Another guide please

[marka]

oh, missed this one, sorry:

Is this an impression you have from somewhere, that 'I' is supposed to 'disappear'?

not so much disappear, but I think it was from some old expectations I had. About becoming 'one' consciousness, so by inference the 'self' disappeared although never really stated.
I don't have that belief anymore, I just want to experience what comes

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

Most definitely my thoughts. My last guide got me to look at something - what sort of thoughts I have on waking - and I realised they were all about this 'me' that had things to do.

Do 'you' think thoughts or do thoughts think 'you'?

You can try this... on waking, regardless of their content or what they are about, thoughts appear. They seem to be coming to a 'me', don't they? As they appear, is there a 'self' that they 'come to' or do they just appear and dissapear.?

Once again, thoughts often seem to be ABOUT something, including 'me' or 'I' but is it possible to find the actual 'self' from which they come,or to which they come?

I see this. I will remain as open as possible and if you sense/see that this is not the case at any time, please tell me straight!

Ok. That's important. Good.

Jon.

[marka]

Hi Jon,
thanks for your guidance on thoughts.
I will pay attention to this today. Now that I am focused on thoughts I can initially report that there does not seem to be a 'me' that they come from (literally, just spent a few moments observing this), more like they just appear.

Its the content of the thoughts that seem compelling, unquestioned somehow.

Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

I can initially report that there does not seem to be a 'me' that they come from (literally, just spent a few moments observing this), more like they just appear.

OK, it is worth looking at various times and especially first thing on waking up. Are thoughts coming to a 'me' or are they just appearing?

Its the content of the thoughts that seem compelling, unquestioned somehow.

Yes. All that stuff about 'me'... What 'I' am going to 'do'... What makes 'me' anxious..and so on?

Thoughts just seem to appear, stay for a while and then disappear, don't they? Do you see this happening?

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Is there a 'self' that could prevent thoughts from appearing?


Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

Jon, I'e been looking at thoughts and noting more:

Are thoughts coming to a 'me' or are they just appearing?

- on waking - the thoughts appear to be coming to a me but when i tried to find this 'me' I could not.

Is there a 'self' that could prevent thoughts from appearing?

well, sometimes it appears as there is - at least a sense of 'will' that allows focus - either onto specific thoughts or away from thoughts (I did this today, there were thoughts I did not want so changed focus). So I have to answer, there appears as though there is a 'self' that can prevent thoughts.

Although i am not sure what this self is.

speak soon, Mark

[marka]

Also, Jon, not sure I understand this (from the other day):

Do 'you' think thoughts or do thoughts think 'you'?

the 'thoughts think you' part .... what does that mean exactly? That thoughts create the 'you' that you then believe exists?
If that's what it means then I think that is the case - that thoughts think you.
was reading back through and realised I had missed it, thanks, Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

- on waking - the thoughts appear to be coming to a me but when i tried to find this 'me' I could not.

That's an important observation. It's only when 'I' is looked for that its absence starts to be noticed. Keep checking every so often to see if there is a 'thinker' thinking thoughts. Yes. thought come, thoughts are happening but is there a controller of thoughts somewhere making them happen? Or do they just appear, like clouds crossing sky?

well, sometimes it appears as there is - at least a sense of 'will' that allows focus - either onto specific thoughts or away from thoughts (I did this today, there were thoughts I did not want so changed focus).

Yes it appears that there is a 'self'. Thought maintains that there is one.

In this example though a thought was not prevented from appearing, was it? What is going on on these occasions? Some kind of thought already appeared and then there was a feeling of it being unwelcome, then the idea of distraction occurred. But isn't the idea 'OK I'll change focus' another thought? And it seems as though 'self' has thought this one.

If there were a self, that could control thoughts it would be possible to prevent unwelcome thoughts from appearing, wouldn't it?

Oh! I was just replying and you posted again...

the 'thoughts think you' part .... what does that mean exactly? That thoughts create the 'you' that you then believe exists?
If that's what it means then I think that is the case - that thoughts think you.

Good. Yes. Right. And the belief in the existence of a 'you' is also perpetuated in thought, or by thought, isn't it?

The question is, is there a 'self' that creates or prevents thoughts or do thoughts happen regardless, rather like the noise of a fridge switching on and off, making routine noises and humming away?

Best regards,

Jon.

[marka]

Good day Jon,

today I have been doing this:

It's only when 'I' is looked for that its absence starts to be noticed. Keep checking every so often to see if there is a 'thinker' thinking thoughts.

There is no thinker that I have found. The thoughts simply appear.

However, as soon as I start looking it's like the moment has passed - that particualr thought has gone and I'm now on the next set concerning 'where is the thinker' and this seems to repeat itself - so am I ever going to be able to trace one single thought back to its source, whether it's a self thinking them or whether the thoughts simply appear, or whether there is something else entirely causing the thoughts?

That said, where I actually am with this process, based on evidence, today; there is no thinker thinking thoughts.

Also, I appreciate your observations from yesterday (that even the appearance of a self is simply more thoughts and feelings); I don't think I had realised that.

regards,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hello Mark,

so am I ever going to be able to trace one single thought back to its source, whether it's a self thinking them or whether the thoughts simply appear, or whether there is something else entirely causing the thoughts?

Is there a spatially -located 'place' where thoughts definitely 'come from'?

Is it possible to find a 'self' 'making thoughts appear? Wouldn't that entail a 'me' knowing or deciding what thought to think before thinking it?

However, as soon as I start looking it's like the moment has passed - that particualr thought has gone and I'm now on the next set concerning 'where is the thinker' and this seems to repeat itself -

Yes. And it could go in circles like this. So stay focused on simply looking for a 'self' and don't worry about what thoughts say. Keep it straightforward. If 'self' were a crocodile under my bed the only way of knowing for sure would be to actually take a look,.wouldn't it?

Is a 'self' found?

That said, where I actually am with this process, based on evidence, today; there is no thinker thinking thoughts.

Good! Going by evidence is the right way to approach this.


Jon.

[marka]

Is there a spatially -located 'place' where thoughts definitely 'come from'?

Jon,I've never noticed but will look

Is it possible to find a 'self' 'making thoughts appear? Wouldn't that entail a 'me' knowing or deciding what thought to think before thinking it?

It took me a time to think this through, to understand what was being said. And yes, it would be as you have written - since I am not aware of any such 'me' deciding what thought to think I can only conclude that the thoughts simply appear.

Your crocodile analogy is helpful, although I'm not sure what 'under my bed' is in this context of looking for self!
I do, however, get the point (I tend to take things literally at times!) and will continue looking.

Thanks Jon,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hello Mark,

Your crocodile analogy is helpful, although I'm not sure what 'under my bed' is in this context of looking for self!
I do, however, get the point (I tend to take things literally at times!) and will continue looking.

Ha ha. Yes. Instead of 'bed' it could be anywhere that 'self' might be suspected of lurking . For example if there is an idea that someone is standing behind you the obvious thing to do is look, to check, isn't it? Is there a 'self' anywhere? If there seems to be one does it exist outside of thought?

Try an excercise now. Find an object, such as a melon,or basketball or any other convenient object that is not too detailed or patterned.. Place it in front of you more or less at eye level and perhaps sit down so that you are comfortable. Just gaze on the object without concentrating hard.

Conventionally, there are three things here. There is one that sees, the object that is seen and the actual seeing. We can call this perceiver, perceiving and perceived. Now, is it possible to find a line or 'cut-off' point between perceiver and perceiving? Similarly, is thare an observable break between perceiving and perceived? Finally, is there any gap or line between perceiver, perceiving and perceived?


Jon.

[marka]

Now, is it possible to find a line or 'cut-off' point between perceiver and perceiving?

No, it appears to be the same thing.

Similarly, is thare an observable break between perceiving and perceived?

Um. I'm not sure about this, like what is actually being asked. Observable break between the actual seeing (perceiving) and the object that is seen (perceived)?
Well, they are different, object has distance involved - a perceivable difference from the 'seeing' as seeing is everywhere, all that is in line of sight and the periphery, the object is clearly defined from all that although I'm not sure the difference qualifies as an 'observable break'.

So, I get the first bit, in fact that's really interesting when broken down like that - cannot distinguish between the supposed see-er and the seeing, but the 2nd bit, not sure about - I may be missing the point or taking it too literal! So can't commnet about the 3rd bit yet - although I want to understand this!

thanks though Jon, please help me understand what is being asked - I do miss the oh so obvious you know, certainly at times anyway!
Mark

[marka]

oh, but wanted to say I like the exercises a lot, happy to do this and many more if appropriate. thanks

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

Glad you like this excercise. It's great, isn't it?

Similarly, is thare an observable break between perceiving and perceived?


Um. I'm not sure about this, like what is actually being asked. Observable break between the actual seeing (perceiving) and the object that is seen (perceived)?

It may be that you need to try this a few times. But I'l rephrase....

Is there any break or line of separation between what is usually termed the 'act of perception' and 'object perceived'? Take a red cup, for example. Looking at this there is an impression of redness, of colour, isn't there? That redness of the 'object' is perceived, is it not? This is the actual experience of 'the cup' as it appears, isn't it? But look at this redness.

This is perceived by the perceiver but also, conventionally, is viewed as 'an attribute' 'belonging' to 'the object' But to an alien who had never seen a cup before this red shape would be experienced directly without associated knowledge of its function as 'being a cup'.

It is perfectly possible to experience this right now. Regardless of the function, role or label of any object is an impression perceived right now. (I'm just looking at a white 'pack of salt'. 'Pack of salt' is what thought says about it but that is thought. Notice the raw sensation. Does that sensation belong to 'my perception' or to 'the object'? Is there any 'separation'?


Jon..

[marka]

thank you Jon, really great explanation - I get it now!

So my answer to this:

Does that sensation belong to 'my perception' or to 'the object'? Is there any 'separation'?

it belongs to both, no wait, that's not right .... I want to say both because I am, inadvertently, attributing the colour to the object. I want to say 'my perception' but that doesn't seem right either.
Maybe what I am experiencing is this 'no separation', it's quite strange, can only seem to grasp it momentarily.

..... You know, I'm going back to my original answer - it is both!

Also, this explanation you've given of perceiving the cup:

That redness of the 'object' is perceived, is it not? This is the actual experience of 'the cup' as it appears, isn't it? But look at this redness.

Well, yes, agree but surely it is more than that - depth, shape ..... even if we had no labels for those things, no names, they would still be a part of the 'direct experience' would they not? Or is that not so?

Mark