Take me away

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
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:23 am

Hi Ben,
But when there is looking, AE is seen with an I-thought overlaid (with a lag) almost as if to imbue the AE with a sense of self. I is thought.
Yes, how tricky :)
Could you please tell me your definition of AE?
V: What is the difference between a thought and its content?
B: A thought is AE, not I. The content of thought is I.
How did you get to the conclusion that the content of thought is I?

Let’s say there is a thought “I like this sunny weather”.
Apart from the word ‘I’ in the above sentence/thought, is there any ‘I’ there?
If not, what makes you think that the WHOLE content of that thought is ‘I’?


The thought as an phenomenon is AE, it’s there.
But whatever the thought is about, the content, is not there. It’s not happening.

Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience whatsoever. If it did, you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, feel the word ‘hot’. Can you see this?

Can an imagined visual thought of sitting on the sun give you a sunburn?

Can the salt be tasted on the lips by imagining swimming in the ocean?

‘Imagination’ is the key word here. It is imagined saltness is it not? How can it be actual saltness? Is it the ‘real’ deal?

When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster, ..or are they thoughts ABOUT a monster?


Can you see CLEARLY that the difference between the thought and its content is that the thought is real, it’s there, it’s happening as a phenomenon, but the content, what the thought is about is not there, not happening, not real?
E1: "What will she think of what I said yesterday... I may have been unclear, maybe in ...maybe I should call ....hmm, wasn't there an issue with my phone? .. I should have that checked... don't forget also to..."
Is what this thought ABOUT (the content) actually happening? Is it a really happening?
Or it’s all realness was only as an appearing thought phenomenon?
"I am craving chocolate"
Is there an ACTUAL craving going on, or there are only thoughts ABOUT craving?
In other words, does the content of this thought actually 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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:42 am

Dear Vivien,
Could you please tell me your definition of AE?
I've been adopting the definition of AE you provided in a previous post:
V: [...] colour (image), sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought at face value that is appearing right now in the moment.
V: What is the difference between a thought and its content?
B: A thought is AE, not I. The content of thought is I.
V: How did you get to the conclusion that the content of thought is I?
Because 'I' only appears as and within thought. Either directly, about me, or reflectively, as I the observer.
Let’s say there is a thought “I like this sunny weather”.
Apart from the word ‘I’ in the above sentence/thought, is there any ‘I’ there?
If not, what makes you think that the WHOLE content of that thought is ‘I’?
The word 'I' in there is the key give-away of this being a thought. Even with 'I' omitted in the thought-sentence, 'I' would still be implicit in "liking sunny weather", and even in (I notice that) "there is sunny weather". Essentially, 'I' appears in and as thought content. Without 'I', there is no 'sunny' and there is no 'weather', in thought.

This is not the same to say (to my understanding at this juncture ;) that thought as a container is or implies 'I'. Rather, the contained is irrelevant to I and vice-versa. One is real the other is not.
The thought as an phenomenon is AE, it’s there.
But whatever the thought is about, the content, is not there. It’s not happening.
Indeed, that's how I see it.
Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience whatsoever. If it did, you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, feel the word ‘hot’. Can you see this?
Yes, I do.
Can an imagined visual thought of sitting on the sun give you a sunburn?
No, it cannot.
Can the salt be tasted on the lips by imagining swimming in the ocean?
No, but almost :)
‘Imagination’ is the key word here. It is imagined saltness is it not? How can it be actual saltness? Is it the ‘real’ deal?When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster, ..or are they thoughts ABOUT a monster?
Thoughts, just thoughts.
Can you see CLEARLY that the difference between the thought and its content is that the thought is real, it’s there, it’s happening as a phenomenon, but the content, what the thought is about is not there, not happening, not real?
I see clearly that thought content is not real. I see that thought is happening, certainly in the sense of AE, but it feels not entirely real.
B: E1: "What will she think of what I said yesterday... I may have been unclear, maybe in ...maybe I should call ....hmm, wasn't there an issue with my phone? .. I should have that checked... don't forget also to..."
V: Is what this thought ABOUT (the content) actually happening? Is it a really happening?
Or it’s all realness was only as an appearing thought phenomenon?
Just thought as a phenomenon is there, not the content.
B: "I am craving chocolate"
V: Is there an ACTUAL craving going on, or there are only thoughts ABOUT craving?
In other words, does the content of this thought actually happening?
This is similar to the taste of salt imagined on the lips. I may feel craving as if it was physical, but even if there was any such sensation, it would have to be thought making it into a craving and a craving for chocolate.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:12 am

