You are going to have to read what I post several times very carefully. Learning to see things differently ie learning to LOOK instead of thinking takes time and can become very frustrating because we are so used of thinking rather than LOOKING at what actually is. Language is also a barrier in the beginning, because terminology used, is different. You are overthinking and overcomplicating something that is very simple ie becoming aware of raw experience,and the thoughts about the raw experience.
I understand when you say, the belief that awareness itself could possibly be another thought, is itself a thought, likely generated from a fear. You say we are here to deconstruct beliefs; how would you suggest I deconstruct this belief?
By LOOKING at what I am pointing at, instead of thinking.
Thought Classification 'Interpreting thought': Because it is difficult to see a chair without a thought/label 'chair'; I am blurring the distinction of the raw experiences that make up a chair with the label. This is why I get stuck repeating awareness could be different type of thought.
Yes, I have said, several times, that shifting from thinking to LOOKING takes time and needs to be practiced diligently on a daily basis. Many years of habitual thinking doesn’t give over in a couple of hours or days.
Do you or have you ever meditated?
Why is the label 'Tree' NOT fictitious? A bunch of people told me color + shape is the word / label 'tree'. 'Tree' is just a made up label for something that other people agreed upon and told me to use when I see the color and shape of a tree. It is even possible, it is not a tree...The label is fictitious even if it 'attempts' to accurately describe a combination of raw experiences.
A label is a thought. There is no difference between a label and a thought, they are one and the same thing. Thoughts/labels are known phenomena just as sound, sensation, taste, smell and colour are known. As I have said, several times - thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought.
The thought ‘tree’ itself is not fictitious. It is an arising thought and is AE of thought. You are aware of it as it arises…just as you are aware of smell, taste, sound, sensation and colour as they arise. However, what does the thought ‘tree’ point to? Does it point to AE or does it point to thoughts about something called a tree? I will give you the breakdown of what a tree actually IS. Please read it carefully.
The thought-label ‘tree’ is AE of thought and not AE of a tree
Colour labelled ‘tree’ is AE of colour and not AE of a tree
Sensation labelled ‘tree’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a tree
Smell labelled ‘tree’ is AE of smell and not AE of a tree
Thoughts about ‘tree’ (the content of the thought ‘tree’) is just more thought and is AE of thought and not AE of a tree.
So what is found as direct actual experience (what is actually known) is:-
Thought-label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts ABOUT tree. However, a tree is not known. A tree cannot be found in direct actual experience.
Is this clear?
Just break down objects, emotions and daily activi
ties into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please
Short example: I look at phone, see color, shape, sub shapes, sub colors, hear a ring....thought/label it 'phone'
I would really like you to break down this example in the same way that I gave you the ‘coffee’ example. The reason being, is that it writes it out clearly, which is for your benefit…so that you begin to see clearly how to break things down to what actually IS, as opposed to what thought says is.
You have said yourself that you are blurring the distinction of the raw experience that make up a chair with the label, so, I am showing you a way to get passed the blurring and to become clear. So that when the thought 'chair' arises you can recognise it as AE of thought that overlays AE of colour. You then begin to see that the thought arises, unbidden, but you can still just see that what thought is calling a 'chair' is simply AE of colour. So your direct actual experience in that moment is thought + colour.
Please do another couple days of the following exercise, and give me a few examples of the breakdowns.
So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thoughts about drinking the coffee, simply = thought
Expanded example: I look at apple, see red, some roundness, notice the red is not totally solid, it is multiple shades of red. I take a bite, notice the sensation of the bite's resistance, then notice the resistance of the bite is not the same. That resistance gets easier to bite at a certain point. I focus on the smell and taste again. At first the taste was a general sweetness, then I notice hints of sour, honey and citrus. When I focus on each experience, it is clear there is a timeline / continuum from a broad sensation experience to more detailed dynamically changing nuances of the experience. Depends upon focus.
This is nothing more than a thought story...fiction. It has nothing to do with actually LOOKING at the raw experiences being experienced. It has nothing to do with the simplicity of LOOKING at your direct actual experience, which is simply sound, colour, taste, sensation, smell and the noticing of thought - and then, from this perspective, write what you actually experience.
PS: The following was written by a former seeker who came to the forum to explore the idea of the seeming separate self and this is what he noted and shared:-
To see This, first, you must be 100% committed to seeing it. It can’t be a nice idea, an intellectual curiosity. You have got to pursue this as if you have no other choice.
Second, you must be open with a willingness to set aside your current beliefs about how things are and engage in rigorous inquiry. No-one can give this to you.
Your beliefs might rush in saying, “Yeah, but…”, “OK, but what about…?”, “I was taught that…”, “My other teacher or the book I read said…” All this must be pushed aside and sometimes quite aggressively.
Third, you must engage in active listening. Listen carefully to the words your guide is using. Be sure you are clear on the context within which the words are being used. Sometimes, when you review what was asked or said, you realize that what you thought you heard versus what was actually said are two different things.
Fourth, this ties in with number 2… practical application… You can’t just sit and ponder, you must apply the ideas to your life; see them in action. Do the work.
Fifth, be 100% honest with your guide and with yourself. You can’t cheat your way through this. Wherever you are in your understanding or lack thereof is fine, but your guide can’t help you if you are withholding. Withholding is unfair both to the guide and yourself.