Path or No Path

[pwsamadhi]

Without thought, how could it possibly be known what the “initial impression of the image” is?

When "I" see someone sad or happy, there's no thought that occurs. Nothing needs to be verbalized in the mind for "me" to know that person is sad or happy. It's just known. I'm being honest here. Why does thought need to rise to know something? If "I" see someone crying, I do not need to verbalize thought "oh, she must be sad". Right away without thinking, one knows what the other is experiencing through empathy (or even instinct, intuition).

What is the actual experience of facial emotions?

Seeing. Movement of images or shapes.

Does color know anything about facial emotions?
Does taste know anything about facial emotions?
Does smell know anything g about facial emotions?
Does sensation know anything about facial emotions?
Does sound know anything about facial emotions?
Does thought know anything about facial emotions?

Not in its individual faculty, but collectively the experience is known. It's like the elephant with the blind men, each knowing one part but not knowing the whole until it's put together. Like the elephant to the blind man, is the experience to the individual sense faculties.

Does a new-born baby know anything about what a face is?

A new-born baby doesn't know anything let alone a face. But as a child develops, the child begins to recognize mom versus dad. If AI can perform facial recognition or voice recognition, a child can without being taught. From direct experience, neither of us, truly know what a new born knows.

Can you see that the word "however" is the beginning of a story and all stories are thought content. The only place where 'knowing' happens is in thought. Are you referring to some other sensing like smelling or tasting? The phrase, "there's a sense of knowing," is itself nothing more than thought content. "Beyond thought" is theory - thought content.

What exactly is it that has a “sense of knowing”?
Sometimes we describe this sense of knowing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ is sensing something. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?

This was what I was trying to imply. It didn't fit any of the descriptions of the sense faculties. As mentioned in the example above, when we see someone sad, it doesn't require thought to know. Neither verbalized mental word nor thought arises upon initial impression. Seeing those soccer girls smile, I didn't have to think to myself and say "oh they're happy". So I don't know how to categorize what this is.

Direct Experience happens in the moment. There are no conclusions drawn. Direct experience is just direct experience. "Things just known" is a story - thought content.

Struggling with this because there's no story told or thought that arises. Many times throughout the day, "I" gaze at pedestrians without judging or labeling, yet "I" understand raw emotion when "I" see it. No thought arises to know.

The label ‘excitement’ is the DE of thought and not the DE of excitement
The sensation labelled ‘excitement’ is the DE of sensation and not the DE of excitement

Agreed.

The thoughts about what excitement is and what is excited (content of thought) is AE of thought and not the AE of a person or of excitement.

Agreed. The collective sensations labeled "excitement" arising. No person being excited.

So what is actually appearing as DE is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about excitement. But in DE is excitement actually known? Or does thought point to the sensation and label it ‘excitement’?

Thought points to the collective sensations and labels it "excitement". Although the label is not necessary. It is only needed when creating a self-story or to communicate it to another. The collective sensations of excitement are still known via direct experience without the actual "label" but through it's unique combination of physical sensations.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘excited/excitement’?

As mentioned above, the collective sensations create the expression of what we label "exited or excitement". But the label nor thought is needed. The experience itself is complete without thought.

Now have a look at “increased heart rate”, “tenseness in muscles”, “shortness of breath” and tell me what they are in DE.

Physical sensations.

Information that cannot be experienced directly is content of thought. Do you see this?

No, not quite there yet. "I've" experienced numerous cases of experience without thought nor thought content. In times of heightened emotional states, thoughts aren't even present. Just raw emotional or sensate experience. These intense situations, thoughts simply aren't there. This occurs in "flow" states as well.

Have you actually seen there is no “I” or are you just saying it because this answer doesn’t correspond with any or your other answers that all point to an “I” called Peter?

It doesn't require an "I" to know. It's just part of experience. When an image is seen, emotions and physical sensations arise with that image simultaneously. There's no "I" thought here.

When an actual feeling is felt, for example, fear, can you describe that feeling in precise detail to me? I don’t want to know what fear is, I want you to describe the sensation labelled as ‘fear’.

Quite similar to excitement but with slight variations with physical sensations,
-Tenseness, nervousness, sweaty palms, butterflies in stomach, immobilized, mind going blank, dry mouth, heat rising up the neck, heat rising around the body

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

I don't think I'm the right guide for you. I have asked the other guides if one of the will take over your thread. It may take a couple of days before another guide responds.

The new guide will simply post on your thread and continue with you.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

I don't think I'm the right guide for you. I have asked the other guides if one of the will take over your thread. It may take a couple of days before another guide responds.

Got it. Well thanks for all the time you spent this past two months and have taken me this far. You've definitely opened some other perspectives for me and have exposed subtle traces of thought that "I" previously was not aware of. As we both know, all of this is spontaneously arising and not our doing.

Much gratitude, thank you!

[pwsamadhi]

The part I don't get is...

Per Guide:

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Peter's Response:

No it's not necessary. It's just content that arises on it's own. The commentator that comes and goes.

If the inner narration of thought not a necessity for the play of life to happen, which we both agreed upon. Then why is thought, which is nothing but mere narration, required "to know" anything. There is an un-verbalized knowing, a cognizing, when the sense faculties are experienced. How is this any different from inner narration?

Could a guide tell me the difference? Why does knowing, must imply that it's thought content or that there's an "I". Can one not know an experience through the sense faculties without thought. Thought occurs only as a communication of the experience.

As soon as you bite into something tasty, you know it's good without the need for thought to arise.

[Artst]

Peter,

You're entirely welcome! It's a two-way street. I get enormous value from guiding. Thank you for all I've learned from guiding you.

Sending love,

Robyn

[Canfora]

Hi Peter,

I'm Canfora and I'm your new guide. I didn't read all your conversation with Robyn, only pieces here and there.

I've read the questions in your last post but I would prefer to start by asking you the below questions - we can deal with your questions later:

- can you already see that a separate self is an illusion?

- if you do see -- how do you know you see the illusion?

- if you don't see -- how do you know you don't see the illusion?

Looking forward to our talk,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Hello Canfora! Hope all is well.

Can you already see that a separate self is an illusion?

I see that experience regardless internal or external is still just experience. This mind/body and its sense faculties are integrated into the environment. It coexists and there is a dependent origination. There is no lasting permanent self. Everything is a constant flow or change of this moment. A play of elements, sense consciousness that make this moment.

There is seeing... but no "I" that sees.
There is hearing... but no "I" that hears.
etc..

Because of this, one cannot be separate from what is or what exists. This mind/body sense faculties is connected to its environment and part of the whole. It's essentially one and the same.

If you do see -- how do you know you see the illusion?

I recognize the "I" thought that thinks it's a separate individual. A personality. The narrating mind that most people identify with. The story or contents of the mind. There is a seeing and acknowledgement of the "I", "me", "my" stories and although initially powerful, it's stores are starting to wane, to be seen through. It is noticed more frequently and then it stops. At times it's not even there. Or when it does arise, it is given little importance and disregarded.

If you don't see -- how do you know you don't see the illusion?

There are times when I don't see when an emotional event is very powerful. Then it takes on the "I" who is experiencing the experience. However, it is quickly understood and dropped once the conditions that arise which caused the emotional event dissipates. Then it is seen that, there is no "I" who experienced this event, it was due to causes and conditions that arise for the mind/body to express itself this way.

[Canfora]

Hi Peter! Thank you for your reply. I think I got a feeling of where you are regarding this path.

This mind/body

Would you say you think you are mind/body?

Have a look at what you call mind.
Can you see something in "this mind" that is you?
Are the thoughts about you you?

Have a look at what you call body.
Can you see something in the body that is you?
If you look at a hand -- would you say you are the hand or something inside the hand?

I wish you a nice weekend.
Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Would you say you think you are mind/body?

Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body. But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything. "YOU are not in this world, but the world is in you". Where the knower and known is one. One of my favorite quotes.

Have a look at what you call mind.

Can you see something in "this mind" that is you?
Are the thoughts about you you?

No. There is no mind aside from thought. Mind is just a bundle of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. There is the experience of thought and there exists the content of thought. As of late, I've been disregarding thoughts. But as I mentioned earlier, it becomes more real when emotionally charged.

Have a look at what you call body.
Can you see something in the body that is you?

No, there is no self that can be found in the body.

If you look at a hand -- would you say you are the hand or something inside the hand?

No. There is the object hand and the seeing of the hand. The habitual thought "my hand" arises, but I know that is just a thought and that there is no "my".

[Canfora]

Hi Peter! Thank you for your reply.

Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body.

We have all kind of thoughts all the time.
A thought can be about "Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body."
Or a thought can be about "But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything."
Thoughts have the tendency to be "black" or "white", dual.
Examples:
1. black and white
2. large and small
3. up and down
4. left and right
5. fast and slow
6. easy and hard
7. young and old
8. loud and quiet

Thinking about the self illusion isn't an exception.
A thought can be "a separate self is an illusion".
Or a thought can be "that can't be true, I am me, a self."
Since thoughts are what they are (whatever that may be!) and do what they do, how do you know if they are accurate or not?

But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything. "YOU are not in this world, but the world is in you".

Right now are you having an experience where you aren't everything? How do you know that?
Can you find any bondaries between you and all the rest? Can you find this you, you're talking about, that isn't everything?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Thinking about the self illusion isn't an exception.
A thought can be "a separate self is an illusion".
Or a thought can be "that can't be true, I am me, a self."
Since thoughts are what they are (whatever that may be!) and do what they do, how do you know if they are accurate or not?

Yes that's kind of funny. The very thought itself is the limiting factor.

Right now are you having an experience where you aren't everything? How do you know that?

I don't know for certain. But because of duality, appearances of subject and object seem to be real. Things seem to be separate. But yet I can't locate an "I" and understand conceptually all is one. But like you said, these are just thoughts and really have no basis for truth. I do see that all is just experience, not separate.

Can you find any boundaries between you and all the rest? Can you find this you, you're talking about, that isn't everything?

There's the boundary between physical body and physical object. In duality and world of relativity, there's the object experienced and the experiencer. But in reality, there's only experiencing. This I understand. However, as I mentioned below, if an experience is emotionally charged it becomes very real and affects us as humans.

It's easy to say all is one. But when experiences intensify (e.g. running in fear being chased by a dog, lusting after a beautiful girl, experiencing anxiety when public speaking). This subject, the experiencer experiencing, feels very real, and one suffers as a result of it.

A sage who knows all is one would not be scared of external objects for he knows it is not separate. He would not lust for external stimuli, since he also knows it is not separate. So he abides as-is, unfazed. <-- Perhaps these are just more thought concepts I have. But I've read about yogis, enlightened masters who exhibit such demeanor (again, just thought content as Robyn would point out). =)

[Canfora]

Thank you for your reply!

A sage who knows all is one would not be scared of external objects for he knows it is not separate. He would not lust for external stimuli, since he also knows it is not separate. So he abides as-is, unfazed.

Maybe. Does that mean the sage isn't a separate self and you are?

You seem to be looking for a transcendent experience? I can't help you with that. I suppose the sages you mention had to practice for a long long long time until they reached such... huh... perfection. What I'm pointing to is something very simple and immediate. It doesn't require years of practice. I'm pointing to a fact not a specific way of being in the world.

You seem to be quite stuck in ideas of what should happen if you see the illusion! Do you expect to become a sage?

[pwsamadhi]

Maybe. Does that mean the sage isn't a separate self and you are?

You're right. None of us are separate selves, including the sage. Although the sage perceives the world as not separate and a regular joe perceives the world as separate.

I'm pointing to a fact not a specific way of being in the world.

Got it. The fact that we're not separate, part of the whole. And that there's no self?

You seem to be quite stuck in ideas of what should happen if you see the illusion! Do you expect to become a sage?

Haha, no I don't expect to become a sage. I guess that although there is the understanding that we're not separate and that there's no self, life sure doesn't seem to be experienced that way unless you sit back and try to really see what's going on. Then yes, it's understood all is just experience and that there's no separate individual experiencing. But in day-to-day life, the relative world, the personhood or "I" get's caught up in duality. I guess I'm looking for the authentic no-self experience that fundamentally shifts how the world is perceived.

There's two paradigms, say with anxiety.
-The old paradigm goes, "I'm feeling anxious". There's a me that feels anxious.
-The new paradigm goes. "Anxiousness arising". There's no me that feels anxious, the person is removed.

However, the moment it happens, it feels very real. The object triggering anxiety and the subject feeling it. Hence the illusion of a separate self arises.

[Canfora]

Hello there!

It seems to me that you are mainly thinking about this, instead of focusing in what is here now.
You want to understand.
You want answers.
You bring up things that aren't happening as examples of how things seem to be and how they work.
That's how we learn to make sense of the world and it's a way of exploring that feels safe.
I'm not saying you aren't going to find answers. But they will very likely appear after realization. Not before.
The same way you can't know the taste of a dragon fruit before you taste it.

Thinking and speculation about this isn't the direct path.
The direct path is about focusing in what is here now, using the tools we have to explore the world - the senses.

What you are doing is focusing in the map instead of walking the territory.
It's imagining the taste of food by thinking about the menu, instead of tasting the food.

And that's okay. This may take some time.

You mention anxiety. Does this exploration frighten you? Do you have fears around the possibility of seeing that you aren't a separate person? Fear of change? Fear of lack of control? Fear of not being accepted by others? Fear of going slightly nuts? Fear of something else?

What comes up as a reaction if I say there is no you?

Take care,
C

[pwsamadhi]

Thinking and speculation about this isn't the direct path.
The direct path is about focusing in what is here now, using the tools we have to explore the world - the senses.

Got it. It's always here now and it's only ever of the senses.

It's imagining the taste of food by thinking about the menu, instead of tasting the food.

Haha, makes sense. I guess things are as they are for now.

Does this exploration frighten you?

No, I love it!

Do you have fears around the possibility of seeing that you aren't a separate person?

No, I can't wait.

Fear of change? Fear of lack of control?

No, I'm aware that we're not really in control. Part of surrendering and acceptance.

Fear of not being accepted by others? Fear of going slightly nuts? Fear of something else?

I was just referring to a minor case of social anxiety this "I" has. So maybe it's a tad relevant to the first. How is there an "other" if there's no separate self is what I'm trying to get at? Because the sense of separate self is present, at times the "other" triggers anxiety in certain social situations.

What comes up as a reaction if I say there is no you?

That's the thing, it's understood conceptually and intellectually there's no "I". However, "I", think it may not be authentic for, at times, social anxiety can arise when there are others. Not all the time, just specific people or situations. I also understand this is due to past conditioning. But I suppose this is the story of "Peter" and what he needs to deal with in the now.