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: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:33 am

Hi Ben,
Yes. I have been looking. I can refrain from describing anything pertaining to thoughts (content).
It’s not just about not writing about thought conclusion, but rather to SEE that:

- thoughts are not aware
- thoughts have no idea what they are ‘talking’ about
- and more importantly that thoughts are NOT RELIABLE source of information.

Can you see these?

As long as you believe in analytical thoughts you won’t be able to see through the self.

Since THOUGHTS are the one that creating the illusion, exactly with those interpreting, narrating thoughts. Can you see this?

So if you want to see through the self, you have to trust your immediate experience, and not take thought conclusions as facts. Since those conclusions are not facts. Can you see this?


The fact is that there is no self anywhere, no controller anywhere, but this is not accepted since thoughts talk about a self/controller.
I see what you are saying. I described thought content and the deductions that follow to describe how all this comes to be taken as a deciding element, leading to coffee.
But can you SEE that this thought deduction is FALSE?
Or do you still believe in this thought deduction?
Yes. It's just a thought story, but one I wanted to share.
And do you believe in these thoughts stories?
Do you still believe that there is a decider, controller, decision and control?
Do you believe what thoughts are telling?
AE ignores thought content and only notices thoughts come and go. By not looking into thoughts, a thought process would not be AE other than the usual stream of thoughts, whatever they are about. One thought at a time.
There is not even such thing as a stream of thoughts. Can you see this?
Can a ‘stream of thoughts’ be actually experienced? How so?
Can actually be experienced a sequence of thoughts, one thought at a time? Are you sure about this?
Is a sequence or stream of thoughts one at a time actually experienced? – LOOK very carefully
V: Ben, you either don’t see that you are looking everything through pink-glasses (thinking only) or you have a big resistance to looking at experience directly. Which one?
B: Neither, if you would allow for that possibility. I do see why you'd ask though.
Yes, I allow that possibility :)
So my AE of coffee vs. tea is that a decider cannot be detected (how could it be, unless it was experienced as color, taste, sound, smell, sensation, or a thought container.) There is thought content that predicts correctly what would happen and when, but that is to be ignored in this process of exploration.
But HOW do you know that thought contents PREDICT CORRECTLY what would happen?

1. Thought: let’s make a tea
2. Action: the body goes to the kitchen
3. Thought: Which tea? Oolong, green?
4. Thought: Let it be green.
5. Action: opening the cabinet, taking out green tea.
6. Thought: Where is my favourite cup?
7. Action: looking for the cup in the other cabinet, but finding it on the benchtop.
8. Thought: Thought contents predict correctly what would happen and when.

Apart from thought 8 stating that ‘thought contents predict correctly what would happen’ is there anything that is ACTUALLY LINKING 1-7?

Without thought 8, can it be KNOWN anything about prediction?
Without thought 8, is there anything suggesting that action 2 happened as the result of action 1?

HOW is it known exactly that there is any link or relationship between these thoughts and the action?


You are assuming that there is such thing as cause and effect. Then prove it.

What is the proof that thought 1 caused action 2?
What is the proof that thought 3 and 4 caused action 5?


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 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:32 am

Dear Vivien,
Can you see these?
Yes
As long as you believe in analytical thoughts you won’t be able to see through the self.
Since THOUGHTS are the one that creating the illusion, exactly with those interpreting, narrating thoughts. Can you see this?
So if you want to see through the self, you have to trust your immediate experience, and not take thought conclusions as facts. Since those conclusions are not facts. Can you see this?

Yes, I can see this. As a matter of process, I am trying to see and refute that thoughts are where decisions are made. To explore this, rather than just believe it, I AM LOOKING at AE and thoughts (content), to reach a conclusion on evidential grounds. That is something different altogether than believing in analytical thoughts or taking thought conclusions as facts, which I do not.
But can you SEE that this thought deduction is FALSE?
I am seeking to refute it and have found (seen) aspects that do go in that direction. I expressed the need for further inquiry.
Or do you still believe in this thought deduction?
I do not believe in it. I am merely exploring it.
And do you believe in these thoughts stories?
Do you still believe that there is a decider, controller, decision and control?
Do you believe what thoughts are telling?
Again, I do not believe in it. I am merely exploring it.
There is not even such thing as a stream of thoughts. Can you see this?
Yes. 'Stream of thoughts' means to me nothing but one thought after another.
Can a ‘stream of thoughts’ be actually experienced? How so?
The 'stream' or 'following' is thought (content) itself, so the AE is of thought (the phenomenon) only.
Can actually be experienced a sequence of thoughts, one thought at a time? Are you sure about this?
Is a sequence or stream of thoughts one at a time actually experienced? – LOOK very carefully
It cannot. What can be experienced is thought (again, the phenomenon) only.
1. Thought: let’s make a tea
2. Action: the body goes to the kitchen
3. Thought: Which tea? Oolong, green?
4. Thought: Let it be green.
5. Action: opening the cabinet, taking out green tea.
6. Thought: Where is my favourite cup?
7. Action: looking for the cup in the other cabinet, but finding it on the benchtop.
8. Thought: Thought contents predict correctly what would happen and when.

Apart from thought 8 stating that ‘thought contents predict correctly what would happen’ is there anything that is ACTUALLY LINKING 1-7?
Without thought 8, can it be KNOWN anything about prediction?
Without thought 8, is there anything suggesting that action 2 happened as the result of action 1?
Without 8 there is no 1,3,4,6. Thoughts are either on or off. Therefore, to answer the question directly: without 8, there is nothing suggesting that 1 induced 2.
HOW is it known exactly that there is any link or relationship between these thoughts and the action?
It is not known exactly.
You are assuming that there is such thing as cause and effect. Then prove it.
Proof, in this case, can only go as far as failure to refute.
What is the proof that thought 1 caused action 2?
Action 2 follows action 1, however often we may run the experiment. If the purpose of this exploration is to dispel the perception that 1 causes 2, this experiment does nothing but to reinforce that perception. That is not to say that this proofs 1 causing 2, but it does nothing to disproof it, or does it?
What is the proof that thought 3 and 4 caused action 5?
Same as above. To turn it around: what is the proof that thoughts 3 and 4 do not cause action 5?

Again, to be clear: I did not and I do not suggest or conclude that thoughts cause anything. I am saying that I see no evidence to the contrary, based on this experiment alone. I’d thus have to rely on belief about thoughts not effecting anything, and to abstract entirely from thought content and remain with 2-5-7 only as AE. More compellingly, as I suggested earlier, I did see (not think, as you surmised) that there is no actual choice and there is no tea nor coffee nor mug nor kitchen… nor self to make such a non-choice.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:31 pm

Hi Ben,
Yes, I can see this. As a matter of process, I am trying to see and refute that thoughts are where decisions are made. To explore this, rather than just believe it, I AM LOOKING at AE and thoughts (content), to reach a conclusion on evidential grounds. That is something different altogether than believing in analytical thoughts or taking thought conclusions as facts, which I do not.
Yes, and I’m not doubting whether you actually look. I know you are looking. I can see from your replies. However, the problem is the following.

You spend X amount of time on looking, and then you spend Y amount of time on comparing, analysing of two concepts:

- The conceptualized thoughts about what had been seen,
- and the conventional beliefs about the chooser or choice.

It’s impossible to compare AE with conventional beliefs, without first conceptualizing what has been seen. Since only concepts/thoughts can be compared.

And the problem with this is that although you look, you are still trying to figure this out intellectually, by comparing, analysing and making conclusions.

And my job is to point this out and let you know that this won’t work.

Since the whole illusion is created by thoughts/concepts, just as I explained it with my baby-growing up story.
Do you remember that I wrote that we humans are hammering everything with thoughts?
Please read that part again very carefully (posted on 21 July), and you will see why I’m telling you that you have to put aside analytical thinking altogether.


You have to put down the hammer (thoughts) for the time of investigation. Can you see this?

You mentioned a few times that you are slow in the head. This is great news! :) Since you don’t need to use your head at all with this investigation. You have to do quite to opposite. You have to come out of your head (thoughts) and just look at experience.

And yes, you have to go back to thoughts to describe it and answer back to me. But that’s all. Here ends the need for thoughts.

And it’s not just about you stop writing me about your comparison, but actually stopping comparing the two.
Only use X amount of time looking, and forget about the Y amount of time of analysing.
Or you have the option to spend X+Y amount of time all for looking.
V: Or do you still believe in this thought deduction?
B: I do not believe in it. I am merely exploring it.
This exploration is a hindrance.
You make one step forward with looking, then a step back with interpreting.
Action 2 follows action 1, however often we may run the experiment. If the purpose of this exploration is to dispel the perception that 1 causes 2, this experiment does nothing but to reinforce that perception. That is not to say that this proofs 1 causing 2, but it does nothing to disproof it, or does it?
This is a pure thought speculation and it has nothing to do with looking. This is why I am saying, that you make one step forward with looking, but then you quickly step backward with these speculations.

We are going to LOOK for a cause and effect relationship, and since it’s based on the belief of time, we start investigating memory.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?


Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?


Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?


Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

We will come back to investigate decision later.

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 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:07 am

Dear Vivien,
And the problem with this is that although you look, you are still trying to figure this out intellectually, by comparing, analysing and making conclusions.
And my job is to point this out and let you know that this won’t work.
I understand and see that you are right, of course. (I focused on thoughts so much because in relation to decision they are to me a strong and crucial illusion to dispel. But thoughts won't dispel thoughts and that approach is doomed.)
Do you remember that I wrote that we humans are hammering everything with thoughts?
Please read that part again very carefully (posted on 21 July), and you will see why I’m telling you that you have to put aside analytical thinking altogether.
You have to put down the hammer (thoughts) for the time of investigation. Can you see this?
I have read it again. I see that there is no way to proceed with this investigation other than 'to put down the hammer'.
Or you have the option to spend X+Y amount of time all for looking.
:)
What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

It arises as a thought.
What is the memory ‘made of’?
It is made of thought that may be associated with images and diffuse sensations, emotions, all made of thought though. Memory is thought about thought, hence thought.
WHEN does the memory appear?
It pops up, just like thoughts do.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
I cannot detect any difference between the two: memory is just thought.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
It is believed, assumed, self-referential, rather than known exactly. It is just thoughts. This always applies, also when there is seeming evidence to the contrary: a memory about yesterday’s haircut is not corroborated by my shortened hair today. For thought about yesterday’s haircut doesn’t make it real (or known exactly) just as thought doesn’t make the hair be shortened today.
Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
Just the same: it is made of pure thought. Thoughts about thoughts (memory) projected forward.
WHEN does the future thought appear?
In and as thought, it pops up.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
No difference.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
It is not known but thought only.
Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
No difference whatsoever: both are thoughts about thoughts, thus thoughts. Put differently, the seeming direction of thought, past or future, is thought itself. Thought about future is thought about past and thought about present: one thought, so to say.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 am

Hi Ben,
But thoughts won't dispel thoughts and that approach is doomed.
Exactly. But although knowing this, there could a temptation to analyse, just a little bit :)
Or you might even catch yourself interpreting or analysing without wanting to.
When you notice that interpretation is going on, stop the process, and turn the attention to the one that is supposedly doing the interpretation.
LOOK for the one that is doing it. Where is it? – Search for it.
Let me know how it goes.
V: WHEN does the memory appear?
B: It pops up, just like thoughts do.
V: WHEN does the future thought appear?
B: In and as thought, it pops up.
You missed the word ‘when’.

So WHEN does the memory appear?
And when does the future thought appear?
No difference whatsoever: both are thoughts about thoughts, thus thoughts. Put differently, the seeming direction of thought, past or future, is thought itself. Thought about future is thought about past and thought about present: one thought, so to say.
Yes. So the only difference is just the content.

Let’s investigate what time really is.

What is time?
How time is experienced?
What is past and future?
How past or future is experienced?
Does past or future ‘exists’ other than contents of thoughts?
Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?
Is there any experiential proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

How is it known that there is a cause and effect relation?
Can both cause and effect be present at the same time?
If not, how it is known that the cause preceded the effect? That one follows the other?


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 24, 2019 2:45 am

Dear Vivien,
LOOK for the one that is doing it. Where is it? – Search for it.
Let me know how it goes.
The one that is doing it (the thinking, analyzing, etc) is the same as the one that is writing this. Where it is cannot be found. It 'feels like' a witness, observer, 'self', but it is actually experienced as just thoughts.
You missed the word ‘when’.
So WHEN does the memory appear?
And when does the future thought appear?
NOW is when these memory and future thoughts appear.
What is time?
Time is not experienced. It is a thought construct, just as for memorizing and expecting thoughts.
How time is experienced?
It is not. Only now is actually experienced.
What is past and future?
Past and future is the stuff of time. Thought about past and thought about future make time, the illusion of it.
How past or future is experienced?
It is not. Same as time.
Does past or future ‘exists’ other than contents of thoughts?
No, certainly not.
Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?
There can be a memory about my having dinner last night, that is thoughts about yesterday's AE of color, taste, smell of food, people's chatter. All this is but narrating thoughts in relation to those experiences, not proof thereof. In fact, there is no AE now of that food's taste, if there ever was that food and that taste. What I do actually know (AE) is that it isn't here now.
Is there any experiential proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?
No.
How is it known that there is a cause and effect relation?
This is not known without time. (Edging me back to decision? ;)
Can both cause and effect be present at the same time?
Hmm, no. All AE, or 'everything', is now. A cause and effect relationship cannot be experienced now, out of time. Put differently: there can be no cause and effect, thus they cannot be experienced at the same time.
If not, how it is known that the cause preceded the effect? That one follows the other?
It cannot be known out of time, that is thought.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:47 am

Hi Ben,
The one that is doing it (the thinking, analyzing, etc) is the same as the one that is writing this. Where it is cannot be found. It 'feels like' a witness, observer, 'self', but it is actually experienced as just thoughts.
How is it known that the one that thinking and analysing is the same as the one that is writing?
If none of them can be found, then how is it known that they are the same?

How is it known that there is anything at all that is thinking and analysing?
And how is it known that there is anything writing the responses?

What is it that is reading off these words from the screen?
Where is the reader? – find it

Is there an agency behind the scenes doing all of these things? If yes, where exactly?

A cause and effect relationship cannot be experienced now, out of time. Put differently: there can be no cause and effect, thus they cannot be experienced at the same time.
“A cause and effect relationship cannot be experienced now, out of time” - And can cause and effect relationship be experienced ‘inside of time’?

Can cause and effect ever be experienced, inside/outside/anywhere/anytime?


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 24, 2019 12:38 pm

Dear Vivien,
How is it known that the one that thinking and analysing is the same as the one that is writing?
Thinking and analyzing are thought content only, and so is reading and writing, the AE of which are merely color and sensations, respectively. That leaves nothing to indicate that there is actually thinking, analyzing, writing, and rather that they are one and nothing, i.e.thoughts. Only within thoughts do they get linked.
If none of them can be found, then how is it known that they are the same?
Because they are made of the same stuff; thoughts, nothing.
How is it known that there is anything at all that is thinking and analysing?
There is experience of thoughts, the origin of which I cannot see. So it is not known that there is anything thinking and analyzing. Only the thought of thought, or within thoughts, thinks the thinker, analyzer.
And how is it known that there is anything writing the responses?
Not known. Known is AE of touch. Then there are thoughts, memory that makes that 'writing' and 'responding to Vivien' and all the rest.
What is it that is reading off these words from the screen?
Where is the reader? – find it
I cannot even answer, look at this
Is there an agency behind the scenes doing all of these things? If yes, where exactly?
No agency. Just thoughts.

All answers are about 'thoughts', so much that I wish this word didn't exist an longer and my fingers would fall off.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:41 am

Hi Ben,
Thinking and analyzing are thought content only, and so is reading and writing, the AE of which are merely color and sensations, respectively. That leaves nothing to indicate that there is actually thinking, analyzing, writing, and rather that they are one and nothing, i.e.thoughts. Only within thoughts do they get linked.
With the above comment, have you actually SEARCHED FOR a thinker and analyser, or rather you made a conclusion on the knowledge (of a previous looking) that in experience there are only colors and sensations, therefore there cannot be a thinker or analyser outside of thoughts?
V: What is it that is reading off these words from the screen?
Where is the reader? – find it
B: I cannot even answer, look at this
Why you cannot even look at this? This is how we do looking. We actually look/search for the one that is reading off the screen.

Looking is actually SEARCHING THROUGH the whole head for the reader, again and again and again.
Without this repeated search (hundreds of times) the self cannot seen through.
All answers are about 'thoughts', so much that I wish this word didn't exist an longer and my fingers would fall off.
And what is it that is whishing that the word ‘thought’ didn’t exist?

Don’t just say that it’s only a thought! But rather actually SEARCH FOR THE ONE that is saying that.
Search through the whole body from head to toe.

The self is NOT just a thought! It’s more complicated than that. If you search for it only in thoughts, and you don’t search for it in the body, for the sense of self, then it will be hard to see through it.

Since the self is not just simply a thought/concept, it’s also a mislabelled sensation. A plain sensation labelled as ‘me’. And this mislabelled sensation plays a huge role in the seeming appearance of ‘sense of self’.

So there is a plain sensation, like a pressure in the head, and thoughts label this sensation as ‘me’.

So the reason why the ‘me’ SEEMS or FEELS so real, is because the sensation is real. The sensation is there.
And since this sensation is labelled as ‘me’: BUMMM! The seeming sense of self appears.
So the sensation is giving the ‘reality effect’ to the thought concept of ‘me’.
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
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:26 am

Dear Vivien,
With the above comment, have you actually SEARCHED FOR a thinker and analyser, or rather you made a conclusion on the knowledge (of a previous looking) that in experience there are only colors and sensations, therefore there cannot be a thinker or analyser outside of thoughts?
Long before (and after) writing that comment, I was searching for a thinker and analyzer. But there was nothing to be found. It's entirely elusive. And the search is quickly exhausted, every time I look, because I just don't find so much to really look at. For example, I look at thoughts arising, at sensations, colors, and all the rest. There's no thinker to be found anywhere there, so I look again and again, and eventually go back to words trying to formulate the answer, and where broader observations come in. Leaving those out, I should have answered: "I found no thinker, no analyzer, no writer'.
Looking is actually SEARCHING THROUGH the whole head for the reader, again and again and again.
Without this repeated search (hundreds of times) the self cannot seen through.
I understand it's crucial to be keep looking again and again. But other than thoughts, where to actually search in the head? There's nothing in the head I can look at and that's readily ascertained every time I look. As for other sensations in the head, we found that there aren't any really, quite some time ago.
And what is it that is whishing that the word ‘thought’ didn’t exist?
I keep looking for the unidentifiable that I was looking for also in relation to thinking, analyzing, writing, reading off the screen. I have no answer as to what it is.
Don’t just say that it’s only a thought! But rather actually SEARCH FOR THE ONE that is saying that.
Search through the whole body from head to toe.
Ok. I am searching again through the entire body. There are various sensations, all of which are elusive when looked at more closely. None of these sensations provide any clue about 'the one that is saying that'.

Also, by searching through the body, I find (again) that there is no body, and that body is made by thought in reference to basic, pure sensations. So when saying that it's only thought, I mean to refer also to body, emotions, and so on, all of which associates with a sense of self and where one would look for it during a thorough search.
The self is NOT just a thought! It’s more complicated than that. If you search for it only in thoughts, and you don’t search for it in the body, for the sense of self, then it will be hard to see through it.
Since the self is not just simply a thought/concept, it’s also a mislabelled sensation. A plain sensation labelled as ‘me’. And this mislabelled sensation plays a huge role in the seeming appearance of ‘sense of self’.
So there is a plain sensation, like a pressure in the head, and thoughts label this sensation as ‘me’.
So the reason why the ‘me’ SEEMS or FEELS so real, is because the sensation is real. The sensation is there.
And since this sensation is labelled as ‘me’: BUMMM! The seeming sense of self appears.
Thanks, copy. So, a drive for something, say hunger, will combine with thought to create a sense of needing to feed one's self, and thus create a strong identification with it (else 'I' will suffer or perish).
So the sensation is giving the ‘reality effect’ to the thought concept of ‘me’.
Can you see this?
Yes I do.

I'll keep looking more deeply.
Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 am

Hi Ben,
But other than thoughts, where to actually search in the head? There's nothing in the head I can look at and that's readily ascertained every time I look. As for other sensations in the head, we found that there aren't any really, quite some time ago.
But it doesn’t mean that you have to stop looking at sensation.
Just because the word ‘head’ is just a conceptual overlay on sensations, it doesn’t mean that those sensations are not playing a huge role in creating the sense of self.
So, a drive for something, say hunger, will combine with thought to create a sense of needing to feed one's self, and thus create a strong identification with it (else 'I' will suffer or perish).
Yes, but it’s still too complicated. We are going to approach this more simply. We are going to look at sensations directly. Putting aside all explanations, conclusions.

As I mentioned in the previous post, mislabelled sensations are the foundation of the sense of self.
So this is what we are going to look for in the following days.

Here is an exercise, you can do anywhere at any time. It helps to see again and again that the sense of self is nothing else then just a sensation. You can make this practice into a habit.

First localize where this sense of me appears inside the body.
Your job is to stalk and trap this Ben/me in a net of attention.

Let's go straight for the most obvious example of me inside.
Where does Ben/me FEEL most prevalent?

The intensity of the ‘sense of self’ can vary, and there are times when the ‘me’ really shows up let’s say behind the eyes, inside the head.
When it does, fix in with precision to that place the ‘me’ occupies.
Hold it for a while in this net of attention, by FEELING this sensation.
FEEL and see, if is this me-behind-the-eyes-in-the-head anything but sensation?

Just keep the attention on this sensation.
Don’t do anything with it, just FEEL IT.
Just FEEL any sensation that is labelled as ‘me’.
Spend your whole day on FEELING these sensations as plain sensations.

Let me know what you find after a day of FEELING.

Please Ben, don’t reply back to me earlier than 24 hours. Rather spend all the time just FEELING these sensations. As often as possible.

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 26, 2019 11:05 pm

Dear Vivien

Where does Ben/me FEEL most prevalent?
Most prevalent is a feeling of me as the witness, the looker, the watcher. It feels like a field of awareness behind and around my body. Sometimes this gets associated with vision or eyesight of actual colors, but mostly it's experienced as sort of a watching thought or presence.
FEEL and see, if is this me-behind-the-eyes-in-the-head anything but sensation?
There are sensations in the chest or heart, then there are those around the gut an then those in the shoulder and spine, depending on the mix of emotions and thoughts that are prevalent at the moment: love, determination/doing, anxiety, etc. When I zoom in and hold, these sensations dissipate and vanish quite quickly. There is no self whatsoever to be found.
Let me know what you find after a day of FEELING.
After a day and night of feeling, I have met an array of familiar sensations that tend to associate with a sense self but clearly are not when approached and looked at for what they are.

Most prevalent is a feeling of 'split mind' with one part looking at the other. Also split brain: left eye sees not like right eye. Trying to look at the looker feels a bit like forcing the head to make a full turn. However, somehow 'split mind' vanishes when the two sides get aligned and what remains is just looking without interpretation.

That's all so far.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:02 am

Hi Ben,
There are sensations in the chest or heart, then there are those around the gut an then those in the shoulder and spine, depending on the mix of emotions and thoughts that are prevalent at the moment: love, determination/doing, anxiety, etc. When I zoom in and hold, these sensations dissipate and vanish quite quickly. There is no self whatsoever to be found.
Very good. Just keep FEELING these sensations as sensations.
After a day and night of feeling, I have met an array of familiar sensations that tend to associate with a sense self but clearly are not when approached and looked at for what they are.
Great! Just keep FEELING these sensations only as sensations.
And use the correct label ‘sensation’ instead of ‘me’.
Most prevalent is a feeling of 'split mind' with one part looking at the other. Also split brain: left eye sees not like right eye. Trying to look at the looker feels a bit like forcing the head to make a full turn. However, somehow 'split mind' vanishes when the two sides get aligned and what remains is just looking without interpretation.
Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘split mind’ or ‘split brain’. Could you please explain this?
Is this a sensation? Or a thought interpretation about why thinking or looking is hard sometimes? Or something else?
What is the experience when you label it as ‘split mind’ or ‘split brain’?
V: Where does Ben/me FEEL most prevalent?
B: Most prevalent is a feeling of me as the witness, the looker, the watcher. It feels like a field of awareness behind and around my body. Sometimes this gets associated with vision or eyesight of actual colors, but mostly it's experienced as sort of a watching thought or presence.
All right, let’s look at this closely. It’s important to look at this very closely and thoroughly and see what is actually happening.

“It feels like a field of awareness behind and around my body.” – please go to this FEELING, not to the label ‘awareness’, but to the actual feeling.

What is it that is actually felt behind and around the body?

Can anything else be felt other than sensations?

Is there an ACTUAL sensation behind and around the body?
What is actually there?

“but mostly it's experienced as sort of a watching thought or presence” – What is the AE of presence?
How a ‘watching thought’ is experienced?
Can a thought watch?

How awareness as such is experienced?


So, I asked you ‘Where does Ben/me FEEL most prevalent?’:

Do you say that there is a witness felt?
A looker felt?
A watcher felt?
Awareness felt?
Watching thought is felt?
Presence is felt?

What is it that is actually felt with these labels?


I often use capital letters or sometimes bolds or even colors to emphasise the importance of certain sentences or words. I’m not doing this to yell at you or show that I am frustrated with you. :) It’s not personal. It’s just my way of emphasise the importance of certain things. I put certain words in caps to guide your attention to a certain direction. I might ask: “How does the ‘I’ is FELT?” – the word ‘felt’ is in caps to point your attention to the sensations itself that are labelled as ‘I’ (and not to other aspects of the self).

I’m just telling this to you, because there’s been a client of mine who interpreted it as yelling, and felt offended. So I decided to explain this to all my clients to avoid misinterpretations.

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 27, 2019 9:08 am

Dear Vivien,
What is the experience when you label it as ‘split mind’ or ‘split brain’?
Split mind is a label I use to describe an inability to untighten or let go of a gripping thought that seems to be always on in the background, as if watching over everything else. 'Split' because of that subject/object illusion it brings about. Unlike other thoughts that come and go, this one is experienced as always there, firmly anchored, very annoying. Often bundled with sensations of pressure and sound in the head, or with sight and other sensations, or with emotions. This is just a story, thought interpretation, but it also manifests in sensations, so I dared mentioning it here. (I just tried to explain the split brain bit, but I can't put it in words well enough, so I had to drop it.)
What is it that is actually felt behind and around the body?
Actually felt are sensations like tingling on the back of the head and upper body, but those are fleeting. They don't stand up to scrutiny.
Can anything else be felt other than sensations?
Nothing else can be felt.
please go to this FEELING, not to the label ‘awareness’, but to the actual feeling.
Is there an ACTUAL sensation behind and around the body?
What is actually there?
No actual sensations. When approached and looked at they reveal themselves as nothing really.
“but mostly it's experienced as sort of a watching thought or presence” – What is the AE of presence?
The AE of presence is a thought, almost like an empty container, that seems to be there always.
How a ‘watching thought’ is experienced?
It's not experienced. If anything, it is the lack of experience, or failure to experience, yet its presence is noticed like a void that awaits filling.
Can a thought watch?
No, but watching can be thought of.
How awareness as such is experienced?
It is not experienced. It is at the imagined other side or receiving end of what is being experienced, say a pure sensation in the body, and creates an association with it, only to dissipate when looked at.
Do you say that there is a witness felt?
A looker felt?
A watcher felt?
Awareness felt?
Watching thought is felt?
Presence is felt?
No. None of these are really felt.
What is it that is actually felt with these labels?
Actually felt is the sensation these labels focus on, not the looking or presence itself. That's the illusion. But it feels as if it was real until it is focused on.
I often use capital letters or sometimes bolds or even colors to emphasise the importance of certain sentences or words.

That's been clear to me. There is much warmth coming through every your word of guidance, whatever its shape or color.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:18 am

Hi Ben,
Split mind is a label I use to describe an inability to untighten or let go of a gripping thought that seems to be always on in the background, as if watching over everything else. 'Split' because of that subject/object illusion it brings about. Unlike other thoughts that come and go, this one is experienced as always there, firmly anchored, very annoying. Often bundled with sensations of pressure and sound in the head, or with sight and other sensations, or with emotions. This is just a story, thought interpretation, but it also manifests in sensations, so I dared mentioning it here.
Thank you for explaining this. What described is the illusion of the self. :) and as you have noticed, it seems real, since there is a sensation that is labelled as the me/watcher.
V: What is it that is actually felt behind and around the body?
B: Actually felt are sensations like tingling on the back of the head and upper body, but those are fleeting. They don't stand up to scrutiny.
Very good. Just look at this again and again to see that all that is happening are just some sensations. You can even label it as ‘sensation’. To call things on their ‘real’ name. :)
V: “but mostly it's experienced as sort of a watching thought or presence” – What is the AE of presence?
B: The AE of presence is a thought, almost like an empty container, that seems to be there always.
Try to pin down this ‘empty container that seems to be there always’.

Find its exact location. Where is it?
What size is it?
What shape?

And how is it known that it’s a container?
If it’s a container, then it has to have borders. Where are the borders?
What are the borders made of?

And how is it known that this container is empty?
And how is it known that it’s always there?
V: How a ‘watching thought’ is experienced?
B: It's not experienced. If anything, it is the lack of experience, or failure to experience, yet its presence is noticed like a void that awaits filling.
How is it known that the ‘watching thought’ is the lack of experience?
How can it be known in experience that something is lacking?
How can the absence of something be experienced?

“Yet its presence is noticed LIKE a void that awaits filling” – Can you see that what follows after the word ‘like’ is just an analogy?

How the presence of this void is actually experienced? – please try to describe it to me in detail
V: How awareness as such is experienced?
B: It is not experienced. It is at the imagined other side or receiving end of what is being experien
ced, say a pure sensation in the body, and creates an association with it, only to dissipate when looked at.
Great! Look at this over and over again. Look as often as you can, and see that this is just a plain mislabelled sensation. Nothing more.
V: What is it that is actually felt with these labels?
B: Actually felt is the sensation these labels focus on, not the looking or presence itself. That's the illusion. But it feels as if it was real until it is focused on.
Very good. Please spend the following days of focusing on this and seeing and feeling that there is nothing there other than a plain sensation. Do as many times during the day as you can remember.
Let me know how it goes.
That's been clear to me. There is much warmth coming through every your word of guidance, whatever its shape or color
I’m glad that you are not offended by my caps :)

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