart is the label.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
The positive emotions were characterised by sensations of relaxation, opening. Like breaking barriers. Pleasant is also a label, but it's true that the pleasant sensations would be preferred by the mind.
And only the labels make them seemingly different?
Yes, the categorization as various different feelings is only labelling made by thoughts.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
No, there is no inherent characteristic in the sensation as 'unpleasant'. It's just that there arise thoughts that want the 'unpleasant' sensation to stop.
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?
No, in itself alone it's just a sensation.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
No, there is no preference as part of the pure sensation.
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?
No, it's just a sensation, the rest is product of thoughts.
Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:32 am

Hi Daniel,
The feeling itself was just sensations and I couldn't find anything inherently negative about it.
Great looking.
No, there is no inherent characteristic in the sensation as 'unpleasant'. It's just that there arise thoughts that want the 'unpleasant' sensation to stop.
Let’s look at this a bit closer.

The illusionary self’s main concern is the pleasant and unpleasant sensations. It ‘wants’ to avoid all unpleasant/uncomfortable sensations at all cost, and longs for and clings to the pleasant sensations. It ignores the neutral sensations. Almost all thoughts when taken seriously (as reality) accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant sensations, and thus decisions on behalf of the self is based on these sensations, about wanting and not wanting these sensations. The sensations sometimes can be subtle, but even with the subtle ones, thoughts of wanting and not wanting follows them. Although, it might seem that there is a resistance (not wanting) to a thought, or an idea, or a situation, but actually the resulting sensation is being resisted, not the thought itself, since the sensation gives the quality of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the situation or other person or thought, etc.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.


And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

As soon as we ignore the thoughts, labels and visual thoughts, staying only with the sensation, the sensation gradually lessens or even dissipates since it’s no longer fuelled by the thoughts and images. So, if in the future when something triggers a strong reaction, and lots of thought proliferation about ‘me’ occur, you can focus on the pure sensation, so the intensity can lessen, so it will be easier to see that the ‘me’, which the whole story revolves around, is fictionary. That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent verbal and visual thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are simply not happening.

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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:46 pm

Hi Vivien,
I will need an extra day to properly look for answers. You will hear from me tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience.

Best wishes,
Daniel

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:43 pm

Hi Daniel,

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
dan8
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Re: Discovering Truth

Postby dan8 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:31 pm

Hi Vivien,
A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?
If I take aversion to an object, I can see a thought about the object and sensations of tension arising. So it's very similar to emotion, which is also a thought + sensation but emotion starts with a sensation and the thought labels it. It's looking at the same combination from the viewpoints. And neither thought, nor sensation is intrinsically 'negative' or 'unpleasant'. So where is it coming from? A sensation without thoughts is neutral and thought without sensations can't produce craving or aversion.
Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.
I can see it when I look closely, but it's quite hazy and not fully clear. I will continue looking tomorrow.
There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?
Wanting is a thought about something that is 'wanted' and an emotion of lacking something which is a body sensation and a thought that labels it as lack of something.

Daniel


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests