direct experience over intellectual understanding

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:22 am

Hi Kelly,
I think I’m trying to understand the no-thing in deep sleep for instance, versus the sudden appearance of aware-experiencing that appears in line with past thoughts and experiencing. The linear nature of it is still brining about some identification.
You are trying to figure this out by thinking again :)

So now we go back to examining thoughts. Since the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts.

I give you the same questions about thoughts I gave you before. Please LOOK very carefully with each one.

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

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?


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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:26 am

Hi Vivien,

Yes, it’s definitely the thoughts that are tripping me up again, even though it feels like something is shifting.
Where do thoughts come from?
They just appear. I can’t really even say that they appear out of nothing because nothing is something. They’re just suddenly known.
Where are they going?
Just as they appear they disappear. I see that they only exist along with the knowing of them. So when a thought leaves it really never even existed. A memory of a thought would just be a new thought.
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
No, because any idea if a me stopping a thought is just another thought. Plus, the deeper I look, the more I’m seeing that thoughts are fully formed when they appear- kind of like a full story or full image. A thought can’t be half-formed or interrupted.
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
No, because the prediction is the thought. There’s no doer that can prepare a thought. I’ve been playing around with “purposefully” thinking a specific thought- and yet I see that is empty as well because who chose it on purpose? It still just appeared.
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Im really trying to look but I’m struggling with this one a bit. If thoughts about a negative event appears, there are then thoughts that say- I don’t want to think about this. I then can “push it away” somehow and not think of it again- more positive thoughts can come after. I can’t quite see this for what it is. It seems like there really is no such thing as the unconscious- where a negative thought would be lurking- because if something isn’t known- it isn’t something. But I’m getting too mental with this now.
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
No, I really can’t find any thinker. I can see that the thinker, thinking and the thoughts are all the same- all just known thought forms.
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
My thoughts want to say it’s me, it’s this body/mind totality. But the only direct experience of that is thoughts, or sensory perceptions. I can’t find anything solid and stable that is doing the thinking.
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’

You ask me to look and I start looking. Who is it that chose to look? I can’t find a looker but the looking is happening. How can direction be followed? I can’t quite see this.
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
No it does not appear in experience.
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
yes, that’s what makes sense in experience- that the I that thinks is a really subtle thought.
Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?
Thinking and a thought are he same thing, so there are just thoughts appearing- not really being thought.
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
. No because to prevent a thought means that it already is a thought. The “I” thought seems like a really pervasive repetitive thought.

My thoughts really fight me on these questions :/ I tried to stay with the seeing rather than the content but sometimes the line blurs and it’s difficult. Hopefully you can help me find more clarity here. Thanks Vivien!

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:51 am

Hi Kelly,
Plus, the deeper I look, the more I’m seeing that thoughts are fully formed when they appear- kind of like a full story or full image. A thought can’t be half-formed or interrupted.
Great looking.
Just as they appear they disappear. I see that they only exist along with the knowing of them. So when a thought leaves it really never even existed. A memory of a thought would just be a new thought.
Yes!
No, because the prediction is the thought. There’s no doer that can prepare a thought. I’ve been playing around with “purposefully” thinking a specific thought- and yet I see that is empty as well because who chose it on purpose? It still just appeared.
Yes, but let’s dig a bit deeper here.

How do you know what thought is going to appear next? Can you be aware of what thought is going to appear, without it appearing to be aware of?
V: Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
K: Im really trying to look but I’m struggling with this one a bit. If thoughts about a negative event appears, there are then thoughts that say- I don’t want to think about this. I then can “push it away” somehow and not think of it again- more positive thoughts can come after. I can’t quite see this for what it is. It seems like there really is no such thing as the unconscious- where a negative thought would be lurking- because if something isn’t known- it isn’t something. But I’m getting too mental with this now.
What is doing the pushing away of the negative thought?
How is THE PUSHING itself is done?

How is the pushing away of the negative thought actually experienced?
What is the AE of ‘pushing away’?

When the negative thought is gone, what makes the positive thought to appear?
What is it that decides that this thought is negative so I want a positive instead?
You ask me to look and I start looking. Who is it that chose to look? I can’t find a looker but the looking is happening. How can direction be followed? I can’t quite see this.
Let’s take a look at the idea that there is a someone who is focusing attention.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Is there anything moving attention, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er?


Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?


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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:59 pm

How do you know what thought is going to appear next? Can you be aware of what thought is going to appear, without it appearing to be aware of?
No, I can’t know what thought is going to appear next without it already appearing. I see this very clearly when I just let my mind drift. What I can’t quite see through is how a thought can appear that I want to go through the steps of brushing my teeth, for instance. Thoughts then appear in turn- take out toothbrush and toothpaste, put toothpaste in toothbrush, turn on water, etc, etc. Yes, all these thoughts are still just appearing but how are they connected? I keep getting stuck on the linear progression of thoughts. Is “brushing your teeth” just one whole thought that includes the whole process and then each thought is within the process, kind of like a thought within a thought? That sounds like I’m overthinking it. I just can’t see how thoughts can follow one another in a line of thought- even though “a line of thought” is still just another thought conception. But the progression is how understanding and communication happen between apparent people. Hmmm...
What is doing the pushing away of the negative thought?
How is THE PUSHING itself is done?
when I really looked at this further I could see that the pushing is also a thought itself. No pushing is done but it’s that whole linear progression again!
How is the pushing away of the negative thought actually experienced?
What is the AE of ‘pushing away’?
There’s no experience of it other than the thought of it.
When the negative thought is gone, what makes the positive thought appear?
The positive thought just appears, but again, why the progression? Wouldn’t it be just as likely that another negative thought would appear?
What is it that decides that this thought is negative so I want a positive instead?
That is a good point. Defining what’s positive and what’s negative is also just a thought. So there really is no difference in them in the sense that they’re simply just thoughts. So that applies to the last question too- a positive thought only seems to appear because another thought says it’s positive.
Is there anything moving attention, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er?
I can see that anything I seem to “choose” to focus on is a random thought. So there isn’t a focuser doing it.
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds. Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?
The movement just happens. What struck me is your question whether thought is in control of attention- yes! A thought appears which implies attention. So yes, focusing happens as a natural part of a thought appearing. It’s interesting how a thought can appear hazy- as if it’s kind of in the back of my mind and not given full attention- but really the haziness is just part of the thought. I’m really seeing how thoughts are so efficient at creating illusion!

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:38 am

Hi Kelly,
What I can’t quite see through is how a thought can appear that I want to go through the steps of brushing my teeth, for instance. Thoughts then appear in turn- take out toothbrush and toothpaste, put toothpaste in toothbrush, turn on water, etc, etc. Yes, all these thoughts are still just appearing but how are they connected?
How do you know that they are connected without another thought saying that they are connected?

Thought 1: Take out toothbrush
Thought 2: Take out toothpaste
Thought 3: put toothpaste on toothbrush
Thought 4: Turn water on
Thought 5: Start brushing my teeth
Thought 6: The previous thoughts are all connected.

Go through these thoughts one-by-one, and investigate by LOOKING if there is anything that is actually linking them.

Can you find an ACTUAL link or connection between them?

If thought 6 would never arise would there be any knowledge about those thoughts being connected?
Does thought 6 know anything about thought 1 or thought 2?

Does thought 6 sees or knows about a hidden connection between thought 1 and 5?

Is there REALLY a connection between those thoughts or only thoughts suggest so?
I just can’t see how thoughts can follow one another in a line of thought- even though “a line of thought” is still just another thought conception.
Yes, there is NO such thing as a line of thought.

Can there be more than one thought at a time?

If cannot, how is it known that there is such thing as a line of thought or connection between thoughts?
when I really looked at this further I could see that the pushing is also a thought itself. No pushing is done but it’s that whole linear progression again!
What is the AE of ‘linear progression’?
What is the AE of progression?
V: When the negative thought is gone, what makes the positive thought appear?
K: The positive thought just appears, but again, why the progression? Wouldn’t it be just as likely that another negative thought would appear?
Thought 1: I am afraid of spiders.
Thought 2: I don’t like to be afraid, so I will repress this thought.
Thought 3: Let’s think about the nice holiday we had last year.
Thought 4: It was so good waking on the beach and listening to the sounds of the waves.
Thought 4: Oh great, I successfully pushed away the fearful thoughts about spiders.

What made thought 3 appear? Did thought 2 do it?
Is there an ACTUAL progression between thought 1 and 2, and between 3 and 4?
The movement just happens. What struck me is your question whether thought is in control of attention- yes! A thought appears which implies attention. So yes, focusing happens as a natural part of a thought appearing.
But did the thought made focusing happen?

Is there a link (and actual link) between the thought ‘let’s focus on the breath’ and the attention moving to the breath?
Or the link is just assumed by thought?
Defining what’s positive and what’s negative is also just a thought. So there really is no difference in them in the sense that they’re simply just thoughts. So that applies to the last question too- a positive thought only seems to appear because another thought says it’s positive.
Thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

Let me know how it goes.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:34 pm

Hi Vivien,
thought 1: Take out toothbrush
Thought 2: Take out toothpaste
Thought 3: put toothpaste on toothbrush
Thought 4: Turn water on
Thought 5: Start brushing my teeth
Thought 6: The previous thoughts are all connected.

Go through these thoughts one-by-one, and investigate by LOOKING if there is anything that is actually linking them.

Can you find an ACTUAL link or connection between them?
I was still having trouble with this even when I really looked at each thought- but what I now see and can attempt to explain is that each thought is unconnected in the sense that each is based on a present circumstance- for instance, I see that toothpaste is on my toothbrush so I turn on the water. I don’t think this was the best example because brushing teeth happens so automatically and without thoughts necessarily. But even when I “think through” a math problem, each “step” is its own thought in its own right- the current step doesn’t know the beginning or end- as is defined but just another thought.
If thought 6 would never arise would there be any knowledge about those thoughts being connected?
Does thought 6 know anything about thought 1 or thought 2?
Is there REALLY a connection between those thoughts or only thoughts suggest so?
I see that the last thought is the only thought that connects the “process”. I guess thought 6 can only be exactly what it is- “the previous thoughts are all connected” because a thought can’t know anything so it just is what it is. The connection is only suggested by a thought. But since all humans can make the same connection within thoughts, like with a math problem, isn’t there some kind of mass pattern of conditioning happening but without a doer? It’s really hard to purely SEE this and not think about it.
Can there be more than one thought at a time?
If there cannot, how is it known that there is such thing as a line of thought or connection between thoughts?
no there cannot be more than one thought at a time- I realize that even if there if there is the thought, “I’m currently thinking about what I’m eating while I’m thinking about my shopping list”- it’s still just one thought. I see thinking there is a “line of thought” is only a thought itself. But honestly I don’t feel like that’s totally sinking in.
What is the AE of ‘linear progression’?
What is the AE of progression?
I see now that it’s just another tricky thought trap. There is not an actual experience of progression apart from a thought that there is.
Thought 1: I am afraid of spiders.
Thought 2: I don’t like to be afraid, so I will repress this thought.
Thought 3: Let’s think about the nice holiday we had last year.
Thought 4: It was so good waking on the beach and listening to the sounds of the waves.
Thought 4: Oh great, I successfully pushed away the fearful thoughts about spiders.

What made thought 3 appear? Did thought 2 do it?
Is there an ACTUAL progression between thought 1 and 2, and between 3 and 4?
I see that each thought is it’s own thing but there is still some kind of conditioned connection, even if the thoughts aren’t chosen. Honestly though Vivien, I can’t quite see how they’re totally random- thoughts keep trying to figure it out since I can’t totally see it. Now there are just thoughts of overwhelm....
Is there a link (an actual link) between the thought ‘let’s focus on the breath’ and the attention moving to the breath?
Or the link is just assumed by thought?
It still appears to me that if the thought appears- focus on breath- then yes, attention goes there. It’s clear to see the other way around that if attention is on breath, than thought that says I’m focusing on breath is just a commentary but I can’t see how the first instance would be disconnected or just assumed by thought.
When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?
I can’t exactly see while you call the actual experience of a though “a container”, but yes, I definitely see that a thought just as a thought, without the content, is what the AE is.
Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?
Yes, I can see this.
Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
I’ve been doing this last tonight and all today through different experiences and I see that the majority of thoughts that arise are total imagination. The rest are basically the thoughts about direct experience but typically seem to not even have any value because the experience is simply happening. It’s a scary thing to see that my entire reality is based around thoughts about it- most of which have nothing to do with what is happening. And then there’s the acknowledgment that even the “feeling that this is scary and depressing and unsettling” are just thoughts too. I have to admit that I feel like I’m stuck in a void or dead need here. For a second there I thought I was seeing the light- the AE, but now I feel so trapped in my thoughts again. I can understand that thoughts are just thoughts and the content is not reality and doesn’t need believing in, but actually living that feels so impossible...

Oy, thanks for putting up with me.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:51 am

Hi Kelly,
I was still having trouble with this even when I really looked at each thought- but what I now see and can attempt to explain is that each thought is unconnected in the sense that each is based on a present circumstance- for instance, I see that toothpaste is on my toothbrush so I turn on the water. I don’t think this was the best example because brushing teeth happens so automatically and without thoughts necessarily. But even when I “think through” a math problem, each “step” is its own thought in its own right- the current step doesn’t know the beginning or end- as is defined but just another thought.
You are trying to think yourself through this as if it were a problem to solve. You cannot get anywhere with thinking. You have to LOOK ‘behind’ or ‘under’ thoughts.

You are taking the content of thoughts as reality, instead of seeing them only as an arising phenomena.

You have to step back, and LOOK the thoughts from ‘outside’, and NOT to look ‘inside’ the thoughts. Not
to look inside meaning NOT to look at the CONTENT, but the arising thought itself. Can you see the difference?
but what I now see and can attempt to explain is that each thought is unconnected in the sense that each is based on a present circumstance- for instance, I see that toothpaste is on my toothbrush so I turn on the water.
Without an interpreting thought “that each thought is based on the present circumstance” can it be known that the thought ‘turning water on’ is ACTUALLY about the act of turning water on?
because a thought can’t know anything so it just is what it is.
Yes, so if a thought can’t know anything then why do you look at the content of thoughts, instead of investigating the arising thought as a phenomenon?
But since all humans can make the same connection within thoughts, like with a math problem, isn’t there some kind of mass pattern of conditioning happening but without a doer? It’s really hard to purely SEE this and not think about it.
You are mixing the conventional point of view with looking at AE.
There is NO AE of math problem. Math problem belongs to the realm of conventional reality. But as we talked about this before, you cannot get anywhere with using the tools (thoughts) of conventional reality.

Neuroscientist might say that there is a pattern of conditioning in the brain. But they can only find a brain. They cannot see the process of conditioned patterns, they can only measure electric currents between neurons. They cannot see math problems being solved. They only can infer it. When they observe a functioning brain, they cannot see thoughts directly. The can only measure electric currents in Volts by machines (not even directly), and they just make a conclusion that those currents are thoughts. But they cannot see or experience the thoughts directly. They just infer it. But they cannot even find a memory. There isn’t a specific spot or slot in the brain where memories are stored. They cannot even find decision. Actually science has already discovered that there is no such thing as free will, that a self is making decisions.

Please re-read my comments about the baby growing up, on 1 of July to see why you have to leave alone thoughts and observe the AE. Let me know what comes up after re-reading a few times.

I see that each thought is it’s own thing but there is still some kind of conditioned connection, even if the thoughts aren’t chosen. Honestly though Vivien, I can’t quite see how they’re totally random
‘Conditioned connection’ is just a speculation. It’s just the content of thoughts.

There is ZERO AE of ‘conditioned reaction’.
Just as there is ZERO AE of thoughts being random.

Both random or conditioned reactions CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED.
Both of them are just thought speculations, content of thoughts.

Sit down, close your eyes, and LOOK, IGNORE EVERYTHING thoughts has to say about the matter.

Can you SEE / EXPEREINCE ‘conditioned reactions’?
Or is there an experience of thought only?

Can you SEE / EXPEREINCE ‘randomness’?
Or there is an experience of thought only?

