I want to see what is true

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:33 pm

Good morning Anders,
How is it known that the colour labelled as 'apple' and the colour labelled as 'picture of an apple' are very different?
There is a thought saying it.
Yep, it is simply a thought. Without thought, this could not be known.
When you look at colour labelled 'apple' and colour labelled as 'picture of an apple', what is the AE of both of them?
The actual experience is colour, no more than that, anything else is thought.
Lovely, yes. And is the actual experience of thought any different because the content of the thought is different?
Hold the ‘real’ apple in between the palm of both hands. Now close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images of apple and hands. What is the actual experience?
It's pure sensation.
Yep, simply sensation with thoughts about the sensation being hands and an apple.
Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.
Yes I will start doing this exercise,
when I am eating, before and after the thought of how good the food is, there is just taste and sensation.
When I look at the clouds, there is seeing mixed with thoughts, but the seeing is not bothered by the thoughts.

Good start. If you ignore all thoughts….is seeing (ie colour) different to thoughts, or are they simply experience which thought is dividing and overlaying with different descriptions?
I will update you on other exercises that I do.
Yes please :)

If you look at experience, now, as it appears in this moment…there is colour, thought and perhaps sound and sensation, can an “I” be found within or as them anywhere or only thoughts about an “I”?

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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:19 pm

Lovely, yes. And is the actual experience of thought any different because the content of the thought is different?
The content of the thought is just another thought. But some thoughts are images, some are sounds, some are sensation thoughts, I could say that the actual experience of thought depends by the type of thought ?
Good start. If you ignore all thoughts….is seeing (ie colour) different to thoughts, or are they simply experience which thought is dividing and overlaying with different descriptions?
The colour is seen even when there are no thoughts arising, the thoughts say something about what is seen, but I don't see any difference between thoughts and seeing other than the transparency of thoughts... by that I mean that thoughts seem to not be located anywhere, I can imagine a box in front of this screen, but it's not here, it's an illusion.
While seeing feels real, when I look at objects I feel like they are "there" and I am "here".
If you look at experience, now, as it appears in this moment…there is colour, thought and perhaps sound and sensation, can an “I” be found within or as them anywhere or only thoughts about an “I”?
I feel a bit of resistance... what you say makes sense, right now in front of me there is colour, there is thought, and sensation, but the sensations in the body make me feel like I am here, I don't even know what kind of thought generates this idea of a 'me'.
I don't even see the story, there is just a feeling of being here, a very strong feeling.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:57 am

Hey Anders,

Can you please provide me with more examples of AE from your daily activities, emotions etc. I would like to make sure that you are clear about AE.
Lovely, yes. And is the actual experience of thought any different because the content of the thought is different?
The content of the thought is just another thought. But some thoughts are images, some are sounds, some are sensation thoughts, I could say that the actual experience of thought depends by the type of thought ?
How are sounds and sensations, thoughts? A sensation can’t be thought, nor can a sound? Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But is there really music playing - a singer singing and a guitarist playing, or is there simply thoughts about sound?

The same goes for sensation. Can a sensation be thought? How does that happen exactly? If you think the thought ‘fear’, is that the actual sensation or is that just a thought about a sensation?


This is the perfect time to look at the difference between actual experience and content of thought which also addresses ‘mental images’. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts about thought. Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience, otherwise you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ and feel the word ‘hot’ and hear thunder when the word ‘thunder’ appeared!

There are two types of thoughts:
#1 Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
#2 Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a mental image of a cup?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

Now let’s look at the word thought “here is a cup”….

Can a 'real' cup be found in the thought itself?

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?

So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

If you look at experience, now, as it appears in this moment…there is colour, thought and perhaps sound and sensation, can an “I” be found within or as them anywhere or only thoughts about an “I”?
I feel a bit of resistance... what you say makes sense, right now in front of me there is colour, there is thought, and sensation, but the sensations in the body make me feel like I am here, I don't even know what kind of thought generates this idea of a 'me'.
I don't want you making sense out of what I am pointing to via thoughts. I want you to LOOK and see what is being pointed at.

Without thought, how is it known that the sensations are something called “resistance”?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “resistance”?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about “resistance”?


The label “resistance” is AE of thought and not AE of resistance
Sensation labelled as “resistance” is AE of sensation and not AE of resistance
Image labelled as “me/body” is AE of colour and not AE of a me who is in resistance or resisting.
Thoughts ABOUT resistance and what it is etc are AE of thoughts and not AE of resistance

So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts, but is “resistance’ actually known?
I don't even see the story, there is just a feeling of being here, a very strong feeling.
Put thought aside and look - what is the “feelings” qualities that makes you associate it with a "you"? There is an ‘presence’, for want of a better way of saying it, that is always apparent, but what makes that 'presence’ a separate self called Anders? Can you pinpoint what that feeling would be/is, or is it a thought about a feeling of an I?

Let's explore this SENSE of self 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?


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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:01 pm

Can you please provide me with more examples of AE from your daily activities, emotions etc. I would like to make sure that you are clear about AE.
When I hold a heavy object, there is the thought about it being heavy, and there is the AE : sensation.
When I listen to a song, there is a thought about the meaning of the lyrics, and there is the AE of the lyrics/melody : sound.
When the wind blows into my face, there is the thought about it being the wind, and there is the AE : sensation, which has nothing to do with wind, the wind is only a thought that arises after the AE.
Same with pain, if I pinch myself I feel 'pain' , but that's just a thought arising after the AE of sensation.

How are sounds and sensations, thoughts? A sensation can’t be thought, nor can a sound? Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But is there really music playing - a singer singing and a guitarist playing, or is there simply thoughts about sound?

The same goes for sensation. Can a sensation be thought? How does that happen exactly? If you think the thought ‘fear’, is that the actual sensation or is that just a thought about a sensation?
Sound/Touch/Smell/Seeing are not thoughts, but thoughts come in all those forms, I cannot think a sensation into existence, a thought is always a thought until it disappears. When a thought about a song arises, I am actually hearing the song, it's not playing in the room, but I am hearing it, and it is sound.
The thought about fear is not fear, it's just a thought about another thought named 'fear', which refers to a sensation that has nothing to do with 'fear', it's just a sensation.
"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?
Those thoughts point to other thoughts, right now I am imagining a cup, if I break it in my mind, and I see what it is made of, another thought arises, if I Imagine cutting myself with a piece of the broken cup, blood and pain, it's just another thought, I'm not feeling anything. I begin to see that thoughts are trapped in their world, they can only refer to other thoughts, and not to actual sensations, because they cannot invoke them.
So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?
Yes, if I think about a memory, I am not living the actual experience of that time, I'm only experiencing a thought. Thoughts are always about themselves.
Thoughts link to other thoughts and so on, they never escape this cycle, if a thought makes me feel the sensation of fear, fear is just another thought that says something about the sensation and it being generated by the thought. But the sensation is not what thought pointed to, thought points only to other concepts.
I begin to see this, it's not very clear though..
Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
Like I said above, all thoughts point to other thoughts, all their contents are thoughts. If I think about typing and the sensation of typing on the keyboard,it doesn't point to the actual sensation, it doesn't make me feel the actual sensation of typing on the keyboard, but it invokes memories which are thoughts.
Without thought, how is it known that the sensations are something called “resistance”?
It is not known, because resistance is a thought about an actual sensation.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “resistance”?
The sensation just is, but the thoughts are fast to label it, and it makes it hard to make the distinction between the actual sensation and 'resistance'.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about “resistance”?
No it doesn't.
So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts, but is “resistance’ actually known?
Resistance is not known, Feeling is known, Thinking is known, resistance is a thought, there is no true resistance happening, only a labeled sensation.
Put thought aside and look - what is the “feelings” qualities that makes you associate it with a "you"? There is an ‘presence’, for want of a better way of saying it, that is always apparent, but what makes that 'presence’ a separate self called Anders? Can you pinpoint what that feeling would be/is, or is it a thought about a feeling of an I?
There is a feeling in the chest of being here, and in the head. A thought about Anders follows, I'm trying hard but I cannot point to that 'I'. It's even hard to describe it, sensation cannot be described because I can only use thought to write this, and thought only points to thought. It's like there is nothing to grasp, there is sensation, there are thoughts, there is a feeling of being here, there is a thought about an 'I', I'm trying to see that 'I'.
Does the sense of self have a location?
No, it is a thought.
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
No shape and no size.
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
I don't know... I can't even find the sense of self... it's so elusive.
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
It's changing, it's coming and going, it's more like a thought than anything else..
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
One moment it is a sound, another moment it becomes and image, it's a combination of different thoughts, but the actual experience of it is thought.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:41 am

Hi Anders,

There is a lot in this post. Please read it carefully and thoroughly and take your time doing the exercises etc. Take several days if needed.
Can you please provide me with more examples of AE from your daily activities, emotions etc. I would like to make sure that you are clear about AE.
When I hold a heavy object, there is the thought about it being heavy, and there is the AE : sensation.
When I listen to a song, there is a thought about the meaning of the lyrics, and there is the AE of the lyrics/melody : sound.
When the wind blows into my face, there is the thought about it being the wind, and there is the AE : sensation, which has nothing to do with wind, the wind is only a thought that arises after the AE.
Same with pain, if I pinch myself I feel 'pain' , but that's just a thought arising after the AE of sensation.
Nice…thank you! :)
How are sounds and sensations, thoughts? A sensation can’t be thought, nor can a sound? Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But is there really music playing - a singer singing and a guitarist playing, or is there simply thoughts about sound?

The same goes for sensation. Can a sensation be thought? How does that happen exactly? If you think the thought ‘fear’, is that the actual sensation or is that just a thought about a sensation?
Sound/Touch/Smell/Seeing are not thoughts, but thoughts come in all those forms,
How does a thought come in the form of a sound, smell, colour or sensation? If there is no ACTUAL smell, for example, then it is simply thoughts ABOUT a smell and is AE of thought and NOT AE of smell. There is a difference and you need to see this difference, otherwise the rest of this exploration is going to very difficult for both of us.
I cannot think a sensation into existence, a thought is always a thought until it disappears. When a thought about a song arises, I am actually hearing the song, it's not playing in the room, but I am hearing it, and it is sound.
I want you to think of a song right now. Is the ACTUAL sound labelled as a ‘song/music’’ actually playing right now ie if there were other people in the room with you, they would also be able to actually hear the music, or is there thoughts ABOUT the song appearing because there is no ACTUAL sound being heard?

Thought either points to AE, or to thoughts about thoughts. If thought says that you saw a spectacular ‘sunrise’ yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No, because the colours labelled as ‘sunrise’ are not actually appearing in this moment.…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’ ABOUT a sunrise.
If however, the colours labelled spectacular ‘sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it (ie your direct, actual experience). In other words the colour that thought is referring to as a 'sunrise' is what is actually appearing now.

Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about thought. Since the ‘sunrise’ is not the current experience, it only equates to story...thought fluff/imagination – thoughts about thoughts.
Is this clear?

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?
Those thoughts point to other thoughts, right now I am imagining a cup, if I break it in my mind, and I see what it is made of, another thought arises, if I Imagine cutting myself with a piece of the broken cup, blood and pain, it's just another thought, I'm not feeling anything. I begin to see that thoughts are trapped in their world, they can only refer to other thoughts, and not to actual sensations, because they cannot invoke them.
Yes. A thought is a phenomenon just like sound, smell, taste, sensation and colour. Other than that, thought has no intrinsic value, since thought is not needed for anything! If thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant? What meaning is given to thoughts are only just thoughts about thoughts.
So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?
Yes, if I think about a memory, I am not living the actual experience of that time, I'm only experiencing a thought. Thoughts are always about themselves.
Thoughts link to other thoughts and so on, they never escape this cycle, if a thought makes me feel the sensation of fear, fear is just another thought that says something about the sensation and it being generated by the thought. But the sensation is not what thought pointed to, thought points only to other concepts.
I begin to see this, it's not very clear though..
Great Anders…it will become clearer!

Thought either points to AE or to thoughts about thought.
Sound (labelled "bird song") isn't story, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Taste (labelled "sweet") isn't a story, but story can be, "I love honey."
Colour/image (labelled “sunset”) isn't story, but story can be, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
See the difference?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
Like I said above, all thoughts point to other thoughts, all their contents are thoughts. If I think about typing and the sensation of typing on the keyboard,it doesn't point to the actual sensation, it doesn't make me feel the actual sensation of typing on the keyboard, but it invokes memories which are thoughts.
If what you are saying is that appearing thoughts ABOUT the sensation of ‘fingers on keyboard typing’ are not the actual sensation because there are no “fingers on keyboard” in that very moment. Then yes, they are pointing to thoughts about thoughts. Refer back to what I wrote about the sunset.
Without thought, how is it known that the sensations are something called “resistance”?
It is not known, because resistance is a thought about an actual sensation.
Yes…that is clearly answered! Nice.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “resistance”?
The sensation just is, but the thoughts are fast to label it, and it makes it hard to make the distinction between the actual sensation and 'resistance'.
That is why you have to actually STOP and LOOK and break down what is happening into AE so that you see what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought says is appearing/happening. This is a necessity…not a suggestion!

Interpretation of actual experience happens quickly. Throughout this exploration and beyond, you will see that labelling and interpretation will always appear/happen, but it is possible to become aware of the thoughts that appear with, and overlay actual experience. Another key component of this exploration is being able to tell the difference between actual experience and the interpretation by thought of actual experience and the only way to do that is by LOOKING and breaking down activities, emotions and objects into AE.
So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts, but is “resistance’ actually known?
Resistance is not known, Feeling is known, Thinking is known, resistance is a thought, there is no true resistance happening, only a labeled sensation.
Lovely yes. So next time the idea of ‘resistance’ happens, break it down into AE and then LOOK to see if within the AE you can find anyone/anything that is actually resisting. This is what LOOKING is.
Put thought aside and look - what is the “feelings” qualities that makes you associate it with a "you"? There is an ‘presence’, for want of a better way of saying it, that is always apparent, but what makes that 'presence’ a separate self called Anders? Can you pinpoint what that feeling would be/is, or is it a thought about a feeling of an I?
There is a feeling in the chest of being here, and in the head.
Let’s look at the idea of a head and see if a head is actually known. Then you can also use this exercise to see if a chest is known.

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?

A thought about Anders follows, I'm trying hard but I cannot point to that 'I'. It's even hard to describe it, sensation cannot be described because I can only use thought to write this, and thought only points to thought. It's like there is nothing to grasp, there is sensation, there are thoughts, there is a feeling of being here, there is a thought about an 'I', I'm trying to see that 'I'.
Yes, but was an actual “I” found?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
I don't know... I can't even find the sense of self... it's so elusive.
If it is elusive, then can it exist?
Is colour, smell, thought, sound, sensation and taste elusive? If not, then what is it exactly that is elusive? Can anything be found or only thoughts ABOUT a sense of self are found?

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
It's changing, it's coming and going, it's more like a thought than anything else..
Yes…and is a thought an actual “I”?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
One moment it is a sound, another moment it becomes and image, it's a combination of different thoughts, but the actual experience of it is thought.
Yes…lovely. The AE of a self = thought. Thought may point to sound and tell a story of how the sounds are made by a ‘me’, but when you LOOK is that really the case?

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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:40 pm

I want you to think of a song right now. Is the ACTUAL sound labelled as a ‘song/music’’ actually playing right now ie if there were other people in the room with you, they would also be able to actually hear the music, or is there thoughts ABOUT the song appearing because there is no ACTUAL sound being heard?
No it is not, there is actual thought but no actual sound.
Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about thought. Since the ‘sunrise’ is not the current experience, it only equates to story...thought fluff/imagination – thoughts about thoughts.
Is this clear?
Yes, thoughts live in their own world, even the sunrise is a story made up by thought, the actual experience is only color/seeing.
Thought either points to AE or to thoughts about thought.
Sound (labelled "bird song") isn't story, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Taste (labelled "sweet") isn't a story, but story can be, "I love honey."
Colour/image (labelled “sunset”) isn't story, but story can be, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
See the difference?
Yes, labels come up instantly, stories are thoughts about labels, and labels are instant thoughts about actual experience.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
There is a strong habit-thought, that arises instantly and localized the body and the shape of the body parts, I can see it, and it makes it hard to separate between thought and actual experience, because I've been thinking this way my whole life.
I can say that there is no actual head, there is only a story about a head, but my experience is that I believe in that head automatically.
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

There are sensations and mental images about a head, but the only thing that points to a head is pressure, and nothing in between.

Without thought, how big is your head?

There is no head without thought, so it cannot have a dimension.

Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?

It doesn't exist without thought, so it cannot have an inside or an outside.

Without thought, does it have a location?

It doesn't exist without thought, so it cannot be located anywhere in actual experience.

There is a feeling in the chest of being here, and in the head. A thought about Anders follows, I'm trying hard but I cannot point to that 'I'. It's even hard to describe it, sensation cannot be described because I can only use thought to write this, and thought only points to thought. It's like there is nothing to grasp, there is sensation, there are thoughts, there is a feeling of being here, there is a thought about an 'I', I'm trying to see that 'I'.

Yes, but was an actual “I” found?

At this point I don't even know what an 'I' is anymore, I see a bunch of thoughts about an Anders coming up, stories, I don't even know who is writing this right now, it's just happening, I don't know what an 'I' is to be honest... I can't find such a thing, I'm searching but it's nowhere.

If it is elusive, then can it exist?
Is colour, smell, thought, sound, sensation and taste elusive? If not, then what is it exactly that is elusive? Can anything be found or only thoughts ABOUT a sense of self are found?

There are images of body, of a voice, stories, names, nothing else, just thoughts coming and going, I cannot see this 'I' anywhere..

Yes…and is a thought an actual “I”?
I don't know what an actual 'I' is at this point... I'm really confused. I guess that a thought would not be an actual 'I', but my experience is that I don't even know what the 'I' is.
Yes…lovely. The AE of a self = thought. Thought may point to sound and tell a story of how the sounds are made by a ‘me’, but when you LOOK is that really the case?
I'm looking and I cannot even say the words : "There is no actual me", it's not just that I don't see any self, I don't really know what the self would look like to be able to see it...

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:56 am

Good morning Anders,
I want you to think of a song right now. Is the ACTUAL sound labelled as a ‘song/music’’ actually playing right now ie if there were other people in the room with you, they would also be able to actually hear the music, or is there thoughts ABOUT the song appearing because there is no ACTUAL sound being heard?
No it is not, there is actual thought but no actual sound.
Good, I am glad that it is clear that there are thoughts ABOUT a song/music etc, but there is no actual experience of sound labelled as ‘music/song’...therefore it is simply a thought story/imaginary.
Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about thought. Since the ‘sunrise’ is not the current experience, it only equates to story...thought fluff/imagination – thoughts about thoughts.
Is this clear?
Yes, thoughts live in their own world, even the sunrise is a story made up by thought, the actual experience is only color/seeing.
Yes, seeing what the actual experience is, not only points to THIS/experience itself, but is useful in that it’s pointing to what is happening/appearing now, and not what is imagined.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
There is a strong habit-thought, that arises instantly and localized the body and the shape of the body parts,
An idea appears that “localised the body and the shape of the body part”…can whether or not that idea appears, be controlled? If not…then how can it be a “strong habit-thought”, which points to the idea that there is a someone/something that is thinking and has “strong habit-thoughts”? Is it not simply an idea (thoughts) appearing ABOUT a body and body shapes, that automatically appears overlaying AE (in this case AE of sensation) and are simply thoughts about thoughts? One idea supported by another idea, is still just an idea....right?
I can see it, and it makes it hard to separate between thought and actual experience, because I've been thinking this way my whole life.
Really and where can this idea of "whole life" be found as AE?
I can say that there is no actual head, there is only a story about a head, but my experience is that I believe in that head automatically.
So where exactly is this “I” that is “believing” something, including the idea of a head? Describe this "I to me in precise detail and where it is located exactly.
What is the AE of 'belief/believing"?

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
And if you LOOK again very carefully, are there actually two “pressure points”, or only thought suggesting this?
There are sensations and mental images about a head, but the only thing that points to a head is pressure, and nothing in between.
Is “pressure” known? Or is sensation simply known which thought then overlays with the label and description of/as “pressure”?
Without thought, how big is your head?
There is no head without thought, so it cannot have a dimension.
Precisely! Can you even see "your face"? Without thought, how do you know that you have a face and that the face you see in the mirror is "your face"?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
It doesn't exist without thought, so it cannot have an inside or an outside.
So, there is no inside or outside of a head…so how can there be a ‘me’ here and objects that are ‘not me’ and are over ‘there’?

Since there is no actual head, are thoughts then, appearing in a head? Are thoughts actually generated in a head?
Without thought, does it have a location?
It doesn't exist without thought, so it cannot be located anywhere in actual experience.
And if you keep this in mind…you will begin to notice that experience itself does not have a location. There are thoughts about location…but when you LOOK can a location be found?
There is a feeling in the chest of being here, and in the head. A thought about Anders follows, I'm trying hard but I cannot point to that 'I'. It's even hard to describe it, sensation cannot be described because I can only use thought to write this, and thought only points to thought. It's like there is nothing to grasp, there is sensation, there are thoughts, there is a feeling of being here, there is a thought about an 'I', I'm trying to see that 'I'.
Yes, but was an actual “I” found?
At this point I don't even know what an 'I' is anymore, I see a bunch of thoughts about an Anders coming up, stories, I don't even know who is writing this right now, it's just happening, I don't know what an 'I' is to be honest... I can't find such a thing, I'm searching but it's nowhere.
Wonderful! Every ‘thing’ that is known is based on past knowledge. Putting every thing you think you know aside, and LOOKING with open curiosity is the best thing you can do! The best question to ask is “do I actually know that right now” and then LOOK to see what actually IS, as opposed to going with what thought says is!
If it is elusive, then can it exist?
Is colour, smell, thought, sound, sensation and taste elusive? If not, then what is it exactly that is elusive? Can anything be found or only thoughts ABOUT a sense of self are found?
There are images of body, of a voice, stories, names, nothing else, just thoughts coming and going, I cannot see this 'I' anywhere..
Great….if you LOOK, is an image an actual body? Without thought, how would this be known? How would it be known that it is even an ‘image’? Same goes for voice. Without thought, how would it be known that sound is “my voice” or “others voice”?
Yes…and is a thought an actual “I”?
I don't know what an actual 'I' is at this point... I'm really confused. I guess that a thought would not be an actual 'I', but my experience is that I don't even know what the 'I' is.
Being confused is good…means we are breaking through the barriers of thought! Just be aware that fear, anger etc may appear as everything starts to become unsettled. In other words…the Velcro is losing its grip on what you think you think you are! :)

But have a look at the thought “I” as AE

The label “I” is AE of thought and not AE of an “I”
Sensation labelled “I/me/body” is AE of sensation and not AE of an I
Image labelled as “I/me/body” is AE of colour and not AE of an I
Smell labelled as “I/me/body” is AE of smell and not AE of an I
Taste labelled as “I/me/body” is AE of taste and not AE of an I
Thoughts about all of these being and “I” and what “I” is, does, etc are AE of thought and not AE of an I.

So what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + smell + taste + thoughts ABOUT an “I”, however, is an “I” actually known?
Yes…lovely. The AE of a self = thought. Thought may point to sound and tell a story of how the sounds are made by a ‘me’, but when you LOOK is that really the case?
I'm looking and I cannot even say the words : "There is no actual me", it's not just that I don't see any self, I don't really know what the self would look like to be able to see it...
Nice!

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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:28 am

An idea appears that “localised the body and the shape of the body part”…can whether or not that idea appears, be controlled? If not…then how can it be a “strong habit-thought”, which points to the idea that there is a someone/something that is thinking and has “strong habit-thoughts”? Is it not simply an idea (thoughts) appearing ABOUT a body and body shapes, that automatically appears overlaying AE (in this case AE of sensation) and are simply thoughts about thoughts? One idea supported by another idea, is still just an idea....right?
Yes.
Really and where can this idea of "whole life" be found as AE?
Nowhere, life is a thought, memories are thoughts.
So where exactly is this “I” that is “believing” something, including the idea of a head? Describe this "I to me in precise detail and where it is located exactly.
What is the AE of 'belief/believing"?
I cannot point to where this 'I' is, I cannot see this 'I' in AE, and the AE of 'belief/believing' is thought.
And if you LOOK again very carefully, are there actually two “pressure points”, or only thought suggesting this?
There is sensation, and there is a thought that says that there are two pressure points, when I touch my head with my hands, I see a mental image of the head forming, very brief and very hard to notice.
Is “pressure” known? Or is sensation simply known which thought then overlays with the label and description of/as “pressure”?
Pressure is not known, thought that says 'pressure' is actually known, the feeling is just a feeling, it doesn't say anything about pressure or head.
Precisely! Can you even see "your face"? Without thought, how do you know that you have a face and that the face you see in the mirror is "your face"?
The actual experience of the face in the mirror is -seeing- , then a thought arises that says that it is my face, I have a face only when I think about a face, when I am focused on a specific task, the face disappears like any other thought. I always speak with "I", but I don't know what that "I" is.
So, there is no inside or outside of a head…so how can there be a ‘me’ here and objects that are ‘not me’ and are over ‘there’?
There is just seeing, thought says something about the seeing but the seeing is just seeing, an image in a mirror is labeled as 'me' and another as 'other'.
Since there is no actual head, are thoughts then, appearing in a head? Are thoughts actually generated in a head?
Thoughts are appearing, thoughts appearing in the brain/head is just another thought, but thoughts are just appearing, even without a head-thought telling me where they come from.
Great….if you LOOK, is an image an actual body? Without thought, how would this be known? How would it be known that it is even an ‘image’? Same goes for voice. Without thought, how would it be known that sound is “my voice” or “others voice”?
I don't know what an actual body is... without thought there is no body because the body is just an idea, even the image is an idea, I cannot say anything without it being an idea... without thought there is no voice, and no 'my voice'/ 'others voice'
A specific voice + vibration in the throat produces a thought that says that it is 'my voice' , it's easily recognized.
So what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + smell + taste + thoughts ABOUT an “I”, however, is an “I” actually known?
I really don't know what that "I" is. It would be easy to say that there is no "I" known, only AE is known, without thoughts about an "I" there is no "I", so there is no me.
But I cannot say this, because I do not feel any realization, maybe I am expecting some revelation ? Something to happen ? I'm noticing that I'm expecting some shift to happen.
I cannot say that there is no "I", because I do not know what an "I" is, just by looking for a few moments those days I've realized that I do not know what "I" is... there were only a mix of thoughts, nothing else.

Maybe I should stop expecting a realization to happen, that's just a thought.

Thank you for helping me.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:17 am

Hello Anders,
An idea appears that “localised the body and the shape of the body part”…can whether or not that idea appears, be controlled? If not…then how can it be a “strong habit-thought”, which points to the idea that there is a someone/something that is thinking and has “strong habit-thoughts”? Is it not simply an idea (thoughts) appearing ABOUT a body and body shapes, that automatically appears overlaying AE (in this case AE of sensation) and are simply thoughts about thoughts? One idea supported by another idea, is still just an idea....right?
Yes.
And even if that FEELS convincing, does that make it so? Does that feeling make it actual?
Really and where can this idea of "whole life" be found as AE?
Nowhere, life is a thought, memories are thoughts.
This is a dream analogy of how all time is contained in an instant.
In the opening instant of a dream you find the 1st person dream character speeding along a highway towards the airport, because he is late for his holiday flight, because his wife couldn't find her passport.
Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.
Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?
So where exactly is this “I” that is “believing” something, including the idea of a head? Describe this "I to me in precise detail and where it is located exactly.
What is the AE of 'belief/believing"?
I cannot point to where this 'I' is, I cannot see this 'I' in AE, and the AE of 'belief/believing' is thought.
Yes, a belief is a thought, just a plain old thought, and it is a thought that is supported only by other thoughts! A belief is a thought about reality, for which there is no actual experiential evidence!
Does a thought know anything about a belief?
Does a thought know anything about what to believe or not believe?

What is the difference between 'believing a thought' and 'not believing a thought'?

And if you LOOK again very carefully, are there actually two “pressure points”, or only thought suggesting this?
There is sensation, and there is a thought that says that there are two pressure points, when I touch my head with my hands, I see a mental image of the head forming, very brief and very hard to notice.
But were two pressure points actually found?
Precisely! Can you even see "your face"? Without thought, how do you know that you have a face and that the face you see in the mirror is "your face"?
The actual experience of the face in the mirror is -seeing- , then a thought arises that says that it is my face, I have a face only when I think about a face, when I am focused on a specific task, the face disappears like any other thought. I always speak with "I", but I don't know what that "I" is.
Lovely! Yes! Do you go throughout the entire day thinking that you are looking out of a face? Even when the idea of a face comes to mind…can a face be seen at all, or only thoughts about a face?
So, there is no inside or outside of a head…so how can there be a ‘me’ here and objects that are ‘not me’ and are over ‘there’?
There is just seeing, thought says something about the seeing but the seeing is just seeing, an image in a mirror is labeled as 'me' and another as 'other'.
What is it exactly that is ‘seeing’? Language is important. If you say that “seeing is happening’ or “there is just seeing”, that points to the idea that there is an “I” that is seeing with something called eyes. We will be looking at the body later on, but it’s best to phrase language in a way that makes things clear. Confusion happens and at least if the language is clear…then it’s easier to become unconfused!
Since there is no actual head, are thoughts then, appearing in a head? Are thoughts actually generated in a head?
Thoughts are appearing, thoughts appearing in the brain/head is just another thought, but thoughts are just appearing, even without a head-thought telling me where they come from.
Yes, “I” is not a place where thoughts appear. “I” is a thought which arises and subsides by itself.
A specific voice + vibration in the throat produces a thought that says that it is 'my voice' , it's easily recognized.
That is a thought story, and is therefore pure fantasy!
So what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + smell + taste + thoughts ABOUT an “I”, however, is an “I” actually known?
I really don't know what that "I" is. It would be easy to say that there is no "I" known, only AE is known, without thoughts about an "I" there is no "I", so there is no me.

But I cannot say this, because I do not feel any realization, maybe I am expecting some revelation ? Something to happen ? I'm noticing that I'm expecting some shift to happen.
If there really is no inherent self, how would the experience be different from what already is? A shift in perception happens, but there are no trumpeting angels, fireworks or any other sign that the realisation has happened. Life continues as it always has, but it is seen differently. So nothing changes but everything looks different…if you can make sense of that?
I cannot say that there is no "I", because I do not know what an "I" is, just by looking for a few moments those days I've realized that I do not know what "I" is... there were only a mix of thoughts, nothing else.
Direct experience of no self is not what LU offers. What is offered is the cessation of the illusion of an existing self, full stop. In other words, the realisation is not about there being no such entity as ‘no self’ - there has never been one…so how can an absence of a ‘no self’ be experienced? It is simply the noting of an absence of a self. So it is not about "Oh look, there is the experience of no self"; it is realising that any sense of self is seen to be not real - that on scrutiny there is no substance of self that underlies the object or thought.
Maybe I should stop expecting a realization to happen, that's just a thought.
Maybe that's a good idea! :) We addressed expectations at the beginning of this thread. Perhaps you should go back and revisit those posts.

Okay…so we have looked at what actual experience is, along with other bits and bobs. Let’s begin to look at the nature of thought.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close the eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

Looking for the gap is a way to slow the thoughts, as the objective of this exercise is to observe each and every thought as it arises and subsides.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts.
Looking how they come and go.
And observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?


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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:31 am

And even if that FEELS convincing, does that make it so? Does that feeling make it actual?
It doesn't.
Today I've been running and I got so tired at the end that the body began to make sounds on it's own, I was witnessing the sounds but there was no one making them.
Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?
My life right now is the story within the dream, but there is nothing real about a story within a dream.
Even the dream is a story within this whatever it is.
Does a thought know anything about a belief?
Does a thought know anything about what to believe or not believe?]
A thought does not know anything, there are just other thoughts who are about 'knowning', and 'believing'.
What is the difference between 'believing a thought' and 'not believing a thought'?
Another thought.
But were two pressure points actually found?
I do not know any pressure points outside of the thought 'pressure points' . So I could say that there were no actual pressure points found.
Lovely! Yes! Do you go throughout the entire day thinking that you are looking out of a face? Even when the idea of a face comes to mind…can a face be seen at all, or only thoughts about a face?
Most of the time I don't think about a face, and when the idea of the face comes up, there are only thoughts about a face.
Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?
I will update you on the exercises once I really do them.
But from my experience up until this point, I do not know how to answer because I do not know even what a "thinker" of thoughts would be other than another thought...
I will do the exercises,
Thank you Kay.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:33 am

Hey Anders....I will wait until you let me know how you went with the 'thought exercise' and respond to all in one post.

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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:22 pm

Hey Anders....I will wait until you let me know how you went with the 'thought exercise' and respond to all in one post.

Kay
Hello, sorry for being late.
Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?
I cannot find a thinker of thoughts, thoughts are just appearing out of nowhere and disappearing, between each thought there is no thinker, the thinker is thought but there is no one thinking, the 'I'/'thinker of thoughts' cannot be found anywhere. Even when I speak with someone and the thoughts about myself and my story appear, and I speak and act on them, I still see that there is nothing real about them. There is thinking but there is no thinker, there is seeing but there is no seer, it was always like that.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:25 am

Hey Anders,
And even if that FEELS convincing, does that make it so? Does that feeling make it actual?
It doesn't.
Today I've been running and I got so tired at the end that the body began to make sounds on it's own, I was witnessing the sounds but there was no one making them.
IF you drop the notion of what being a witness means, and I am not asking you to drop the thought…but to put aside what the thought means (ie content of that thought) …can anything actually be known about “witnessing/witness”?

Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?
My life right now is the story within the dream, but there is nothing real about a story within a dream.
Even the dream is a story within this whatever it is.
The show/dream is always ON. The analogy of screen and movie is good..because the screen is never empty. Even when you turn of the TV…is the screen empty, or is it simply appearing as the idea called ‘black’? Experience itself AKA THIS is not a container of ‘things’ and it is not contained by any ‘thing’ either. So there is no ‘thing’ within any ‘thing’. Are the spots on a leopard contained by the leopard or are they totality of the appearance of the leopard?
What is the difference between 'believing a thought' and 'not believing a thought'?
Another thought.
LOL yes….it’s so simple :) There is no difference between them, they are both AE of thought. It's the content of the thought that differs. The 'believing thought - says something is believed' The 'not believing thought says it is 'not believed'. So both are the same..the story is different.
But were two pressure points actually found?
I do not know any pressure points outside of the thought 'pressure points' . So I could say that there were no actual pressure points found.
No, there is simply sensation. However, does sensation have two locations, as suggested by thought when doing this exercise?
Lovely! Yes! Do you go throughout the entire day thinking that you are looking out of a face? Even when the idea of a face comes to mind…can a face be seen at all, or only thoughts about a face?
Most of the time I don't think about a face, and when the idea of the face comes up, there are only thoughts about a face.
Yes…so a face certainly isn’t known 24/7 is it? Or I should say even the story about a face isn’t known 24/7, is it?. It is simply a concept that comes and goes. So, look at the idea of a ‘me’….is a ‘me’ known, ie are the thoughts stories about a me known 24/7?
Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?
I cannot find a thinker of thoughts, thoughts are just appearing out of nowhere and disappearing, between each thought there is no thinker, the thinker is thought but there is no one thinking, the 'I'/'thinker of thoughts' cannot be found anywhere. Even when I speak with someone and the thoughts about myself and my story appear, and I speak and act on them, I still see that there is nothing real about them. There is thinking but there is no thinker, there is seeing but there is no seer, it was always like that.
Okay…so let’s continue looking at the nature of thought, and with it the idea that thoughts are the catalyst for action/movement.

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?


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

User avatar
Lagrange901
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:37 am

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby Lagrange901 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:21 am

IF you drop the notion of what being a witness means, and I am not asking you to drop the thought…but to put aside what the thought means (ie content of that thought) …can anything actually be known about “witnessing/witness”?
No, even witnessing is a thought.
No, there is simply sensation. However, does sensation have two locations, as suggested by thought when doing this exercise?
No, sensation just is, the location is a thought.
Yes…so a face certainly isn’t known 24/7 is it? Or I should say even the story about a face isn’t known 24/7, is it?. It is simply a concept that comes and goes. So, look at the idea of a ‘me’….is a ‘me’ known, ie are the thoughts stories about a me known 24/7?
No they are not, they can even disappear for hours, but I don't know what the 'me' is..
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.
Thoughts about what is happening still arise when the sound is turned off, when I turn it back on I get more involved and more thoughts appear.
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
No, it is not.
And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
No because between thoughts the play of life goes on.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: I want to see what is true

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:00 am

Hi Anders,
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.
Thoughts about what is happening still arise when the sound is turned off, when I turn it back on I get more involved and more thoughts appear.
Could you see the correlation between the commentator and what is called ‘my voice, my thoughts’?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
No, it is not.
Exactly, with or without sound on…the play continued to happen.
And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
No because between thoughts the play of life goes on.
And is there such a thing as “between thoughts”? Without thought, how could it be known?


Here is a thought exercise. Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

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"?


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


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests