It’s not just about not writing about thought conclusion, but rather to SEE that:Yes. I have been looking. I can refrain from describing anything pertaining to thoughts (content).
- 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.
But can you SEE that this thought deduction is FALSE?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.
Or do you still believe in this thought deduction?
And do you believe in these thoughts stories?Yes. It's just a thought story, but one I wanted to share.
Do you still believe that there is a decider, controller, decision and control?
Do you believe what thoughts are telling?
There is not even such thing as a stream of thoughts. Can you see this?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.
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
Yes, I allow that possibility :)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.
But HOW do you know that thought contents PREDICT CORRECTLY what would happen?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.
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?