- thoughts keep trying to figure it out since I can’t totally see it. Now there are just thoughts of overwhelm....
Of course you are overwhelmed! You are trying to do an impossible task! You are trying to solve it by thinking. It’s simply not possible. Of course you are overwhelmed… it would be surprising if you weren’t by wanting to solve the insolvable…
It still appears to me that if the thought appears- focus on breath- then yes, attention goes there. It’s clear to see the other way around that if attention is on breath, than thought that says I’m focusing on breath is just a commentary but I can’t see how the first instance would be disconnected or just assumed by thought.
Because you are NOT LOOKING for finding an ACTUAL connection between thoughts, but rather you are THINKING ABOUT the connection.

Thoughts ‘suggest’ that there is a connection between thoughts. But when you LOOK at EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY, can you find an ACTUAL link, connection, conditioning between thoughts?

Take two thoughts:
Thought 1: Take out toothbrush
Thought 2: Take out toothpaste

Repeat these thoughts internally in a loop. As you repeat them, LOOK for the gap between them.

Can you SEE an ACTUAL link in the gap between these thoughts? Not just an assumed one, but an actual one, can you?
I can’t exactly see while you call the actual experience of a though “a container”, but yes, I definitely see that a thought just as a thought, without the content, is what the AE is.
I labelled it as a container, just to emphasize the distinction between thought as an arising phenomenon and what the thought is about, the content.
For a second there I thought I was seeing the light- the AE, but now I feel so trapped in my thoughts again. I can understand that thoughts are just thoughts and the content is not reality and doesn’t need believing in, but actually living that feels so impossible...
There is a hidden expectation here. We are NOT aiming to change our day-to-day experience with constantly (24/7) seeing through the contents of thoughts. We are only investigating, if thoughts are in line with AE or not. But we are not wanting to remove this conceptual overlay. It doesn’t have to go away. It’s enough to see it as an overlay when LOOKING happens. And not 24/7.

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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:44 am

Hi Vivien,

Ah, I know. I’m trying way to too hard and getting caught in thought loops. This is what has been happening for years. The thought content has a way of posing as if it’s not content. But I don’t want to keep being deceived. I’m going to keep it simple and really try to just look at the pure AE this time.
You have to step back, and LOOK at the thoughts from ‘outside’, and NOT to look ‘inside’ the thoughts. Not to look inside meaning NOT to look at the CONTENT, but the arising thought itself. Can you see the difference?
Yes, I see the difference. I just really have to focus on the structure of appearance so I don’t keep getting caught up in subtle thoughts.
Without an interpreting thought “that each thought is based on the present circumstance” can it be known that the thought ‘turning water on’ is ACTUALLY about the act of turning water on?
When I JUST look at the thought “turning water on”, no nothing can be known at all. Because to “know” anything about what the thought was connected to or what it meant would infer other thoughts. So I actually see that an individual thought is completely empty and actually meaningless.
Yes, so if a thought can’t know anything then why do you look at the content of thoughts, instead of investigating the arising thought as a phenomenon?
I tend to get tripped up, thinking that I’m investigating it as phenomenon when it’s really just thoughts saying that. I’m really striving to see this clearly now.
Please re-read my comments about the baby growing up, on 1 of July to see why you have to leave alone thoughts and observe the AE. Let me know what comes up after re-reading a few times.

“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.”
Everything you said makes total sense and it really hits home because it’s exactly my experience. I recall my freedom and love for life as a child and now I actually have a 2 year old son who’s not quite talking yet and instead of connecting in that unspoken way, my main state of being is frustration. I think it’s a strange form of jealousy because I see how “pink tinted” my world now is. You said, “thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.” This is completely true, and it’s the belief in their reality that causes so much pain and inability to see AE. It’s crazy how literally everything we’re taught growing up is conceptualized and “of the mind”. It’s really like Plato’s cave in the sense that it’s hard to even recognize we’re in chains. But yes, like you said- nothing is actually wrong with the thoughts, what needs to be seen is what’s going on behind the scenes. I’m re-focusing my intent once again...
Can you SEE / EXPEREINCE ‘conditioned reactions’?
Or is there an experience of thought only?

Can you SEE / EXPEREINCE ‘randomness’?
Or there is an experience of thought only?
I totally see what you mean now. ANY interpretation is just another thought. Conditioned reactions, patterns, lines of thought and randomness cannot be experienced whatsoever. They can only exist as thoughts and even as a thought, they cannot be “experienced” as what they claim. The experience of the thought, “this is a conditioned reaction”, is only the experience of a thought, nothing else- there is no experience of a conditioned reaction.
Thoughts ‘suggest’ that there is a connection between thoughts. But when you LOOK at EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY, can you find an ACTUAL link, connection, conditioning between thoughts?
No, I can’t find any of these things in direct experience. Nothing can exist between thoughts.
Take two thoughts:
Thought 1: Take out toothbrush
Thought 2: Take out toothpaste

Repeat these thoughts internally in a loop. As you repeat them, LOOK for the gap between them.

Can you SEE an ACTUAL link in the gap between these thoughts? Not just an assumed one, but an actual one, can you?
No, I can’t see any actual link. I now acknowledge that these links that I thought arose are only more thoughts, like “ this is a progression”, “these are steps”, “this is a conditioned pattern”. Within the gap between those two thoughts there is nothing. Both just appear.
We are NOT aiming to change our day-to-day experience with constantly (24/7) seeing through the contents of thoughts. We are only investigating, if thoughts are in line with AE or not. But we are not wanting to remove this conceptual overlay. It doesn’t have to go away. It’s enough to see it as an overlay when LOOKING happens. And not 24/7.
I get this, I do. I don’t expect any 24/7 shifts to happen or the overlays to suddenly disappear. But when I get close to actually seeing the nonreality of the self, I can feel a foundation begin to start shaking loose, so to have any kind of shift to be able to see through this is priceless because right now it’s so easy for me to keep getting deluded by thought content. But I know seeing through the self is just the beginning.

So right now I’m really starting to see that thoughts have no substance to them. They cannot know, or do, or believe anything, which makes them inherently empty. I’m going to continue to look at this tonight. Thanks for your perseverance in guiding me back to reality :)

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:34 am

Hi Kelly,
I totally see what you mean now. ANY interpretation is just another thought. Conditioned reactions, patterns, lines of thought and randomness cannot be experienced whatsoever. They can only exist as thoughts and even as a thought, they cannot be “experienced” as what they claim. The experience of the thought, “this is a conditioned reaction”, is only the experience of a thought, nothing else- there is no experience of a conditioned reaction.
Exactly!
But when I get close to actually seeing the nonreality of the self, I can feel a foundation begin to start shaking loose, so to have any kind of shift to be able to see through this is priceless because right now it’s so easy for me to keep getting deluded by thought content.
The more often you look, the easier it gets.
So right now I’m really starting to see that thoughts have no substance to them. They cannot know, or do, or believe anything, which makes them inherently empty.
Great!

Let’s look at thought labels a bit more closely.

Let’s say there is a sensation present. The sensation itself.
Then a thought labels it as ‘sensation’.

Now, the thought label ‘sensation’ is real as an arising thought (as a phenomenon), it’s there but the ‘content’ (sensation) is not there. The content of the label cannot be felt. It only POINTS TO the actual sensation itself.

So although certain thoughts POINT TO AE, still the content of those labels are still not ‘real’, not happening, since the content of the label ‘sensation’ cannot be felt/experienced. This label can be experienced only as a thought.
Can you see the difference?

Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ or feel the word 'hot'. Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thoughts. 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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:55 am

Hi Vivien,
So although certain thoughts POINT TO AE, still the content of those labels are still not ‘real’, not happening, since the content of the label ‘sensation’ cannot be felt/experienced. This label can be experienced only as a thought.
Can you see the difference?
Yes, I see the difference- which again points to why positive and negative thoughts, or painful or non painful sensations are just thought labels as well. Without any labels, nothing can actually be defined in any way, or separated from what is. There can’t be any differentiation in experience. But to trulyyy realize that seems like it is the crux of all this. I feel like I can see it, but maybe I can’t completely see it.
Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ or feel the word 'hot'. Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thoughts. Can you see this?
Yes, I see this. And I see how thoughts pointing to AE are not AE, but then the thoughts about thoughts are even further from AE. And identification with those thoughts is whats happening most of the time! For instance, I stub my toe and there is an intense sensation, I immediately label it pain, and then I’ll think about the last time I stubbed my toe and broke it, blah blah on and on and suddenly I’ll be lost in thoughts about something SO far away from AE. I see this happening in my thoughts all the time. And yet, I guess most of the time I only realize it after I’m suddenly so far away from what happened- there was likely never even full awareness of what actually happened. The task is not to eliminate those labeling wandering thoughts but to see through their assumed reality while they’re happening, right?

But then again, there’s the question, who’s going to see through those thoughts? Who is doing all this self inquiry right now? Yes, it’s just happening but there feels like such purpose to all this. Sorry for intellectualizing here but I can’t help but think of some nonduality teachers who say there is nothing that “the self” can do to see through itself. So I just wonder, what is really happening here? I feel a foundation starting to shake at times but that’s also just another thought. I know you’re going to say I’m going into too much conceptualizing about this ha. Trust the process.... back to my actual experience... these are just arising thoughts about thoughts... they don’t actually know anything. It’s not about the content. They are just happening... Experience is just happening. Ah, but still this desperate “wanting to know”!

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:23 am

Hi Kelly,
Yes, I see the difference- which again points to why positive and negative thoughts, or painful or non painful sensations are just thought labels as well. Without any labels, nothing can actually be defined in any way, or separated from what is. There can’t be any differentiation in experience.
Yes, exactly.
But to trulyyy realize that seems like it is the crux of all this. I feel like I can see it, but maybe I can’t completely see it.
You described it very well. What makes you THINK that you cannot completely see it?
Do you expect your perception of things to change and always see everything clearly without ever believing in the conceptual overlay again? Or why?
I see this happening in my thoughts all the time. And yet, I guess most of the time I only realize it after I’m suddenly so far away from what happened- there was likely never even full awareness of what actually happened. The task is not to eliminate those labeling wandering thoughts but to see through their assumed reality while they’re happening, right?
Definitely NOT to eliminate those labelling thoughts.
And yes to seeing through their assumed reality WHEN LOOKING.
But don’t expect it to happen automatically without looking. At least not at the beginning. It requires lots and lots of looking for GRADUALLY see through them without intentionally looking. It takes to for looking to be a habit.
But then again, there’s the question, who’s going to see through those thoughts? Who is doing all this self inquiry right now? Yes, it’s just happening but there feels like such purpose to all this.
How does purpose FEELS LIKE?
Can purpose to this be felt at all, or only THOUGHTS TALK about it?
Is there such thing as purpose outside the realm of thoughts?
Sorry for intellectualizing here but I can’t help but think of some nonduality teachers who say there is nothing that “the self” can do to see through itself
.
It doesn’t matter at all what any teacher or I say to you.
The only thing that matters what you can see clearly for yourself.

And of course the self cannot see through itself, since the SELF IS NOT THERE.

How could an illusion see through itself?
How could a non-existent thing recognise that it’s not there?
Ah, but still this desperate “wanting to know”!
Look for the one that is WANTING TO KNOW.

Where is this wanter?
Is there a wanter at all?

Is there REALLY wanting going on?
Is there a YOU wanting?
Is there an entity or an agency wanting?
Is there a thought wanting?
What is it that is wanting?
Is there anything at all?
Or only thoughts talk ABOUT a wanter?

And what is the AE of 'desperate wanting'?
How wanting itself is experienced?
But then again, there’s the question, who’s going to see through those thoughts? Who is doing all this self inquiry right now?
Your questions are ‘faulty’ since the questions themselves assumes that THERE MUST BE SOMEONE, a WHO, who is seeing through thoughts and doing self-inquiry.

So the question ASSUMES a SEER and a DOER.

But is there a SEER at all?
And is there anything doing the self-inquiry?

When a thought appear, is there anything in the background what makes that thought appear?
If no, then why assuming that when the thoughts are about self-inquiry then there is a who behind the scenes doing it?

What is the difference between self-inquiry thoughts and general thoughts?


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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 am

Hi Vivien,
“Yes, I see the difference- which again points to why positive and negative thoughts, or painful or non painful sensations are just thought labels as well. Without any labels, nothing can actually be defined in any way, or separated from what is. There can’t be any differentiation in experience. But to trulyyy realize that seems like it is the crux of all this. I feel like I can see it, but maybe I can’t completely see it.”

You described it very well. What makes you THINK that you cannot completely see it?
Do you expect your perception of things to change and always see everything clearly without ever believing in the conceptual overlay again? Or why?
It’s still often really challenging to see past my thoughts- especially the subtle thought of being the witness- so I often still feel like I’m separate from experience. Even though I see what we’re taking about here, it still feels like an intellectual knowing, rather than embodied.

I don’t expect my perception to totally change but I guess that I am expecting the “seeing through the veil” to be more expansive in some sense. Seeing that thought labels are the means by which duality is created allows me to see through the duality when I look, but I can’t quite SEE the oneness, if that makes any sense.
“But then again, there’s the question, who’s going to see through those thoughts? Who is doing all this self inquiry right now? Yes, it’s just happening but there feels like such purpose to all this.”

How does purpose FEELS LIKE?
Can purpose to this be felt at all, or only THOUGHTS TALK about it?
Is there such thing as purpose outside the realm of thoughts?
Yes, mainly purpose is just another thought- but it feels like in some way there’s a physical drive towards it too- although I guess that’s just a subtle sensation and an accompanying thought. Purpose is definitely a concept- and a big one at that. I see how as humans we all want to be comforted in knowing that we have a specific purpose within a larger grand scheme of purpose. Crazy deluded concepts to make us feel safe and that life is worth living. It’s a hard one to let go of!
And of course the self cannot see through itself, since the SELF IS NOT THERE.
How could an illusion see through itself?
How could a non-existent thing recognise that it’s not there?
I didn’t quite mean the self seeing through the self, since yeah that is a contradiction- more like this mind/body (as life happening) seeing through the illusion. Seeing through the illusion of the self still implies two separate things (even if the self if not real)- the seeing and the illusion. It’s hard to see that as one happening.

”Ah, but still this desperate “wanting to know”!”

Look for the one that is WANTING TO KNOW.

Where is this wanter?
Is there a wanter at all?

Is there REALLY wanting going on?
Is there a YOU wanting?
Is there an entity or an agency wanting?
Is there a thought wanting?
What is it that is wanting?
Is there anything at all?
Or only thoughts talk ABOUT a wanter?

And what is the AE of 'desperate wanting'?
How wanting itself is experienced?
Ah, you’re so good at catching these misconceptions! I cannot find a wanter. All I can find are repeated thoughts that keep expressing a wanting. But what is the wanting? It can’t be anything because it’s just empty thoughts that keep creating the illusion of endless wanting.
“But then again, there’s the question, who’s going to see through those thoughts? Who is doing all this self inquiry right now?”

Your questions are ‘faulty’ since the questions themselves assumes that THERE MUST BE SOMEONE, a WHO, who is seeing through thoughts and doing self-inquiry.

So the question ASSUMES a SEER and a DOER.

But is there a SEER at all?
And is there anything doing the self-inquiry?
I can’t see an entity inside me being a seer or doer. But I perceive seeing and doing. But when that is broken down further I see thoughts about seeing and doing which are just thoughts that can’t actually see or do.
When a thought appears, is there anything in the background that makes that thought appear?
If no, then why assuming that when the thoughts are about self-inquiry then there is a who behind the scenes doing it?

What is the difference between self-inquiry thoughts and general thoughts?
Ah, it’s a crazy thing to really see that all thoughts are just thoughts! So thoughts appearing, no matter how purposeful or important or directed they seem, are just more thoughts... and more thoughts about thoughts. I do see this! And yet my thoughts are fighting tooth and nail against it! For decades I’ve been taught to trust my experience through thoughts and rationalizing. This is turning everything on it’s head! So I guess I actually do see the nonreality of the self- it’s just the thoughts that keep trying to convince me otherwise- kind of like phantoms. It’s challenging to stay with the looking, or to even to remember to look when I’m caught in a strong emotion. But I do see how the illusion of the doer is just created by endless thoughts!

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:41 am

Hi Kelly,
It’s still often really challenging to see past my thoughts- especially the subtle thought of being the witness- so I often still feel like I’m separate from experience. Even though I see what we’re taking about here, it still feels like an intellectual knowing, rather than embodied.
Here is an expectation, although you might not see it that way. You expect for the illusion of the witness to go away. You expect that your experience changes somehow, and the perception of witness will stop appearing. But it won’t for a long time. Just because the witness is seen through, it doesn’t mean that it will stop appearing. No. And even this appearance can be taken as reality, however upon EACH LOOKING it can be seen that there is nothing behind the notion of witness. But it doesn’t mean that the witness won’t appear in the next moment.
intellectual knowing, rather than embodied.
The notion of embodiment is a very popular view or expectation, but what does embodiment actually mean?
It means different things for everyone.

So what do you expect with the notion of embodiment?
What does seeing through the self has to do with the body (since the word embodiment implies that something will change at the level of the body)?

So what do you expect what would change in the body?
I don’t expect my perception to totally change but I guess that I am expecting the “seeing through the veil” to be more expansive in some sense.
To be more expansive? What does ‘to be more expansive’ even mean?
What would be more expanded? The body? Do you want to gain some weight? :)
Or the sensations? Or maybe more expanded thoughts? Or colors?

Seeing that thought labels are the means by which duality is created allows me to see through the duality when I look, but I can’t quite SEE the oneness, if that makes any sense.
The word ‘oneness’ is another popular concept in spiritual circles.
And it could mean very different things for each of us.

So what is your definition of oneness?
What would be one with what?
What is there that could be one with something else?
And what is this something else that you could be one with?

Do you expect that some perceptions would change to show oneness?
What would change? Color? Sensation? Thoughts? What exactly?

How the experience of oneness would show up?
How would oneness feel like and look like?

Can oneness be experienced?
Can duality be experienced?
Are there such things as oneness or duality outside of the content of thoughts?
Yes, mainly purpose is just another thought- but it feels like in some way there’s a physical drive towards it too- although I guess that’s just a subtle sensation and an accompanying thought. Purpose is definitely a concept- and a big one at that.
If there is a physical drive towards purpose, then find that physical drive.
How is this ‘physical drive to purpose is ACTUALLY experienced?
Can a physical drive be experienced at all?
Can you find the physical drive itself?
Or only thoughts talk about a physical drive?
I see how as humans we all want to be comforted in knowing that we have a specific purpose within a larger grand scheme of purpose. Crazy deluded concepts to make us feel safe and that life is worth living. It’s a hard one to let go of!
Some people have this belief/idea, some don’t. For example, I don’t have it.
Finding purpose in life in not innate in the human organism. It’s a cultural, conditioned phenomenon. It’s just learned from others as a norm. So we take on beliefs form the outside world, and then we forget that those thoughts or beliefs are never were owns.
Ah, you’re so good at catching these misconceptions! I cannot find a wanter. All I can find are repeated thoughts that keep expressing a wanting. But what is the wanting? It can’t be anything because it’s just empty thoughts that keep creating the illusion of endless wanting.
It’s very good that you can see this. This is very important. So don’t forget about this. We are almost constantly torn by thoughts about wanting and not wanting this or that. And we believe that there is an actual want or not want behind these words which forces us to react. But as you’ve just discovered, these are only empty words, there is nothing behind them.
I can’t see an entity inside me being a seer or doer. But I perceive seeing and doing. But when that is broken down further I see thoughts about seeing and doing which are just thoughts that can’t actually see or do.
Good. And what about the ‘I’ in the above sentences?
What is it that can’t see an entity inside itself?
What is that perceives seeing and doing?
What is it that sees thoughts about seeing and doing?


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
Free2K
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:06 pm

Here is an expectation, although you might not see it that way. You expect for the illusion of the witness to go away. You expect that your experience changes somehow, and the perception of witness will stop appearing. But it won’t for a long time. Just because the witness is seen through, it doesn’t mean that it will stop appearing. No. And even this appearance can be taken as reality, however upon EACH LOOKING it can be seen that there is nothing behind the notion of witness. But it doesn’t mean that the witness won’t appear in the next moment.
I see what you’re saying, and it makes sense. I spent time today really intently looking at the witness and it’s just that these thoughts of being the seer/doer are SO pervasive. So there has to be this constant effort to see through the thoughts. And yeah, there isn’t a seeing through the thoughts all together, in any sense. When there is remembering to look, then there is the looking and seeing through. I guess it is my expectation that the “shift” would be a dropping away of the witness and a merging into experience- but I see that even that is a contradiction.
So what do you expect with the notion of embodiment?
What does seeing through the self has to do with the body (since the word embodiment implies that something will change at the level of the body)? So what do you expect what would change in the body?
I guess its another expectation based on hearing from others that there is a relaxation within the body once the separate self is seen through. Nothing at all has changed, but maybe it’s a relaxation that’s felt more long term as the looking continues to pervade experience.
To be more expansive? What does ‘to be more expansive’ even mean?
What would be more expanded? The body? Do you want to gain some weight? :)
Or the sensations? Or maybe more expanded thoughts? Or colors?
Haha not expansion in a literal sense. More like expansion in terms of identification. That I would stop purely identifying with my body/mind and see that my body mind is just an appearance like everything else. But I guess that’s another expectation based on things I’ve heard.
So what is your definition of oneness?
What would be one with what?
What is there that could be one with something else?
And what is this something else that you could be one with?
its kind of impossible to conceptualize because I know that there is only one happening. There can’t be anything outside of this. Even my doubts and questioning and imaginary self are all part of the oneness. Nothing can be one with something else because that implies two. And yet the thoughts that appear so constantly are so acutely positioned against this so I keep getting lost again and again. I think because it’s especially hard to see that experience is self-aware. Even though I can’t find any outside entity.
Do you expect that some perceptions would change to show oneness?
What would change? Color? Sensation? Thoughts? What exactly?
How the experience of oneness would show up?
How would oneness feel like and look like?
I imagine that a shift in realizing oneness would feel more like being in a state of flow with what is. An ability to accept absolutely everything that appears- and in that there’s no one doing the accepting.
Can oneness be experienced?
Can duality be experienced?
Are there such things as oneness or duality outside of the content of thoughts?
No, it’s true, it’s definitely all thought! But there’s still this happening that takes place that allows a seeing through of thoughts- or a decreased focus on the content. Because without that the oneness cannot know itself.
How is this ‘physical drive to purpose is ACTUALLY experienced?
Can a physical drive be experienced at all?
Can you find the physical drive itself?
Or only thoughts talk about a physical drive?
It’s a combination of a sensation in the body and thoughts about it. But yes, I can see that this too is empty of an actual reality.
We are almost constantly torn by thoughts about wanting and not wanting this or that. And we believe that there is an actual want or not want behind these words which forces us to react. But as you’ve just discovered, these are only empty words, there is nothing behind them.
yes, I have to constantly remind myself of this because there has been a very firm belief in the reality of actual desire/aversion, etc. The endless thoughts giving the illusion of affirming these “feelings” also do seem to get lodged in the body as pains and tensions, which further reinforce them. But I guess the more they are seen through, the less energy goes towards these physical tensions?
“I can’t see an entity inside me being a seer or doer. But I perceive seeing and doing. But when that is broken down further I see thoughts about seeing and doing which are just thoughts that can’t actually see or do.”

Good. And what about the ‘I’ in the above sentences?
What is it that can’t see an entity inside itself?
What is that perceives seeing and doing?
What is it that sees thoughts about seeing and doing?
All I can say is that it’s experience, or life itself that is doing this seeing. But that’s still a bit of an intellectual belief because even though no entity can be found, the I thought is so persistent.

I can see how seeing through the separate self is considered just the first step because there’s so much seeing that needs to continue to make it more of a lived reality.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:22 am

Hi Kelly,
When there is remembering to look, then there is the looking and seeing through. I guess it is my expectation that the “shift” would be a dropping away of the witness and a merging into experience- but I see that even that is a contradiction.
Exactly. Expecting this would just lead to disappointment.

But, EVERY TIME when the witness shows up, just LOOK and SEE if there is really a witness there. LOOK again and again and again. Hundreds of times a day. The more you look, the easier it gets. At some point looking will happen naturally without effort.
I guess its another expectation based on hearing from others that there is a relaxation within the body once the separate self is seen through. Nothing at all has changed, but maybe it’s a relaxation that’s felt more long term as the looking continues to pervade experience.
This could happen, but usually not for a long time. Since only the core belief of being a separate self is seen through but personality won’t change, so emotions on behalf of the self will still arise. And where is a strong emotion there, there cannot be relaxation. These emotional patterns need to be seen through by lots of further looking.
More like expansion in terms of identification. That I would stop purely identifying with my body/mind and see that my body mind is just an appearance like everything else. But I guess that’s another expectation based on things I’ve heard.
Yes, it’s a huge and unrealistic expectation.
Just because the self has seen through, the illusion still can be taken as a reality (probably more often than one would expect), and the self could seem to be very real. But when it looked at closely, it’s clear that there is nothing there.

Falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggered reactions can last from minutes to hours, meaning that the self is there and believed to be real for minutes or hours while those triggered reactions are functioning.

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker. So further looking is the key.
I imagine that a shift in realizing oneness would feel more like being in a state of flow with what is.
You have lots of expectations.

Seeing through the self is NOT a STATE. It’s not a state of being in flow. States come and go, they never permanent.
Seeing through the self has nothing to do with being in a flow or not.

It’s a simple, experiential RECOGNITION that there is no self. That’s all.
An ability to accept absolutely everything that appears- and in that there’s no one doing the accepting.
Huge expectation again. The ability or the lack of ability to accept things as they are, is rooted in the personality, in emotional issues. These won’t go away just because it’s seen that there is no self doing it. These will need lots of further looking. Seeing through the self is just the first step. Just the beginning, and not the end.
Because without that the oneness cannot know itself.
Why not let go of the IDEA of oneness, and rather investigate the immediate experience?
You are still put your efforts in figuring this out intellectually, rather than looking purely what is there right here right now. You have to shift your focus from looking the content of thoughts to looking at experience directly.
K: “I can’t see an entity inside me being a seer or doer. But I perceive seeing and doing. But when that is broken down further I see thoughts about seeing and doing which are just thoughts that can’t actually see or do.”
V: Good. And what about the ‘I’ in the above sentences?
What is it that can’t see an entity inside itself?
What is that perceives seeing and doing?
What is it that sees thoughts about seeing and doing?
K: All I can say is that it’s experience, or life itself that is doing this seeing. But that’s still a bit of an intellectual belief because even though no entity can be found, the I thought is so persistent.
When I ask you a question, I NEVER ask you to think about it and analyse it, I ALWAYS ask you to LOOK again and again and again.

LOOK with every single question I give you.
These questions are pointers where to look, so you can see it for yourself.

So, now I give you the same questions, but this time LOOK with each question.
Literally SEARCH for the ‘I’ again and again and again and again……
Do everything you can to find it.
K: “I can’t see an entity inside me being a seer or doer. But I perceive seeing and doing. But when that is broken down further I see thoughts about seeing and doing which are just thoughts that can’t actually see or do.”
Good. And what about the ‘I’ in the above sentences?
What is it that can’t see an entity inside itself?
What is that perceives seeing and doing?
What is it that sees thoughts about seeing and doing?


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/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests