Looking For A Guide

[SamanthaR]

Hi Alina,

I am hoping you are well. I noticed you hadn’t been on the site for a bit so I am unsure if you are still guiding on LU. I am thinking it may be spring break for your little ones.

If for any reason you are not still involved in LU, or don’t want to work with me, is it possible for you to pass me to someone else?

Many thanks and hoping the beauty of spring is in bloom by you!

Sending love,

Samantha

[Matthew]

Hi Samantha,


Sorry for the delay!
Alina asked me to continue here since she cannot concentrate on this right now.

Is that okay with you?


With kindest regards

Matthew

[SamanthaR]

Hi Matthew,

Nice to meet you and - Yes it’s absolutely okay!

Thank you for picking me up and please send her my best regards.

Please tell me how you’d like me to proceed.

Thank you again,
Samantha

[Matthew]

Let's just see where we are at the moment and joyfully proceed from there!


When you say or think "I" these days.
How is it experienced?

Is "I" more than a word, more than a thought?
Is there anything special about the word/thought "I"?

[SamanthaR]

When you say or think "I" these days.
How is it experienced?

Is "I" more than a word, more than a thought?
Is there anything special about the word/thought "I"?

Hi Matthew,

How “I” experience “I” varies in intensity depending on how emotionally charged a situation is. There is an intellectual understanding that “I” is a set of programmed responses but it is still experienced as a personal experience or entity.
“I” still identify with my thoughts to a very large extent. I keep trying to break the habit.
I know cognitively that the concept of I is a thought, but I don’t feel it emotionally or intuitively as just a thought.

[Matthew]

This all sounds good, we are on the right track!
It is busy around here right now.
I'll answer you tomorrow elaborately!

[Matthew]

How “I” experience “I” varies in intensity

So "I" experiences "I".
Wait a second...
Are there two "I"s in there?
One experiencing the other?

Which one are you?
The first? The second? Both of which? None of which?

I don’t feel it emotionally or intuitively as just a thought

So when it is not experienced as a thought, what is it?
What else could it be?

[SamanthaR]

Are there two "I"s in there?
One experiencing the other?

Which one are you?
The first? The second? Both of which? None of which?

I guess it’s semantics in some sense. I’ve been trying to parse it out but it’s a bit fuzzy. In some ways there does seem to be two - but I don’t think they exist at the same time. (Im sure that sounds insane...) One seems to witness and one seems to experience/ react/ etc. So I suppose one experiencing the other might be a good description.
It feels as if I am both - but I feel entangled and defined (in a negative way) by the one that has all the thoughts and stories. That’s the one that identifies with fear.

Is it ok to ask a question on a side topic that has to do with Direct Experience and the “I”?

[Matthew]

Haha, yeah...
The closer you look into this "I", the more fuzzy and the more insane it gets.
Why's that?
Because looking into utter nothingness and imagining something ("I") while doing so causes fuzziness and insanity.


We'll look into your answer. But first please go ahead and pose your question!

[SamanthaR]

Thank you Matthew,

My question is difficult to put into clear wording but I am going to try. It was something I was working on with Alina, so if it’s completely irrelevant to how you work, feel free to disregard it. Also, if it is too confusing or convoluted, I apologize, it is hard to describe:

The question has to do with something I’ve been trying to experience or understand for a few months. I was looking at the idea of physical boundaries when I was working with Alina; and trying to see how in a sense there are no boundaries between myself and other things, say for example - trees.

I understand that the idea of “tree” is a set of colors / visual stimuli that I label as a unit of “tree” but I see it as separate from “me,” as I seem to be where the seeing is happening from.

I can’t not separate it even if I intellectually know the boundary is not really there, because I cannot experience anything from the perspective of “tree.” I only have the sensations and perspective from the unit of thoughts and sensations I label me, or “I.”

I don’t know how to think about this differently to be able to shake myself into perceiving it differently - to be able see that really there are no boundaries between things. If there is a way to do this, I would like to be able to. Am “I” thinking about it all wrong?

Let me know if this came across clearly.

With Gratitude
Samantha

[Matthew]

Am “I” thinking about it all wrong?

The problem here is not "wrong" thinking. The problem is thinking as a whole.

I don’t know how to think about this differently

Thinking brought you this far. But there is no different way of thinking, which can bring one any further.
Thinking limits to conceptual understanding.

But is there even "thinking" in the classical sense? Do you author thoughts?
We will come back to this.

What we need in any case now is to stop thinking and start looking.
You STOP and LOOK at what is here now.

boundaries between myself and other things, say for example - trees

Focus on the seen.
A tree is right there, it can be observed.
It can be SEEN.

as I seem to be where the seeing is happening from.

What can be SEEN where the seeing apparently is happening from?

Can an "I" be seen?

Can anything be seen?

[SamanthaR]

But is there even "thinking" in the classical sense? Do you author thoughts?
We will come back to this.

Please let’s come back to this or spend more time on it. I have been trying to see this for awhile. Feeling ownership of my thoughts is a very difficult part for me to get past. I seem to observe that thoughts author other thoughts in a stream. Thoughts also happen as a result of perceptions. It feels as if the thoughts are - maybe not authored but allowed? or invited by the “I.” They are not experienced as random or just happening without a causation.

What can be SEEN where the seeing apparently is happening from?

Ah. Only direct experience “outside.” The I cannot be seen, it is only a thought.
It is like there are tiny glimmers of understanding and then they disappear and confusion comes in.

Can anything be seen?

As in the direct perception of sight - I think so. I’m confused though. If I perceive things visually without labels I am not seeing “things” just colors. Is that what you mean or am I misunderstanding?

[Matthew]

Is that what you mean or am I misunderstanding?

The question was simply:
What do you SEE at the place where thought says: "Here is my face"?

thoughts author other thoughts in a stream

Can one thought think another thought?

Feeling ownership of my thoughts is a very difficult part for me to get past.

Think of a number between 1 - 100!



....



Did you choose that number?
Have you brought it up deliberately or did it just appear as a reaction to the question?

If it seems to be that you chose it willingly, why not the number before?
Or the next? Or a completely different number?

[SamanthaR]

The question was simply:
What do you SEE at the place where thought says: "Here is my face"?

Two answers - if I look in the mirror - then I see what I stated before in the pervious post - colors that I label with the idea of face.
If I am NOT looking in the mirror then there is just sensation that I label with the idea of face. Unless I pay attention to the sensations in my face, there is nothing but a thought that there is a face.

Think of a number between 1-100!

I immediately thought of 98. It appeared on its own as a reaction to the question. Exactly as you stated.

Can one thought think another thought?

It would seem not. I am still looking at it. It seems that one can trigger another if that makes sense.

It brings me to this:
If none of these concepts of thoughts are decided on by any sort of governing mind - then how does it work that I can be guided towards an understanding?

Let me be clear that I completely agree and have heard from enough different directions that thoughts just sort of arise on their own and subside on their own. What I’m wondering is how are they affected by anything?
Thoughts can seemingly be trained to go in a direction. So Is it like a reprogramming? The only way I can partially understand the nature of thoughts is to view them like software coding.

[Matthew]

have heard from enough different directions that thoughts just sort of arise on their own and subside on their own

Now is the time to check this thoroughly! So that there is no doubt about it anymore.
Do not rely on ANYTHING learned in this investigation.
Only ever look at the present direct experience and investigate for yourself.
Also no agreeing! When it is crystal clear, there needs to be no agreeing.

The only way I can partially understand the nature of thoughts is to view them like software coding.

Have you ever heard of the metaphor of the thief and the policeman?
It translates very well to the attempt to understand thoughts.

When "I" tries to understand other thoughts, it is like a policeman becoming a thief.
The policeman gets the order to catch the thief.
How could he ever catch himself?






Here is a nice little excercise to recognise the nature of thought:


Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes. The following link is to a game of football, but if you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://youtu.be/b-BSpfMjGuM?t=22s

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, the whole experience.

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, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?
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?