Looking for me

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
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:30 am

Hi Colm,
Have a look and see if you can find a witness/observer of thought. For there to be a witness would mean that there is a subject/object split, which = separation.
I guess it may be more accurate to say there is witnessing of thought. There is the label of thought claiming to be the witness, but it isn’t a choice, witnessing happens regardless.
I want you to look carefully at the following. Where does a thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? In other words, is there a dividing line between the known and the knowing, or is there just knowingknown?


If no dividing line can be found, then is there a witness/observer of thought?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
No, thoughts appeared of their own accord. If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise, but it was just happening.
And without thought, how would it be known that “If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise”?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
No, thought just happens.
Without thought, how would it be known if a thought was painful, negative or fearful, or positive for that matter?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
I don’t believe so. It seems like sometimes, this happens, but really it’s just another thought arising to interrupt the original thought. I can’t claim to be driving any of it.
Lovely, yes.
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?
I need to keep looking at this, but I can see that it happens so quickly that some thoughts are accepted and some rejected. This can give the appearance of continuity. Again though, it is clear thoughts are just appearing, so logical sequencing is most likely just another thought tying other thoughts together, that’s happening very quickly.
Nice, Colm

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

This exercise is to help you see that narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my thoughts’, and that the game played is no different to life unfolding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in and notice what the actual experience is.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how and advice about what the players should or shouldn’t be doing and how they should be playing the game - as if thought can somehow influence what is going on - as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary seems to heighten feelings, and calls for loyalty with one team or another, and expounds the importance of this choice, and further expounds the importance of the game and its outcome.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary. Just watch the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Just notice what is happening as actual experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know the commentator is talking about, (and ignore all of your own thoughts as well), and just notice the actual experience of sound.

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:55 pm

Hi Kay,
I want you to look carefully at the following. Where does a thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? In other words, is there a dividing line between the known and the knowing, or is there just knowingknown?
No, this reminds me of a previous question, there is no line, a thought is known at the same time as it appears.
If no dividing line can be found, then is there a witness/observer of thought?
Fair point. I guess I was thinking that there seems to be a screen of awareness which thoughts, etc. appears on, no awareness, no anything. However, as per the previous question, thought is known as it appears, I can see no separation between knowing and known.
And without thought, how would it be known that “If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise”?
I guess it wouldn’t.
Without thought, how would it be known if a thought was painful, negative or fearful, or positive for that matter?
Again, I guess it wouldn’t. An animal may well experience what we would label as pain, fear, joy, etc. However, I assume it would not label it as it can’t. They would just experience the feeling as it occurred.
Nice, Colm

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

This exercise is to help you see that narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my thoughts’, and that the game played is no different to life unfolding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in and notice what the actual experience is.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how and advice about what the players should or shouldn’t be doing and how they should be playing the game - as if thought can somehow influence what is going on - as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary seems to heighten feelings, and calls for loyalty with one team or another, and expounds the importance of this choice, and further expounds the importance of the game and its outcome.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary. Just watch the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Just notice what is happening as actual experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know the commentator is talking about, (and ignore all of your own thoughts as well), and just notice the actual experience of sound.

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
What was really interesting doing this, was the last part, where you said to just hear sound, to ignore what the commentator was saying. That was nearly impossible, my mind kept grabbing the words and generating meaning. I managed to flit in and out a bit to just bare sound, but it was very challenging to try and do.
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.
I didn’t really feel anything, just watching pictures or images on the screen. If it was my favorite soccer team playing a live game, I imagine I would have been itching to turn the sound on to join the drama :-)
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
No, play is happening regardless of the commentary. I have from time to time been watching a football match on TV and there is a sound malfunction and the sound stops dead. It is noticeable how the excitement of the game is lessened, just watching the play, even with a team I support. Not quite the same if I was at a live game, there would be no commentary, but drama is present in a different way through the energy of the crowd, people around talking, friends, etc.
And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
No, I guess not :-) It is a hard one to break free from though, been trying for a long time, but thoughts always come up and they get engaged with. I find it hard to imagine life without engagement with practical thoughts, but again, as per recent exercises, those practical things are likely happening anyway, but thought just jumps in and claims ownership of influence on the process.

As I sit now, reflecting on this, I am wondering how would life be lived without thought, is it possible!? Thought of course says no, it must be doing its thing, and maybe some thoughts at some times should be engaged with e.g. in a business meeting when asked a question. However, maybe that isn’t the case either, and the response would just flow in that meeting anyway, without the need for thought. Apologies, I’m straying off a bit but it came up so figured I would write it down.

Thanks again Kay,

Colm.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:52 am

Hey Colm,
I want you to look carefully at the following. Where does a thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? In other words, is there a dividing line between the known and the knowing, or is there just knowingknown?
No, this reminds me of a previous question, there is no line, a thought is known at the same time as it appears.
So is there a knowing AND a known? Can you separate them? Are they two separate things or is ‘thought and ‘knowing of thought’ two phrases that are pointing to exactly the same thing?


The belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body, as a separate item is responsible for 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc...let's start to look at that. This exercise looks at this belief and the belief that there is a KNOWN and a KNOWING of the KNOWN ie separation.

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed.
Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour? In other words is there a boundary between what is known ie colour and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?

If no dividing line can be found, then is there a witness/observer of thought?
Fair point. I guess I was thinking that there seems to be a screen of awareness which thoughts, etc. appears on, no awareness, no anything. However, as per the previous question, thought is known as it appears, I can see no separation between knowing and known.
Yep, because of the idea that there is a coloursensationsmell (me) ‘here’, but those coloursensation (objects/things) over there are not me, therefore are separate.
What is the AE of “here” and “there”? In other words, what is the ACTUAL experience, what does "here" refer to, and what does "there" refer to?
And without thought, how would it be known that “If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise”?
I guess it wouldn’t.
You guess or you actually LOOKED? Without thought how would anything be known as in knowledge ABOUT something?

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
What was really interesting doing this, was the last part, where you said to just hear sound, to ignore what the commentator was saying. That was nearly impossible, my mind kept grabbing the words and generating meaning. I managed to flit in and out a bit to just bare sound, but it was very challenging to try and do.
Wonderful! So you can see that thought immediately appears interpreting what is appearing/happening ie giving meaning to everything. This won’t stop. But it is important to see how this just happens. But if you also know that a thought is not what it says it is, it doesn’t matter when or how it ‘appears’ or what it SEEMS to be saying.
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.
I didn’t really feel anything, just watching pictures or images on the screen. If it was my favorite soccer team playing a live game, I imagine I would have been itching to turn the sound on to join the drama :-)
So redo this bit and ignore ALL of what is called ‘my thoughts’ and what did you feel when watching what was happening without the commentary and without ‘your thoughts’ commentating?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
No, play is happening regardless of the commentary. I have from time to time been watching a football match on TV and there is a sound malfunction and the sound stops dead. It is noticeable how the excitement of the game is lessened, just watching the play, even with a team I support. Not quite the same if I was at a live game, there would be no commentary, but drama is present in a different way through the energy of the crowd, people around talking, friends, etc.
Great observation. Yes, without the commentary, what is happening really has no affect…it is neutral. It is the commentary, the pitch in sound (voice), the sound the crowd makes and so on that seemingly determines how you feel. Without all of that…what is happening is simply happening and needs no story to happen.
And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
No, I guess not :-) It is a hard one to break free from though, been trying for a long time, but thoughts always come up and they get engaged with. I find it hard to imagine life without engagement with practical thoughts, but again, as per recent exercises, those practical things are likely happening anyway, but thought just jumps in and claims ownership of influence on the process.
Can anyone or anything be found that is engaging with thoughts? It may SEEM so, but when you LOOK, is it true?
Everything is running on automatic ie just happening ( as you saw when doing the sports exercise). If you watch a great movie and get sucked into a good part, then zoom out, you see it’s just a movie - though for a few minutes the focus was completely on what was going on. This is also what seems to be happening with thoughts. There seems to be engagement with thought, but this engagement with thought is also part of the story.
But when you LOOK can anything be found that is engaging with thought/thought stories, or are there stories ABOUT engagement with thoughts?

As I sit now, reflecting on this, I am wondering how would life be lived without thought, is it possible!? Thought of course says no, it must be doing its thing, and maybe some thoughts at some times should be engaged with e.g. in a business meeting when asked a question. However, maybe that isn’t the case either, and the response would just flow in that meeting anyway, without the need for thought. Apologies, I’m straying off a bit but it came up so figured I would write it down.
Here is a partial list of the beliefs involved with the above:-
1) there is a ‘you’
2) and there are others
3) and you (a person) are listening to voices…
4) …using a pair of ears
5) while you ( a person) are thinking about answers to questions…
6) using a brain...
7) ...inside your head.

So, when you did the thought exercises, were you able to determine what thoughts would appear and when? Could you bring specific thoughts to the forefront of the mind to be awared? Could you predict which thoughts were going to appear next?

Let’s look at one thing first….the idea of the head.

Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:19 pm

Hi Kay,

Many thanks for this.

I think I will need a couple of days with this, so probably Thursday morning with you before you see a reply.

Thanks again,

Colm.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:50 pm

Take longer if needed :)

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:10 pm

Thanks Kay, I will do :-)

Colm.

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:29 pm

Hi Kay,

I would like to take another couple of days with this. Aiming for Friday with me, so likely Saturday morning with you.

Thanks,

Colm.

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:46 pm

Hi Kay,
So is there a knowing AND a known? Can you separate them? Are they two separate things or is ‘thought and ‘knowing of thought’ two phrases that are pointing to exactly the same thing?
Thought and knowing of thought happen at the same time, so they look to be the same thing.
The belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body, as a separate item is responsible for 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc...let's start to look at that. This exercise looks at this belief and the belief that there is a KNOWN and a KNOWING of the KNOWN ie separation.

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed.
Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
Yes looking just at sight, if I ignore sound and sensation (breathing), there is just black, with some white every so often.
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
No, just black.
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
No, I can’t find the seer.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?
I don’t find an ‘I’ / ‘me’, just the AE of black. There seems to be a type of presence or existence here though, at least that’s how it feels.
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
I can see my mind wrestling with that one, but as I can’t find an ‘I’ / ‘me’, it is correct to say that ‘black’ just is.
Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour? In other words is there a boundary between what is known ie colour and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?
There is no dividing line. There is no end to seeing and start of colour, there is just seeing colour. I cannot find a boundary, knowing/known are one.
Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?
No, I can’t find a ‘see-er’
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
It would have to be a concept / thought.
Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
There is just the appearance of colour.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
There feels to be a presence, that I typically call ‘me’ here, that seems to be aware of colour, however, given that I can find no dividing line, it must be one and the same.
Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?
As I can find no boundary or dividing line, it must be all one.
Yep, because of the idea that there is a coloursensationsmell (me) ‘here’, but those coloursensation (objects/things) over there are not me, therefore are separate.
What is the AE of “here” and “there”? In other words, what is the ACTUAL experience, what does "here" refer to, and what does "there" refer to?
The AE is conceptual references to something closer to what seems to be my physical body, and there references to something further and apart from my physical body.
You guess or you actually LOOKED? Without thought how would anything be known as in knowledge ABOUT something?
True, with no thought or concepts, then there could be no knowledge of something.
Wonderful! So you can see that thought immediately appears interpreting what is appearing/happening ie giving meaning to everything. This won’t stop. But it is important to see how this just happens. But if you also know that a thought is not what it says it is, it doesn’t matter when or how it ‘appears’ or what it SEEMS to be saying.
Yes, this has stuck with me the last few days. I have been watching the self-generated drama and stress from thought, it’s odd to watch from this perspective. Another thing that has been coming up is a deepening of the ‘What am ‘I’ then’, using ‘I’ very loosely of course. Thought jumps up with lots of definitions about who I think I am. It pulls up memories, preferences, opinions, etc. If all of that is just happening, the question has arose, if I’m not any of that, what is all of this!? Of course, it is not lost on me that, that is once again ‘thought’ asking that question. I have fallen back into a silent space a few times with this.
So redo this bit and ignore ALL of what is called ‘my thoughts’ and what did you feel when watching what was happening without the commentary and without ‘your thoughts’ commentating?
I watched it again. Ignoring all thoughts, I felt nothing of note.
Great observation. Yes, without the commentary, what is happening really has no affect…it is neutral. It is the commentary, the pitch in sound (voice), the sound the crowd makes and so on that seemingly determines how you feel. Without all of that…what is happening is simply happening and needs no story to happen.

Thanks Kay, I found that to be a really useful metaphor re: thought being like the commentary.
Can anyone or anything be found that is engaging with thoughts? It may SEEM so, but when you LOOK, is it true?
Everything is running on automatic ie just happening ( as you saw when doing the sports exercise). If you watch a great movie and get sucked into a good part, then zoom out, you see it’s just a movie - though for a few minutes the focus was completely on what was going on. This is also what seems to be happening with thoughts. There seems to be engagement with thought, but this engagement with thought is also part of the story.
But when you LOOK can anything be found that is engaging with thought/thought stories, or are there stories ABOUT engagement with thoughts?
There are only stories. I can’t find a ‘me’ some place. It seems I have been trained in believing that there is a me for so long, it is hard to break the habit, even when I can see it. I need to keep looking at this, just to let it sink down and in more.
Here is a partial list of the beliefs involved with the above:-
1) there is a ‘you’
2) and there are others
3) and you (a person) are listening to voices…
4) …using a pair of ears
5) while you ( a person) are thinking about answers to questions…
6) using a brain...
7) ...inside your head.

So, when you did the thought exercises, were you able to determine what thoughts would appear and when? Could you bring specific thoughts to the forefront of the mind to be awared? Could you predict which thoughts were going to appear next?
No, I could no way determine what thoughts would appear and when. I cannot bring specific thoughts to the forefront, that just happens. I most certainly cannot predict what thoughts will appear next.
Let’s look at one thing first….the idea of the head.

Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
Yes, there is just pressure and thoughts about what I label head.
Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
Sensations.
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them.
There are thoughts about a head.
Without thought, how big is your head?
It can’t be known without thought.
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
No.
Without thought, does it have a location?
No.

Thanks again Kay,

Colm.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:57 am

Hello Colm,

Again, there is a lot to look at in this post. Take your time doing it and take as long as you need.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?
I don’t find an ‘I’ / ‘me’, just the AE of black. There seems to be a type of presence or existence here though, at least that’s how it feels.
“That’s how it feels”…and what is the AE of “that’s how it feels”?

Let’s explore this SENSE (feeling) of self very-very thoroughly.
Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire…

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
I can see my mind wrestling with that one, but as I can’t find an ‘I’ / ‘me’, it is correct to say that ‘black’ just is.
Wonderful! Is it the mind wrestling with this, or are there thoughts appearing that seem to be wrestling with this, and thoughts ABOUT something (mind) wrestling with this?
Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour? In other words is there a boundary between what is known ie colour and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?
There is no dividing line. There is no end to seeing and start of colour, there is just seeing colour. I cannot find a boundary, knowing/known are one.
Great! So it is clear that there is no gap for there to be a seer and the seen? In other words, there is no one seeing black…black (AE as colour) is all there is…right?
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
It would have to be a concept / thought.
Yes…so can you see that there is no experiencer of experience, that they are one and the same thing? So is it possible for there to be a subject and an object split?
Okay….then open the eyes and look around.
Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
There is just the appearance of colour.
Is the colour an appearance, or it simply IS? Does what is labelled as ‘colour’ actually appear and disappear?
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
There feels to be a presence, that I typically call ‘me’ here, that seems to be aware of colour, however, given that I can find no dividing line, it must be one and the same.
Wonderful! If there is no "seeing", then can there be anything "unseen"?
How can this appear just as it does if there is literally no see-ers?
What are the implications when there is no witness to be found - no separable awareness of any kind?

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?
As I can find no boundary or dividing line, it must be all one.
Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?
So redo this bit and ignore ALL of what is called ‘my thoughts’ and what did you feel when watching what was happening without the commentary and without ‘your thoughts’ commentating?
I watched it again. Ignoring all thoughts, I felt nothing of note.
Exactly. Without thought interpreting and dramatizing what is appearing…then everything simply IS as it appears.
There are only stories. I can’t find a ‘me’ some place. It seems I have been trained in believing that there is a me for so long, it is hard to break the habit, even when I can see it. I need to keep looking at this, just to let it sink down and in more.
Where exactly is this “me” that has “been trained in believing that there is a me”?
What is it exactly that is trying to “break habits”?
When you LOOK at that, like you looked at the commentary on the sports exercise, and you turn the commentary off…what is actually happening?

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
Yes, there is just pressure and thoughts about what I label head.
Is there something called “pressure” or is the raw experience ‘sensation” being labelled as “pressure”? Is “pressure” actually known?

Where is this “I” that is labelling a head? Is there an “I” that is labelling, or is labelling just happening?

And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them.
There are thoughts about a head.
Are there two “pressure points” How is this known?

So is it clear, that thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘head’? Can an actual head be found/known?


With eyes open, touch the top of “your head”. Can you actually see “your head”, or are there only thoughts about “my head”? How is it known that you are touching the “top of your head”?

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:49 am

Thanks Kay.