Hi Ben,
Because 'I' only appears as and within thought. Either directly, about me, or reflectively, as I the observer.
Yes, but just because there is the word ‘I’ in a sentence, it doesn’t mean that the whole content of a thought = I.
V: Let’s say there is a thought “I like this sunny weather”.
Apart from the word ‘I’ in the above sentence/thought, is there any ‘I’ there?
If not, what makes you think that the WHOLE content of that thought is ‘I’?
B: The word 'I' in there is the key give-away of this being a thought. Even with 'I' omitted in the thought-sentence, 'I' would still be implicit in "liking sunny weather", and even in (I notice that) "there is sunny weather". Essentially, 'I' appears in and as thought content. Without 'I', there is no 'sunny' and there is no 'weather', in thought.
“Without ‘I’, there is no ‘sunny’ and there is no ‘weather’ in thought” – I don’t get how you came to this conclusion, or even what you actually mean.

A thought “I like this sunny weather” – is just 5 words. Including the word ‘I’.
‘sunny’ is also a word, just as ‘weather’.
So whether the sentence/thought contains the word ‘I’ or not, ‘sunny’ or ‘weather’ are still just words.

Are you saying if the sentence contains the word ‘I’, the words ‘sunny’ or ‘weather’ becomes something more than words, something real? Or what are you trying to say?
that thought as a container is or implies 'I'. Rather, the contained is irrelevant to I and vice-versa.
What do you mean by this?
V: Can the salt be tasted on the lips by imagining swimming in the ocean?
B: No, but almost :)
But would that be a real taste of salt, or it would be just an imagined gustatory-thought about the taste of salt?
I see clearly that thought content is not real. I see that thought is happening, certainly in the sense of AE, but it feels not entirely real.
“but it feels not entirely real” – what is not entirely real the thought itself or the content?
I may feel craving as if it was physical, but even if there was any such sensation, it would have to be thought making it into a craving and a craving for chocolate.
Exactly.

Here are some statements based on our investigation so far. Please read them careful, and see if you are clear on them. If any of them are not totally clear, please let me know.

- In actual experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.
- In actual experience there is not even a mind. There might be thoughts about a ‘mind’, but ‘mind’ as such cannot be found.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?


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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:42 am

Dear Vivien,
Are you saying if the sentence contains the word ‘I’, the words ‘sunny’ or ‘weather’ becomes something more than words, something real? Or what are you trying to say?
No, that is not what I wanted to say. Rather, that thought content implies some (thought) element of I, whether explicitly (she is lovely) or implicitly (lovely to me, in relation to I). I lives in thought, permeates it. Both are unreal.
that thought as a container is or implies 'I'. Rather, the contained is irrelevant to I and vice-versa.
What do you mean by this?
Here I made a mistake: 'Rather, the containe(r) is irrelevant to I and vice-versa.' I meant to state, simply, that thought content is unreal, imagined, while thought as a phenomenon can be experienced (AE def.). For that reason, your assertion below, that "The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None" is true: I is within thought only, not outside it, hence can exert no power over it. (Else we'd be back to the witness, or the thought-suppressor, or what not).
V: Can the salt be tasted on the lips by imagining swimming in the ocean?
B: No, but almost :)
V: But would that be a real taste of salt, or it would be just an imagined gustatory-thought about the taste of salt?
The latter. Imagined.
B: I see clearly that thought content is not real. I see that thought is happening, certainly in the sense of AE, but it feels not entirely real.
V: “but it feels not entirely real” – what is not entirely real the thought itself or the content?
The thought itself fits AE but it feels less 'real' or different than color/image, sound, etc. (With this I don't mean to question the distinction between thought and thought content.)
Here are some statements based on our investigation so far. Please read them careful, and see if you are clear on them. If any of them are not totally clear, please let me know.
[...]
Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?
I looked long and thoroughly: it's clear so far.

Ben

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:02 am

Vivien, it just occurred to me that I have another oversight in my reply (I should read my posts prior to submitting :)
No, that is not what I wanted to say. Rather, that thought content implies some (thought) element of I, whether explicitly (she is lovely) or implicitly (lovely to me, in relation to I). I lives in thought, permeates it. Both are unreal.
should be:
explicitly (I am sloppy = I am) or implicitly (this is lovely = to me, in relation to I)

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:22 pm

Vivien, I wish to clarify in this regard
Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?
that I see this as clearly as I can at this point. That is, my looking or seeing happens against the backdrop of more or less sense thought, not in the absence of it. That's fine, I guess, in the context of AE, as long as I'm looking at all this while looking also at that bundle of thoughts. Nevertheless, since you were asking whether this is totally clear, I guess I would have to answer yes, it is dawning on me, I see the contours of it. If I were totally in the clear, I suppose your job would be done here?
Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:25 am

Hi Ben,
No, that is not what I wanted to say. Rather, that thought content implies some (thought) element of I, whether explicitly (she is lovely) or implicitly (lovely to me, in relation to I). I lives in thought, permeates it. Both are unreal.
Yes. Thank you for clarifying this.
should be:
explicitly (I am sloppy = I am) or implicitly (this is lovely = to me, in relation to I)
Yes, everything revolves around ME :)
Here I made a mistake: 'Rather, the containe(r) is irrelevant to I and vice-versa.' I meant to state, simply, that thought content is unreal, imagined, while thought as a phenomenon can be experienced (AE def.). For that reason, your assertion below, that "The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None" is true: I is within thought only, not outside it, hence can exert no power over it. (Else we'd be back to the witness, or the thought-suppressor, or what not).
Yes, good.
that I see this as clearly as I can at this point. That is, my looking or seeing happens against the backdrop of more or less sense thought, not in the absence of it. That's fine, I guess, in the context of AE, as long as I'm looking at all this while looking also at that bundle of thoughts.
When we look at AE, the interpreting thoughts don’t have to stop. It’s enough to see them for what they are, only thoughts arising.
Nevertheless, since you were asking whether this is totally clear, I guess I would have to answer yes, it is dawning on me, I see the contours of it. If I were totally in the clear, I suppose your job would be done here?
We are just at the beginning of our investigation. There are lots of things we will look at, and as we go along your seeing gets clearer and clearer.

As you’ve already discovered the contents of thoughts almost always are about me. So let’s look at this a bit more closely.

Here is an exercise.
Get a sheet of paper and draw a line that divides that sheet in half. Label one half 'self' and the other side 'other'. Sit down and start a timer for 5 minutes. Every time you have a thought make a mark on the sheet. If that thought is about the self, put a mark on the self side, if it’s about something else, write down the thought itself (not just a mark). If a thought about food occurs due to feeling hungry, mark that on the self side. Any thought that refers back to a self should go on the self side. (I'm bored, I'm tired, is the door locked (my safety) that video was funny (I was amused), my back hurts, I am frightened, I wonder what is my daughter doing in school (‘my’ daughter), etc.

Let me know how you go and what you notice. Also please share with me what was written under others.
Then investigate the thoughts what was written under others. Are those thoughts really about others?


During the day, try to observe as many thoughts as you can. Particularly try to pay attention to narrating thoughts. Thoughts that are constantly narrating and judging what’s going on from the perspective of ‘me’.

Let me know what 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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:13 am

Dear Vivien
Let me know how you go and what you notice. Also please share with me what was written under others.
Then investigate the thoughts what was written under others. Are those thoughts really about others?
I noticed that when observing thoughts there are less of them. All thoughts observed were about myself and none about anything else. Most thoughts were about this exploration, my struggle, some others about things that happened today, such as meeting a friend for lunch (my meeting her).
Let me know what you find.
Observing thoughts brought up the question (i.e. thought) about whether there is a difference between thoughts that are like chatter in the head and thoughts that are more like mind being used as a tool. For example, when I compute something in my head to solve a task at hand, say at work: I notice myself sorting through the calculus, then my hand and pen putting it down on paper.

While the chattering thought sequence is more easily seen as thoughts that come and go, the 'mind as a tool' appears at first to be in conflict with your observation that "thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it." However, I then quickly realized that my using the 'mind as a tool' is of course itself thought, which again validates this observation. Indeed, I cannot be found and mind cannot be found. Anyway, this is to illustrate just how tricky all this is and how thoughts continue to represent an easy trap to fall into and can cause to 'unsee' or hide temporarily what can be seen when vigilance or looking is practiced.

As for the narrating or chattering mind, I observed that it tends putting things seemingly in order by judging, categorizing. I also noticed 'my' habit not to rely on that chatter and to dismiss it instead as nonsense mostly. For example, there may be a thought that contains anxiety about an issue, which would then be followed by a thought that says, nonsense, this is just mind stuff, almost as if there was an attempt to neutralize such thoughts. A defense mechanism, sort of. That's too burdensome and painful (chatter upon chatter) and I don't want to practice vigilance but see through instead.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:53 pm

Hi Ben,
However, I then quickly realized that my using the 'mind as a tool' is of course itself thought, which again validates this observation. Indeed, I cannot be found and mind cannot be found.
Nice observation.
I also noticed 'my' habit not to rely on that chatter and to dismiss it instead as nonsense mostly. For example, there may be a thought that contains anxiety about an issue, which would then be followed by a thought that says, nonsense, this is just mind stuff, almost as if there was an attempt to neutralize such thoughts. A defense mechanism, sort of. That's too burdensome and painful (chatter upon chatter) and I don't want to practice vigilance but see through instead.
You can create a new habit, looking instead. So whenever the thought label ‘nonsense, this is just mind stuff’, you can stop and LOOK what it is that said that statement. Look for the one that is labelling it just as nonsense. You can also look for the one that is anxious about the issue. Where is the anxious one exactly? And search until it gets totally clear that there is no-one there being anxious.

As you observed, almost every thought, if not all, is about the self. Sometimes it might not be as obvious, but when looked at it a bit more closely, it turns out that these narrating thoughts are always about me (some way or another).

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.

And now we start investigating the process of decision making. Here is an interesting exercise.
Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?


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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:27 pm

Dear Vivien

Thank you. You have been guiding me for quite a few days already and I should like to express my gratitude for your time and patience
You can create a new habit, looking instead. So whenever the thought label ‘nonsense, this is just mind stuff’, you can stop and LOOK what it is that said that statement. Look for the one that is labelling it just as nonsense. You can also look for the one that is anxious about the issue. Where is the anxious one exactly? And search until it gets totally clear that there is no-one there being anxious.
Looking always shows thought only as the container of anxiety or the reactive thought. Hence the conclusion that nobody's anxious or labelling it as such. But isn't this a foregone conclusion? Other than thought, I wonder, what else could it be, given that besides thought there is only color/image, sensation, touch, smell, sound in AE? Also, I do not see that TO LOOK is not THOUGHT also since I don't find any LOOKER which, just like I, is thought. In short, if there there is no looker, there is no looking but only experience itself, hence to look is thought, isn't it?
Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.
Absolutely, I see this clearly.
How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
The decision seems to result from a sequence of thoughts evaluating the options: I don't drink neither tea nor coffee at this hour. Hmm, I might rather make some tea to check this out. Actually, upon further thought, let me prepare the coffee machine now so that it's ready for coffee tomorrow morning. Coffee it is then, not tea.
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
No, that's just how it is: a little milk, no sugar. Thought, memory.
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
There is not a distinct moment of choice. Choice just happens, falls place, manifests. Thoughts seem to be an overlay, again with sort of a narrating lag.
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
'You' asked me to do this exercise and 'I' thought about it, as described above. I don't see it just happens. Then, again, I see that it happens with a bunch of thoughts on top. If thoughts can't do anything, other than within the realm of thought, then that coffee just happens. But that still feels like a stretch.
Can a chooser be located?
No, it is but thought plus coffee in the making.

All in all, the experience is that coffee is being made as if in a dream or in thought. There is this individual preparing coffee, knowing where to find the machine, the water, the powder, engaging in some habitual gestures.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:45 am

Hi Ben,
Thank you. You have been guiding me for quite a few days already and I should like to express my gratitude for your time and patience
You are very welcome :)
I do not see that TO LOOK is not THOUGHT also since I don't find any LOOKER which, just like I, is thought. In short, if there there is no looker, there is no looking but only experience itself, hence to look is thought, isn't it?
You are trying to figure this out intellectually. The intellect/thoughts won’t be able to grasp this.
The decision seems to result from a sequence of thoughts evaluating the options: I don't drink neither tea nor coffee at this hour. Hmm, I might rather make some tea to check this out. Actually, upon further thought, let me prepare the coffee machine now so that it's ready for coffee tomorrow morning. Coffee it is then, not tea.
And are those evaluation thoughts making the decision?
If not those thoughts, then WHAT EXACTLY made the decision of choosing coffee instead of tea?

Where is the chooser? - find the exact location - Is there a chooser in the head? Where exactly? Behind the eyes? Or at the middle of the head? Maybe at the back of the head? Or behind the ears? Where?

Or is there a chooser in the hands performing the actions?

'You' asked me to do this exercise and 'I' thought about it, as described above. I don't see it just happens. Then, again, I see that it happens with a bunch of thoughts on top. If thoughts can't do anything, other than within the realm of thought, then that coffee just happens. But that still feels like a stretch.
You don’t just have to think about it, but ACTUALLY OBSERVE if there is ACTUALLY SOMETHING that is making the coffee happen.
But that still feels like a stretch.
“Feels like a stretch” – for what?
What is it that FEELS it like a stretch?
What is that having this thought?
What is that that made this thought conclusion “it sell feels like a stretch”?
I don't see it just happens.
If it coffee making doesn’t just happen, there MUST BE someone/something making it to happen!
So where is the one that made those small decisions how to make the coffee?


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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:04 am

Dear Vivien,
And are those evaluation thoughts making the decision?
I see that thoughts are not taking those decisions. As always, 'they' just narrate the commentary to what they think is happening.
If not those thoughts, then WHAT EXACTLY made the decision of choosing coffee instead of tea?
What exactly made the decision I cannot find. All I see is the narrating thoughts.
Where is the chooser? - find the exact location - Is there a chooser in the head? Where exactly? Behind the eyes? Or at the middle of the head? Maybe at the back of the head? Or behind the ears? Where?

Or is there a chooser in the hands performing the actions?
So where is the one that made those small decisions how to make the coffee?
I cannot find the chooser. Not in the head, hands or elsewhere. Things just happen. That jug of honey is being picked up. Two spoons taken out of it, then a third. Why? Did I deliberate that I would? Had I decided that now I'll have some honey in the first place. No, there's no evidence of decisionmaking whatsoever. I just did. Only then (after)thoughts follow.
“FEELS like a stretch” – for what?
What is it that FEELS it like a stretch?
What is that having this thought?
What is that that made this thought conclusion “it sell feels like a stretch”?
I-thought is the answer to all. The thought(s) I'm trying to look behind of. However hard I try, I I cannot, so I'm left looking at these thoughts.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:53 pm

Hi Ben,
I cannot find the chooser. Not in the head, hands or elsewhere. Things just happen. That jug of honey is being picked up. Two spoons taken out of it, then a third. Why? Did I deliberate that I would? Had I decided that now I'll have some honey in the first place. No, there's no evidence of decisionmaking whatsoever. I just did. Only then (after)thoughts follow.
Nice looking. Let’s look at control.

Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
Watch very carefully.

Don't go to thoughts – examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

When the head of a sunflower turns to the sun, what is moving the flower?
Is there a ‘mover’ somewhere inside the flower to turn its head?

When the hand is turning up and down, is there a ‘mover’ hidden somewhere inside the hand or the body performing the movement?


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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:00 am

Hi Vivien!
How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
No, thoughts are not in control of the turn. There is clear evidence that the hand turns while thought still concerns itself with the turn preceding it. Again, thoughts do nothing but narrate, follow.
And no, a controller cannot be found. The wrist swivels 'as if' on its own.
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
While decisions pertaining to the actual movement cannot be found, decisions pertaining to the type of movement appear in thought before it takes place. For example, I see ('want') thought saying let's turn the palm quickly for a few times and, sure enough, I see such movements follow. Or a thought says let's do it five times while counting, and exactly that I then see happening (I guess I would really be stunned otherwise). However, there is still no evidence about the motoric itself being governed or controlled by thought or anything else identifiable. And, 'thinking of it', the mere observation of my wanting to control the wrist gives it away as thought, hence as spurios, non experiential, irrelevant except it being recognized as such.
Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
The left holds the phone, so it's the right. I cannot find who or what chose to hold the phone in the left in the first place.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?
To experiment, I try to think first and then watch the rotation: up, down, up, down, up, down. At first it seemingly works, but it 's all too evident that I struggle keeping it up and thoughts fall out of tune with the movement, lagging. The hand wants and does move by itself. Thoughts may pretend to, but are immediately unmasked as a farsical controller of nothing.
Again, what exactly moves the hand I cannot find.
When the head of a sunflower turns to the sun, what is moving the flower?
Is there a ‘mover’ somewhere inside the flower to turn its head?
I GUESS the flower and its constituents are part of creation, one movement. I'm not a sunflower to experi3nce heliotropism, but I wish I was ;)
When the hand is turning up and down, is there a ‘mover’ hidden somewhere inside the hand or the body performing the movement?
I see no mover. Just like that sunflower, I am being moved. Unlike that flower, I suppose, I'm surrounded by all those thoughts, yet I'm kissed by the same sun all the same.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:39 am

Hi Ben,
To experiment, I try to think first and then watch the rotation: up, down, up, down, up, down. At first it seemingly works, but it 's all too evident that I struggle keeping it up and thoughts fall out of tune with the movement, lagging. The hand wants and does move by itself. Thoughts may pretend to, but are immediately unmasked as a farsical controller of nothing.
Again, what exactly moves the hand I cannot find.
Yes, nice looking.

Can you see that only thoughts ‘assume’ a mover or a decider, but in experience there is nothing there?
So that the mover and/or chooser is just an assumption but NOT a reality?
I see no mover. Just like that sunflower, I am being moved. Unlike that flower, I suppose, I'm surrounded by all those thoughts, yet I'm kissed by the same sun all the same.

“I am being moved” – what does the word ‘I’ points to this sentence?
Find the “I” that is being moved. Where is it exactly?

“I am surrounded by all those thoughts” – what is it exactly that is being surrounded by thoughts?
Where is this ‘thing’ that is being surrounded by thoughts?


Please put some chocolate (or something you think you shouldn’t eat or drink) in front of you. Look at it. Inspect it closely. Smell its delicious fragrance. And pay attention to emerging desire to eat it.

When the desire is there, pay close attention to the thought process.
See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?

Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully


Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?


Now, do according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

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 “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests