Honesty

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
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:14 am

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
The actual experience is the color red.
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
The color red is experienced, and the label “green” does not affect the experiences of the color red.
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
No, the labels do not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality. Reality is what it is regardless of labels/thought. Thought does not change experience and reality.
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
The labels suggest something other than the experience of red, but only in thought. In direct experience of the color red, nothing is suggested or altered from the direct experience (of redness) that it is. In thought, there can be thoughts about green but these thoughts do not alter the experience, they just seemingly alter the thoughts about the experienced and not/are not the experience itself (although the thoughts try to claim that they are “about” the experience).
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?
Green is just a word label on the color red. The experience of the color red is without any actual experience of greenness.
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
No, the experience of red remains the same and is not affected by the labels good and bad. The labels good and bad may result in experiencing thoughts that suggest that the experience of red is good or bad.
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?
The labels good and bad have no affect whatsoever on reality. The experience itself remains what it is, was, and always will be.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:40 am

Hey Brett,
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
The labels suggest something other than the experience of red, but only in thought. In direct experience of the color red, nothing is suggested or altered from the direct experience (of redness) that it is. In thought, there can be thoughts about green but these thoughts do not alter the experience, they just seemingly alter the thoughts about the experienced and not/are not the experience itself (although the thoughts try to claim that they are “about” the experience).
Exactly! So let’s say that the concept of ‘fear’ has appeared. When we look at AE, what is actually appearing is the AE of sensation, plus thoughts ABOUT the sensation being fear, which are AE of thought and not AE of fear. Does the label and the thoughts about the sensation change the Reality of the sensation?

In other words, does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fearful?
Does the sensation itself suggest that it knows anything about fear?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear itself?
Or is the label ‘fear’ being superimposed onto the sensation, just like the colour green is being superimposed onto the colour red?
Does the label ‘fear’ change, influence or affect experience labelled as ‘sensation’ in any way?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?
The labels good and bad have no affect whatsoever on reality. The experience itself remains what it is, was, and always will be.
Yes, so you can see how to start to LOOK at emotions/feelings.

Okay, so far we have done extensive LOOKING at what AE is and at the nature of thought. So let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions.

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

Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?


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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:33 am

Exactly! So let’s say that the concept of ‘fear’ has appeared. When we look at AE, what is actually appearing is the AE of sensation, plus thoughts ABOUT the sensation being fear, which are AE of thought and not AE of fear. Does the label and the thoughts about the sensation change the Reality of the sensation?
The label and the thoughts about the sensation do not change the Reality of the sensation (which is just sensation/experience, period). Fear only exists in thought, and not in actual experience. The sensations felt in the body are completely independent of any thoughts or labels, including those that purport to be “about” the experience of sensations in the body.
In other words, does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fearful?
No, the sensation itself does not suggest anything. It is just something happening and is free of all labels.
Does the sensation itself suggest that it knows anything about fear?
No. As above, the sensation does not suggest anything. The sensation is free of any thought or labeling in and of itself.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear itself?
No, the sensation does not know what fear is and what fear isn’t. The sensation is a happening that in and of itself is neutral. It has no connection to or reality in anything other than sensation.
Or is the label ‘fear’ being superimposed onto the sensation, just like the colour green is being superimposed onto the colour red?
Yes, the label fear is being superimposed onto the sensation, just like the color green was superimposed onto the color red. The label fear is a thought that may accompany sensation in the body or may not. Lots of other thought labels could arise, too, or none.
Does the label ‘fear’ change, influence or affect experience labelled as ‘sensation’ in any way?
No, the label fear does not change, influence or affect the experience labeled as sensation in any way. The label ‘fear’ is not necessary for the sensation to exist, and so it is extraneous and not essential to the essence of the thing it is claiming to describe. It is like a sports commentator commenting on a game it is not a part of. The label fear is not included in the experience of sensation, although in thought it states or implies that it is.
How is the movement controlled?
It is not controlled, it happens by itself. There is no one controlling it and it’s movement is unpredictable.
Does a thought control it?
No, thought has no control over what happens. It is hard to find any evidence that thought has any influence in this experiment. When I did the experiment no evidence of thought controlling my hand was found.
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
No. It is just happening on its own.
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
It does not seem like there IS a decision to turn the hand over at all. I did not find a moment where a thought “made the decision” to turn the hand over and the hand turned over immediately. Decision-making seemed like it did not exist. A "decision" is when the mind claims to be the cause and catalyst of an actual experience. In my experience, however, there was never a moment where thought immediately caused an actual experience; actual experience seems not to be a thing that thought can "act upon."
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?
No, it is turning up and down on its own. It seems like experience does not need thought to exist, which is a big surprise :)
With love,
Brett

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:10 am

Hey Brett,

Such a pleasure reading your post.
Exactly! So let’s say that the concept of ‘fear’ has appeared. When we look at AE, what is actually appearing is the AE of sensation, plus thoughts ABOUT the sensation being fear, which are AE of thought and not AE of fear. Does the label and the thoughts about the sensation change the Reality of the sensation?
The label and the thoughts about the sensation do not change the Reality of the sensation (which is just sensation/experience, period). Fear only exists in thought, and not in actual experience. The sensations felt in the body are completely independent of any thoughts or labels, including those that purport to be “about” the experience of sensations in the body.
So has this helped you with emotions/feelings that SEEM to be appearing? Or would you like to have a deeper look at emotions/feelings? If you would like to go deeper...that is OK with me :)
Does the sensation itself suggest that it knows anything about fear?
No. As above, the sensation does not suggest anything. The sensation is free of any thought or labeling in and of itself.
Yes and free to arise and subside when it does, just as thought does.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear itself?
No, the sensation does not know what fear is and what fear isn’t. The sensation is a happening that in and of itself is neutral. It has no connection to or reality in anything other than sensation.
Yes, and let’s look to see if differences are known between sensations.

You will have to think of a thought story that seemingly evokes sensation labelled ‘fear/anxiety’ or any other sensation labelled differently ie, sensation labelled ‘anger.

1. Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

2. Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?

3. Thought would say one is a little more ‘intense’, but apart from that – any difference?

Does a thought control it?
No, thought has no control over what happens. It is hard to find any evidence that thought has any influence in this experiment. When I did the experiment no evidence of thought controlling my hand was found.
Lovely. You would have noticed that even when saying “turn hand”, that the hand did not always turn. So if thought was the controller of movement…the hand would move whenever the thought appeared.
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
It does not seem like there IS a decision to turn the hand over at all. I did not find a moment where a thought “made the decision” to turn the hand over and the hand turned over immediately. Decision-making seemed like it did not exist. A "decision" is when the mind claims to be the cause and catalyst of an actual experience. In my experience, however, there was never a moment where thought immediately caused an actual experience; actual experience seems not to be a thing that thought can "act upon."
Exactly. So if you are not the author of thought and thought is not the catalyst for actions…are ‘you’ responsible for anything that happens?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?
No, it is turning up and down on its own. It seems like experience does not need thought to exist, which is a big surprise :)
Lovely, so you can see that thought really does nothing? A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. Similarly, a thought is just a bit of decoration appearing in THIS. It appears. You are aware of it. But it knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought

So, let’s see if we can keep the surprises coming!! :)

Here is a to help see how we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?


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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:31 am

So has this helped you with emotions/feelings that SEEM to be appearing? Or would you like to have a deeper look at emotions/feelings? If you would like to go deeper...that is OK with me :)
I would like to go deeper. I would like to see through any identification with feelings so that there is as firm as grasp as possible on the reality and truth of what feelings/emotions are.
1. Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?
It is a neutral, undefined tingling sensation.
2. Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
They are both felt, both experienced. That is all.
3. Thought would say one is a little more ‘intense’, but apart from that – any difference?
There is no difference between them. They are both sensation. That is all they are. Since they are not anything else besides sensation, there is nothing else that can differentiate them either.
Exactly. So if you are not the author of thought and thought is not the catalyst for actions…are ‘you’ responsible for anything that happens?
No, I am not responsible for anything that happens since I don’t control thought and my thoughts don’t control actions and I am not aware of what controls actions and there has been no identifying of the controller of action.
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
Yes, sight and sensation seem to not overlap. Thought is the thing that seems to merge them together in a union through the concept of “hand.” However, in actual experience the feeling and the sight are independent and seem to have no influence in each others spheres; sight does not affect, cause, or influence sensation and vice versa.
Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?
Yes. There is no hierarchy stating that one is better or even different from the other (except in thought). Likewise, there is no link between them (except in thought which mushes them together in a thought labeled, “hand”). The experience of sight and sensation themselves do not point to any distinction between the two experiences, even, as they are both just actual experience without the labels of sight and sensation.
Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?
No, the sensation does not come from sight since sensation can be felt without seeing (with eyes closed). Likewise, I can still see various parts of my body even if I am not aware of a sensation in that part of the body at that moment. Thought and mental constructs only seemingly link them (in thought) since in actual experience they were never separate to begin with (they are both just undifferentiated experience) and are not linked in any causal or reciprocal way.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:50 am

Hi Brett,
So has this helped you with emotions/feelings that SEEM to be appearing? Or would you like to have a deeper look at emotions/feelings? If you would like to go deeper...that is OK with me :)
I would like to go deeper. I would like to see through any identification with feelings so that there is as firm as grasp as possible on the reality and truth of what feelings/emotions are.
Okay…here is a more detailed way of LOOKING to see if fear is actually known. When ‘fear’ appears, become aware of everything that is happening…ie bodily sensations, thoughts etc and then close the eyes and to the following:-

1) Look at the label/thought ‘fear’ itself. See the label/word F E A R or the thought “I am “scared/fearful” as a typewritten word in the ‘mind’s eye’ across the forehead.

Does the label ‘fear’ know anything about fear, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
Is the label ‘fear’ itself fearful?
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is fearful?


2) Then look at the sensation and ignore everything else but the sensation itself.
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘fear’.

Look and see if the sensation itself is the fearful self. If the words ‘yes’ , or ‘yes, this is the self’ appears, go back to Step 1 and see the words across the forehead and repeat step 1.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear or that it is fearful?
Does the sensation itself know anything about fear?
Can you find anyone/anything in the sensation itself or behind the sensation that is fearful?


If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is fearful, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is fearful as you did in step 1.

3) Look at the mental image/outline labelled body.

Does the image/outline itself know anything about ‘fear’.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour that knows anything about ‘fear’ or that can be ‘fearful’.


If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is fearful, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is fearful, as you did in step 1.

4) With eyes still closed look everywhere and see if you can find anyone or anything that is fearful.

When you have done this and if no one/no thing is found, then just sit with the sensation. Just breathe normally, notice the thoughts and images that appear and let them pass on by unless they seem to hang around, then do the appropriate steps above. Allow the sensation all the room it needs in the body without pushing it aside or judging it. If it becomes too intense just take a couple of deep breaths into the sensation itself, and then notice the floor under your feet, notice your backside on the chair and then notice what is in the room you are sitting in and name them out loud, while being aware of the sensation - and remember to breathe normally – in and out through the nose. If the sensation does not dissipate at all or only dissipates a little, that is okay, just notice it, without doing anything with it and just go about your day.

We are not trying to get rid of the sensation labelled ‘fear’ or the arising thoughts or images. We are only LOOKING to see what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought is saying ABOUT what actually IS.

Let me know how you go.

The label ‘fear’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of fear
The sensation labelled ‘fear’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of fear
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of fear
The thoughts ABOUT fear are AE of thought and not AE of fear

So, is there actual experience of ‘fear’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT fear? Is 'fear' actually known?
2. Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
They are both felt, both experienced. That is all.
Are they both experienced? What is experiencing them exactly? Where does sensation end and the feeling of sensation begin?

Does the sensation have a location?
3. Thought would say one is a little more ‘intense’, but apart from that – any difference?
There is no difference between them. They are both sensation. That is all they are. Since they are not anything else besides sensation, there is nothing else that can differentiate them either.
The label ‘sensation’ is just that – a label which thought superimposes on experience. If you drop the label ‘sensation’, all there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it is.
Exactly. So if you are not the author of thought and thought is not the catalyst for actions…are ‘you’ responsible for anything that happens?
No, I am not responsible for anything that happens since I don’t control thought and my thoughts don’t control actions and I am not aware of what controls actions and there has been no identifying of the controller of action.
Now re-write what you wrote without all those “I”’s.
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
Yes, sight and sensation seem to not overlap. Thought is the thing that seems to merge them together in a union through the concept of “hand.” However, in actual experience the feeling and the sight are independent and seem to have no influence in each others spheres; sight does not affect, cause, or influence sensation and vice versa.
Nice! Yes!
Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?
No, the sensation does not come from sight since sensation can be felt without seeing (with eyes closed).
Exactly! :)
Likewise, I can still see various parts of my body even if I am not aware of a sensation in that part of the body at that moment. Thought and mental constructs only seemingly link them (in thought) since in actual experience they were never separate to begin with (they are both just undifferentiated experience) and are not linked in any causal or reciprocal way.
Lovely.

Here is a great clip which shows how there is no correlation between sensation and hand!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:21 am

Hi Kay,
The previous reply and this one were written without enough sleep, and being tired makes it harder to do these experiments and write properly. Hoping the next reply is written with more alertness.
Does the label ‘fear’ know anything about fear, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
The label does not know anything about fear. The thoughts that are appearing here do not naturally take the form of written letters (more often spoken words and images of other things, but not letters). Seeing the word fear as a set of written letters, it is obviously a label in the literal sense, like how a sticker with the word “banana” could be placed on an apple. The label can be completely independent of the experience and can’t be relied upon. So it cannot be said that the label fear “knows” what fear is just like a sticker on an apple doesn’t know anything about an apple.
Is the label ‘fear’ itself fearful?
The label is not fearful, of course not. The label is claiming to describe something that it is not itself. The label fear is like subtitles on a movie; the subtitles are not the movie itself they are just describing what is happening in the movie. Subtitles are not dramatic or funny, and likewise labels (like thought) are not sad, happy, or fearful.
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is fearful?
A concept or label does not have attributes, e.g. fear. Thought can only be about other things but can never be anything other than a thought, period. There is nothing in thought to feel fear. In other words, there is nothing substantial in the dimension of thought to feel anything, including fear. Thoughts only exist as ideas, abstractions, concepts, and have no grounding in reality beyond that, and no independent existence of their own. Therefore, they cannot experience anything that is not pure thought, including fear.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear or that it is fearful?
No, the sensation itself does not suggest that it is fear or that it is fearful. Thought is what swoops in with a theory, an interpretation, that what is being felt is fear. Just like the color of seeing a hand and the sensation of feeling in a hand are independent of each other, all sensations in the body are entirely separate from thought.
Does the sensation itself know anything about fear?
No. Fear is a label, and sensations do not experience or suggest anything, including labels. It is just a sensation.
Can you find anyone/anything in the sensation itself or behind the sensation that is fearful?
There is no one and nothing behind the sensation that is fearful. The sensation itself is felt, thought creates the label fear, and when their separateness is not seen an illusion is seen instead, the illusion of their being something called fear that is experienced by something/someone.
Does the image/outline itself know anything about ‘fear’.
Of course not. A picture can’t know anything, including fear.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour that knows anything about ‘fear’ or that can be ‘fearful’.
There is no one and nothing in the image of the body that can be fearful. The idea of a someone who exists and who has a body and whose body feels fear is a story of thought. Without thoughts, there is no one to exist and no one to interpret and label the sensations felt in the body as fear.
Let me know how you go.
When it is forgotten to go through the steps, the mental images seem real and seem to really provoke a sensation in the body that is labeled as “fear” by the mind. When the recognition that they are thoughts comes back, there is an ability to be with them without anxiety. When anxiety comes in, it can also be tolerated and seen through but it feels a hell of a lot better if that’s done while remembering it is just a thought. Being lost in a mental image is quite uncomfortable if there is a loss of contact with the part of the seeing that sees it as a thought only.
So, is there actual experience of ‘fear’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT fear? Is 'fear' actually known?
There is not an actual experience of a singular, definable thing called fear. Rather fear is the label given to an amalgam of experiences (like in the equation you wrote). It seems as if it is possible to forget this, and for fear to seem like an actual experience, and that it is also possible to remember this, and see the sensations and thoughts as independent and fear to exist only as a thought about a diverse set of sensations + more thoughts.
Are they both experienced? What is experiencing them exactly? Where does sensation end and the feeling of sensation begin?
Experienced implies an experiencer, so a better word might be sensed. Not sure if that is what is being pointed out. There is no definable place where sensation ends and the feeling of sensation begins, although I am not sure I understand the question or the difference.
Does the sensation have a location?
The only location is “here” unless we bring in thoughts and concepts (like “foot”). Otherwise, there is just a sense without an ability to put a place to it.
Now re-write what you wrote without all those “I”’s.
Thought itself is not controlled by anyone or anything, apparently. What happens, happens independently of thought.

I watched the hand video on YouTube. The identification with the rubber hand may be as illusory as identification with the physical body.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:59 am

Hey Brett,
The previous reply and this one were written without enough sleep, and being tired makes it harder to do these experiments and write properly. Hoping the next reply is written with more alertness.
It is okay not to respond if you haven’t had enough sleep. I know that you are committed to this exploration, so leaving it a day or two until you are feeling alert, is fine by me. If it is going to be longer than 2-3 days…then please just let me know.
Let me know how you go.
When it is forgotten to go through the steps, the mental images seem real and seem to really provoke a sensation in the body that is labeled as “fear” by the mind. When the recognition that they are thoughts comes back, there is an ability to be with them without anxiety. When anxiety comes in, it can also be tolerated and seen through but it feels a hell of a lot better if that’s done while remembering it is just a thought. Being lost in a mental image is quite uncomfortable if there is a loss of contact with the part of the seeing that sees it as a thought only.
When it is forgotten by what exactly? What is happening is simply happening. Can you find anyone or anything that life is happening too, including forgetting and remembering? If you were the author/thinker of thought then you would be responsible for forgetting and remembering...but as you are not...then forgetting and remembering is what is simply happening in that moment.

Let’s look and see if thoughts, which include ‘mental images’ are what evoke sensations or vice versa.

1. Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly with your eyes closed.
2. Think of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’ (or fear) - one that you can feel in the body but not too intense that it overwhelms you.
3. Then with eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation ‘anxiety’. You are looking to find if there is something that links the thought/story with the sensation labelled as ‘anxiety’.
4. If the sensation starts to dissipate/weaken, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt clearly again, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
5. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.

So, is there actual experience of ‘fear’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT fear? Is 'fear' actually known?
There is not an actual experience of a singular, definable thing called fear. Rather fear is the label given to an amalgam of experiences (like in the equation you wrote). It seems as if it is possible to forget this, and for fear to seem like an actual experience, and that it is also possible to remember this, and see the sensations and thoughts as independent and fear to exist only as a thought about a diverse set of sensations + more thoughts.
Yes, there are times when it seems that what ‘fear’ actually is, is forgotten and at times it is remembered. This is what is appearing/happening in the show called ‘life’ in that moment. However, if you are diligent in looking and you look each time the idea of fear (and all emotions) appears, then the looking will become automatic and you know longer have to be reminded to look….it becomes second nature.

Are they both experienced? What is experiencing them exactly? Where does sensation end and the feeling of sensation begin?
Experienced implies an experiencer, so a better word might be sensed. Not sure if that is what is being pointed out. There is no definable place where sensation ends and the feeling of sensation begins, although I am not sure I understand the question or the difference.

Sensed would also need a someone who is sensing something. There is no dividing line between experience and what is SEEMINGLY experienced…there is simply experienceexperienced, just as there is no division between what is known Ie sound, colour ,smell, thought etc or the knowing of the known…there is just knowingknown ie knowing itself, experience itself, THIS.
Now re-write what you wrote without all those “I”’s.
Thought itself is not controlled by anyone or anything, apparently. What happens, happens independently of thought.
Lovely…see how that makes a whole heap of difference to using “I”?
I watched the hand video on YouTube. The identification with the rubber hand may be as illusory as identification with the physical body.
Let’s take a move towards looking at the body by examining the solidity of the head.

Please IGNORE all thoughts, images and mental 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
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:10 am

Hi Kay,

Hope you are well.
Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.
The way it shows up is that thought and feeling are happening independently.
However, there are thoughts that ask questions like, “why did the sensation of anxiety not appear until after the thoughts about anxiety?…that must mean that there is some connection between the two.” Then there are also thoughts about not wanting to admit that thoughts and sensation are separate until answers to that question can be understood. Of course, understanding occurs in thought. Thoughts about “wanting to understand” do not obscure the fact that I can see that thought and sensation are separate. If thoughts about the desire to understand are seen as just thoughts, and there is just looking, this “problem” disappears.
Lovely…see how that makes a whole heap of difference to using “I”?
Yes, it removes the premise of there being a “me” who exists and does things. That shouldn’t be assumed unless it is seen. So far, it has not been seen.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
It is just a sensation (labeled pressure or touch).
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
There is nothing actually found besides sensation.
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them
There is nothing between the pressure points in my direct experience. It’s not even clear that there is a relationship between the touch on "one side of the head" and the other. There is nothing to indicate that the sensations that register are connected to the same body, or to any body. There is no information whatsoever. There is apparently nothing that can be known about them other than that there is an experience of sensation.
Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, and with my eyes closed, there is no way to know if I even have a head, or if there is a “I.” All there is is the experience of sensation.
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, there is no concept of inside and outside.
Without thought, does it have a location?
Without thought, there is nothing “not here” so there is no “there.” Without a there/not here, there is no location. All that exists is here.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:46 am

Hi Brett,
Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.
The way it shows up is that thought and feeling are happening independently.
However, there are thoughts that ask questions like, “why did the sensation of anxiety not appear until after the thoughts about anxiety?…that must mean that there is some connection between the two.” Then there are also thoughts about not wanting to admit that thoughts and sensation are separate until answers to that question can be understood. Of course, understanding occurs in thought. Thoughts about “wanting to understand” do not obscure the fact that I can see that thought and sensation are separate. If thoughts about the desire to understand are seen as just thoughts, and there is just looking, this “problem” disappears.
Lovely! Just keep observing thoughts and check with AE to see if what they are saying/pointing to is actual/direct experience or if it is fantasy.
Lovely…see how that makes a whole heap of difference to using “I”?
Yes, it removes the premise of there being a “me” who exists and does things. That shouldn’t be assumed unless it is seen. So far, it has not been seen.
Hasn’t it? When you LOOK can you find a ‘me’ anywhere? If not, then how can you say it has not been seen that when looking there is an absence of “I”? What is the expectation?

Looking is a nice simple thing - there is no need to over-complicate it.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.
Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, and with my eyes closed, there is no way to know if I even have a head, or if there is a “I.” All there is is the experience of sensation.
Exactly.

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one of the 'residence' of the SENSE of self. Or rather say, the sensation that is labelled as forehead is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?


So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?


Furthermore, it's also believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another SENSE of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?


Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?


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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:48 am

Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.
There are thoughts and there are sensations/feelings. There are thoughts about the sensations. There are questions about whether the thoughts are the catalyst for the sensations, because as the experiment says, “Think[ing] of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’” seems to cause sensations that thoughts label as “anxiety.” That suggests that thoughts can cause bodily sensations, but when I look I can’t find a link. There was a thought about a storm: lighting doesn’t cause thunder, but where there is one there is the other; where there are thoughts about anxiety there are sensations labelled "anxiety." But the sensations are labelled "anxiety" only in thought; in actual experience there are not actually "anxious sensations," since sensations cannot be anxious or any other quality. There are just thoughts about sensations labeled “anxiety.”
Hasn’t it? When you LOOK can you find a ‘me’ anywhere? If not, then how can you say it has not been seen that when looking there is an absence of “I”? What is the expectation?
What was written previously was perhaps worded in an unintentionally confusing way. What was written was meant to say, “it shouldn’t be assumed that there is an I, since I have not seen or found an I.”
Despite not finding an "I", thoughts persist about the existence of an I, for example, "the absence of evidence doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist." I do not know if thought can be satisfied about the non-existence of an "I." I think there is a thought about an expectation that there is some way to KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that there is no “I." This is probably an unreasonable expectation.
What is the forehead in the actual experience?
There is no forehead in actual experience because with my eyes closed and without thought there is only awareness of sensation and presence. There is no way to know what is a forehead and what is not a forehead and the concept forehead is meaningless without thoughts about a body or visual colors labeled “body.”
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?
Yes, with thought the "+mental image" is added.
So, can a thought come from a sensation?
A thought does not come from a sensation. A thought does not originate in sensation. Thoughts can be about sensations, and so sensations can be the opening theme in a series of thoughts. But sensations are not the source of thought.
Can a thought come from a mental image?
No, a mental image can’t produce anything. A mental image is itself a kind of thought. What it seems like is that thoughts happen on their own, naturally, with no apparent cause and apparently without causing themselves.
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
No, a mental image can only be a projection of something else, not the thing itself.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
No, a sensation does not suggest anything. Any ideas, including suggestion, have to come from thought.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
No, a sensation does not suggest anything. A sensation also doesn’t have an identity.
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?
No, without thought there is no distinction between anything, including forehead.
What are the eyes in the actual experience?
The eyes cannot be seen and so are a concept only.
A sensation + a mental image, right?
Yes, sensation also.
Can sight come from a sensation?
Nothing seems to “come from” a sensation. A sensation is limited to being a sensation.
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
No, an image cannot create anything, including sight.
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
A mental image can be about a sensation, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism where a mental image can come from a sensation.
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?
No. One mental image can follow another mental image, but there is no evidence that it is reproducing in the sense of one mental image “coming from” another

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:04 am

Hello Brett,
Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.
There are thoughts and there are sensations/feelings. There are thoughts about the sensations. There are questions about whether the thoughts are the catalyst for the sensations, because as the experiment says, “Think[ing] of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’” seems to cause sensations that thoughts label as “anxiety.” That suggests that thoughts can cause bodily sensations,
So you can see how it SEEMS that a thought creates a sensation or vice-versa. But this would make a thought and a sensation alive and aware of not only themselves, but of each other, and aware of a you. A sensation would have to be aware of what a fearful thought is, and that it was to appear as a fearful sensation, then make itself appear at the time the thought appears. The sensation and the thought would then have to know that there is a you who is going to be frightened of that particular thought for the sensation to appear and that the you has a body in which it will be felt. Where would this sensation park itself, waiting for the appropriate thought to appear and where would the thoughts park themselves waiting for the opportune time to appear?
but when I look I can’t find a link. There was a thought about a storm: lighting doesn’t cause thunder, but where there is one there is the other; where there are thoughts about anxiety there are sensations labelled "anxiety." But the sensations are labelled "anxiety" only in thought; in actual experience there are not actually "anxious sensations," since sensations cannot be anxious or any other quality. There are just thoughts about sensations labeled “anxiety.”
Yes and there are only thoughts about a ‘me’ who is feeling anxious.
Despite not finding an "I", thoughts persist about the existence of an I, for example, "the absence of evidence doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist." I do not know if thought can be satisfied about the non-existence of an "I." I think there is a thought about an expectation that there is some way to KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that there is no “I." This is probably an unreasonable expectation.
Yes, it is an expectation. Are you waiting for thought to confirm this for you? Waiting for trumpeting angels, fireworks or some other sensation phenomenon to appear to as a means of proof that the absence of a separate self has been seen?

When Santa Claus was seen to be a mythical character did he disappear completely? Did Christmas stop happening, did people dressed up as Santa stop doing that and so on, or did all of these things still continue to happen but there was a simple knowing that it was just all a story?

How would it feel exactly not to be an “I”? There has never ever been one, so how would it feel and look like?

Is there an author of thought than can stop or change what thoughts appear and when?


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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:43 pm

Hi Kay,
Hope you are well. I got more sleep last night by going to bed early, and slept until 3 PM my time today, so just writing now.

There is much that was not highlighted in blue that I responded to anyway. Hope that is ok.
A sensation would have to be aware of what a fearful thought is, and that it was to appear as a fearful sensation, then make itself appear at the time the thought appears. The sensation and the thought would then have to know that there is a you who is going to be frightened of that particular thought for the sensation to appear and that the you has a body in which it will be felt.
Trying to explain the current perspective by an analogy: In the human body, the nose inhales air that is taken in through the lungs, but the nose does not think that there is a me that is breathing, does not think that there is something called the lungs, and does not think that there is a body in which this is all happening. They are separate processes, not aware of each other, but they still interact and influence each others workings. Can’t thoughts and feelings be like this? Without any idea of a "me" who is going to be frightened, can't it still be true that thoughts evoke sensations, just like breathing in air through the nose causes the lungs to expand (even though they are not aware of each other)?
Where would this sensation park itself, waiting for the appropriate thought to appear and where would the thoughts park themselves waiting for the opportune time to appear?
Explaining the current perspective again: If a hand is cut and starts to bleed, cells form at the appropriate time to create a scab to heal the wound. I don’t know where those cells park themselves the rest of the time, I don’t know how exactly they are triggered to appear, etc. But the process seems to exist, even though the scab does not know what a cut or wound is. In a similar way, it seems that sensations respond to thoughts, even though sensations don’t know what a thought is. The potential or capacity for cells to respond seems to exist even when the hand is not cut. Similarly, it seems there is capacity and potential for sensations to respond (be triggered) if anxious thoughts arise. Is this not the case?
How would it feel exactly not to be an “I”? There has never ever been one, so how would it feel and look like?
If there has never been one, it would feel and look the same as everything now. Perhaps a difference would be a different orientation to thoughts and sensations, not seeing them as an “I.” Yesterday, my grandfather told me that when he burned himself cooking, he did not make a “story” about it and so did not experience pain in the same way he would have otherwise. It was just something that happened. That is an example of the distance from thoughts and sensations that I would expect to see more of without an “I.” Supposedly, the Bhudda said something along the lines of, “O house builder, you have been seen; You shall not build the house again.” This is not known to be true (either whether it was said or whether it is true). However, the idea of not being “taken in” by thoughts and sensations anymore, never again seeing them as reality, is what I am after.
Are you waiting for thought to confirm this for you? Waiting for trumpeting angels, fireworks or some other sensation phenomenon to appear to as a means of proof that the absence of a separate self has been seen?
There is an expectation of confirmation, yes. It may not be in thought. It may not be with trumpeting angels, fireworks, or other sensation phenomenon. But people I have met or read about and who talk about seeing reality for what it is almost always talk about a specific moment or moments where the truth was seen in a somewhat dramatic way. For example, I was referred to you (Kay) and to Liberation Unleashed by Eshwar Sigobind. Eshwar told of feeling something like a bolt of lightning going through his whole body and out of the top of his head and being in a trance-like state for about 45 minutes. There is not the expectation for that particular experience, but it is the kind of experience that perhaps would lend more conviction to the understanding discussed in these exchanges.
When Santa Claus was seen to be a mythical character did he disappear completely?
My family never celebrated Christmas or Santa Claus so I never remember having any belief in a Santa Claus, but the point is taken. I think the difference may be that with Santa Claus, what was seen in real life matched up with the information that he was a mythical character; the theory matched the facts. In this case, thoughts and feelings seem to interact with each other, and seem to be experienced by a someone, and there are thoughts about a someone, so the information that there is not an "I" has some counter-evidence that feels convincing. Why does it seem convincing? That is not known (by thought). Thoughts and feelings do not have an “I” and there is no one who can be found to experience thoughts and feelings. Why, then, does it not feel that this understanding has reached a deeper place?
Is there an author of thought than can stop or change what thoughts appear and when?
There is no author of thought, but there does seem to be stopping or changing of thought. If there is a thought occurring, another thought appears that “this is just a thought” or that “this thought is not worth thinking about” and a new thought arises. It creates the appearance of an ability to turn the “mental head” away from thought. There is a feeling of there being an intelligence (who? what?) that can “look away” from thoughts. But when looking, there is no intelligence that can be found except in thought/imagination.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Honesty

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:19 am

Hey Brett,
A sensation would have to be aware of what a fearful thought is, and that it was to appear as a fearful sensation, then make itself appear at the time the thought appears. The sensation and the thought would then have to know that there is a you who is going to be frightened of that particular thought for the sensation to appear and that the you has a body in which it will be felt.
Trying to explain the current perspective by an analogy: In the human body, the nose inhales air that is taken in through the lungs, but the nose does not think that there is a me that is breathing, does not think that there is something called the lungs, and does not think that there is a body in which this is all happening. They are separate processes, not aware of each other, but they still interact and influence each others workings. Can’t thoughts and feelings be like this? Without any idea of a "me" who is going to be frightened, can't it still be true that thoughts evoke sensations, just like breathing in air through the nose causes the lungs to expand (even though they are not aware of each other)?
Brett….don’t ask me the question, ask yourself the question and LOOK.
How would it feel exactly not to be an “I”? There has never ever been one, so how would it feel and look like?
If there has never been one, it would feel and look the same as everything now. Perhaps a difference would be a different orientation to thoughts and sensations, not seeing them as an “I.”
How would they not be seen as “I”? Have they not always been seen as “I”? Are you the author of thought? If you were, then you would be able to change the story…but as you can’t change the story…then how is are thoughts about an “I” going to stop?
Are you waiting for thought to confirm this for you? Waiting for trumpeting angels, fireworks or some other sensation phenomenon to appear to as a means of proof that the absence of a separate self has been seen?
There is an expectation of confirmation, yes. It may not be in thought. It may not be with trumpeting angels, fireworks, or other sensation phenomenon. But people I have met or read about and who talk about seeing reality for what it is almost always talk about a specific moment or moments where the truth was seen in a somewhat dramatic way.
Great…so now let’s compare our illusory awakening to someone else’s, because this so called ’awakening’ doesn't fit the desired expectations.
For example, I was referred to you (Kay) and to Liberation Unleashed by Eshwar Sigobind. Eshwar told of feeling something like a bolt of lightning going through his whole body and out of the top of his head and being in a trance-like state for about 45 minutes. There is not the expectation for that particular experience, but it is the kind of experience that perhaps would lend more conviction to the understanding discussed in these exchanges.
I am not here to convince you. If you cannot see for yourself when you LOOK that there is no separate self, and everything else that is being pointed to, to show you how the illusory self seemingly comes together...if that isn’t enough…then that is up to you.
When Santa Claus was seen to be a mythical character did he disappear completely?
My family never celebrated Christmas or Santa Claus so I never remember having any belief in a Santa Claus, but the point is taken. I think the difference may be that with Santa Claus, what was seen in real life matched up with the information that he was a mythical character; the theory matched the facts. In this case, thoughts and feelings seem to interact with each other, and seem to be experienced by a someone, and there are thoughts about a someone, so the information that there is not an "I" has some counter-evidence that feels convincing. Why does it seem convincing? That is not known (by thought). Thoughts and feelings do not have an “I” and there is no one who can be found to experience thoughts and feelings. Why, then, does it not feel that this understanding has reached a deeper place?
I don’t know, Brett, you tell me. Where is this “I” that needs it to reach a deeper place? I can't LOOK for you, you have to do that.
Is there an author of thought than can stop or change what thoughts appear and when?
There is no author of thought, but there does seem to be stopping or changing of thought. If there is a thought occurring, another thought appears that “this is just a thought” or that “this thought is not worth thinking about” and a new thought arises. It creates the appearance of an ability to turn the “mental head” away from thought. There is a feeling of there being an intelligence (who? what?) that can “look away” from thoughts. But when looking, there is no intelligence that can be found except in thought/imagination.
And without thought, how could it possibly be known that a thought was stopped or changed? Where does a thought begin and end and what is a thought actually?

It seems that this guiding is not benefiting you. Even though I have been pointing to show you how the illusory self seemingly comes together, and you are supposedly LOOKING and seeing what is being pointed to....there is a BUT! So, there is no point in me guiding if there is going to be a BUT instead of further LOOKING on your behalf, by you, for you to actually test your beliefs instead of wanting me to confirm your beliefs because it suits you better. Your expectations will also get in the road of you actually realising, when you actually realise...because you are wanting what others have..whatever that means. For the majority, having the realisation is a very subtle shift. I am not saying either way if you have seen or not...what I am saying..is that you cannot say you don't see, when LOOKING, that there is no separate self. When the penny drops, it will drop...but to say you do not see this..is not true.

Did you think to actually go back and reread the thread from the beginning and redo the exercises as a means of helping yourself….or you waiting for a magic wand?

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

User avatar
1Unknown9
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: Honesty

Postby 1Unknown9 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:40 am

can't it still be true that thoughts evoke sensations, just like breathing in air through the nose causes the lungs to expand (even though they are not aware of each other)?
“Causation” is something that can only happen in thought. In actual experience, there are just happenings without one thing causing another. The link or idea “cause” is not seen when looking only. In thought, the idea “thoughts cause sensations” can be.
How would they not be seen as “I”? Have they not always been seen as “I”? Are you the author of thought? If you were, then you would be able to change the story…but as you can’t change the story…then how is are thoughts about an “I” going to stop?
Giving up the idea that thought is ever going to be different than how it has always been...There was a hope that thought about an I could/would stop via a drastic shift in point of view. But maybe thoughts about an I will always continue no matter what. Looking at them to see there is no I there may be the most that can be done. "Deeper understanding" may be a concept that can only happen in thought. Looking only does not have levels of understanding.
Great…so now let’s compare our illusory awakening to someone else’s, because this so called ’awakening’ doesn't fit the desired expectations.
Thoughts are not satisfied, but that it is what it is. This process may not be about satisfying thought because thought may always make comparisons, that may be its nature. This process may be about turning away from thought. Looking only.
I am not here to convince you. If you cannot see for yourself when you LOOK that there is no separate self, and everything else that is being pointed to, to show you how the illusory self seemingly comes together...if that isn’t enough…then that is up to you.
There is no control over thought, as has been seen, so whether thoughts say, “more convincing is needed” or "this does not meet expectations" are thoughts that happen on their own without an author. Looking must be enough, since thought will never be satisfied.
I don’t know, Brett, you tell me. Where is this “I” that needs it to reach a deeper place? I can't LOOK for you, you have to do that.
The idea of an "I" exists in thought only. In thought, there is a thought about an I that needs to reach a deeper place. Without thought, there is just looking. Looking has no desires, expectations, and needs no convincing. In thought, many doubts exist. In looking, nothing exists except looking.
you cannot say you don't see, when LOOKING, that there is no separate self.
In looking, there is no separate self.
Did you think to actually go back and reread the thread from the beginning and redo the exercises as a means of helping yourself….or you waiting for a magic wand?
In looking, no help is needed. Only in thought is there is a desire for more convincing, for more help. “Why try to convince thought?” is also just a thought. There seems to be no hope for thought. Thought may never join in or come along for the ride. What would it mean to be helped? That thought would see itself for what it is? That may not be a capacity of thought. It may be that looking is the only thing. Thought may never accept help and may always be want more. Looking has no desires.


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 40 guests