I will take some time with this as there is a lot for me to look at. I won’t set a response day now, hope that’s ok, but I will keep you posted on progress. I don’t want to rush it and I sense I am hitting things I need to spend time with.

I can see a kind of perpetual loop in that I keep referring back to an ‘I’, and how looking impacts that. It is very challenging to try and get acceptance that all of this is just happening and ‘I’ doesn’t exist let alone have an impact on what is happening. And of course, in that context, who would be doing the accepting anyway.

‘My’ mind can’t find a place where it can find steady ground to get a view on how to approach day to day life. If all this is just happening, then all the data being interpreted and meaning generated by my mind is therefore false. That brings up challenging questions on how does one approach life with that state of mind, of course again, that thinking process is irrelevant anyway as it applies to a false premise. Even this dialogue is also just happening then and has no meaning whatsoever. It’s all a very convincing drama which based on what we are talking about is meaningless and unreal anyway.

Hopefully that helps illustrate the challenge I seem to be hitting.

I’ll keep at it.

Thanks,

Colm.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:27 am

Hey Colm,
‘My’ mind can’t find a place where it can find steady ground to get a view on how to approach day to day life. If all this is just happening, then all the data being interpreted and meaning generated by my mind is therefore false. That brings up challenging questions on how does one approach life with that state of mind, of course again, that thinking process is irrelevant anyway as it applies to a false premise. Even this dialogue is also just happening then and has no meaning whatsoever. It’s all a very convincing drama which based on what we are talking about is meaningless and unreal anyway.
How about you change your perspective about this?! Instead of viewing everything as meaningless, how about viewing it as an opening...so that what is really here can be seen clearly without all the BS given it by thought? When you drop all the past meaning given to everything, it opens up a curiosity to see what actually IS, and seeing what actually IS changes perception of what life is, in a really nice way. The awesomeness of life opens up, as does seeing the miracle of life ie the dream. It becomes somewhat like what Eckharte Tolle did on the park bench for a long period of time when he had an abrupt awakening! He saw everything through different lenses and this changed his perception of what he thought was here, to what actually IS...and it's more awe inspiring and beautiful than anything thought can say about it. The meaning that thought gives life is all about purpose, action, goals, success, achievement, pleasure and pain and so on. When you let that fall away and see life for what it actually is, and how it unfolds so perfectly....then you will know that how you perceived life before was so totally limited and meaningless.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:06 am

Hi Kay,

Thanks for that, it is good to read. There is that perspective which I have tasted, and it is an opening for sure. You are right to suggest to look on it on that way, not as some kind of loss or empty and meaningless.

I suspect ‘my’ mind is just wrestling with the idea of it not being commander in chief. I sense it is caught in a room now with no doors out, there can’t be denial of what is being seen and there is possibly some recognition of that going on which is shaking things up somehow.

Trust in life, let it play out as it will, which it is doing anyway of course. Just need to sit with it all I guess.

Thanks again Kay, I am very grateful for your help with this.

Colm.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Looking for me

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:24 am

Hi Colm,
I suspect ‘my’ mind is just wrestling with the idea of it not being commander in chief. I sense it is caught in a room now with no doors out, there can’t be denial of what is being seen and there is possibly some recognition of that going on which is shaking things up somehow.
Yes, that is normal and can evoke fear and confusion, as well as a feeling of having nowhere to land. What was once familiar is no longer, and what is new hasn't quite settled...so it's like looking for somewhere safe to land, so as to take in the new lay of the land...but no landing strip can be found. There is a point reached where there is no turning back...and you have gone passed that point and this can also evoke fear and even resentment because the feeling of having no control heightens as the seeing and insights deepen that there is no 'you' as you have thought yourself to be and you have never had control over life.
Trust in life, let it play out as it will, which it is doing anyway of course. Just need to sit with it all I guess.
Yes, become the observer and just watch as life unfolds and watch what the character does. It's like watching your own personal movie without having to get caught up in the drama of it all :)
Thanks again Kay, I am very grateful for your help with this.
You are more than welcome. It can be quite discombobulating when the idea of the separate self starts to fall away...so it is great that you shared this with me.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:59 pm

Thanks Kay :-)

Colm.

User avatar
Takamine
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Looking for me

Postby Takamine » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:59 pm

Hi Kay,

I’m hoping to get a response in tomorrow, should be with you Thursday morning.

Thanks,

Colm.


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests