What has changed: before the summer I would have been more likely to take the thoughts to be truth/reality, they would 'stick' and their corresponding feelings would 'stick'. Now when a thought arises I know it to be transitory; I know it will pass on to be replaced by another thought. For example, a familiar thought to me is that I am not working hard enough, that I should do more, that I am not being responsible and not good enough in my efforts. In the past that first thought could arise and be followed by a string of corresponding thoughts. I might have believed them, or I might have gotten stuck into an inner battle fighting the thoughts with counter thoughts. Not the initial thought might arise but I know two things: first, it has no inherent truth therefore the only question is whether it is a useful thought or not a useful thought. Second, I know that the thought (and it corresponding feelings) will pass, I don't need to fight them.Where you answer my first question, you say
"...but the thoughts arise and pass away and they do not stick"
Could you say a little more about this please? What has changed in this respect?
The language, "thoughts arise and pass away", in new to me. I find I have only started hearing this inside my head in the last couple of weeks, I think I picked it up from one of the authors on the recommended reading books.
Sorry Jon, I not sure I understand what you are seeking here. Excuse me if I am oversimplifying or perhaps over analyzing, but am I wrong in assuming that all language is a label? Have I not read you using the phrase 'experience of existence' in your past emails?Is this phrase not just a set of labels?
To address your question of the meaning I was intending behind the phrase, it was in relation to the second question of what is the illusion of self. In referencing my experience before seeing through the illusion, back then I was more inclined to the narratives about experience, instead of being inclined towards more direct experience itself, (instead of being inclined towards direct existence itself). To put it another way, the illusion appears to interoperate and filter and spin narratives about sense experience (existence). Where as 'no self' is a more direct experience.The story becomes more real than the experience of existence itself.
What are you meaning by the 'experience of existence itself'?
With love,
Mic

