Hi

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

Yes, there is: "I am different". Not fitting very well or even not fitting at all, like a piece of another puzzle.
It took some time to uncover it, but basically this seems to be the main topic of "I" here.

Whow, what a relentless realisation.

So, there is a “me” and the other. “Me” and them.
“Me” and the stranger. “Me” and the person next to me.
Is that so? Like two tracks who may never meet?

This is duality. Living as a seperate person.
Or (I don’t like the term) the ego.

It somehow seems not to fit into the pattern of self-realisation,
or appears like a piece of another puzzle, as you rightly called it.
But it is there anyway. It can’t be denied.
So we better look the tiger right into the eye.
The overall question in all that is:

Is there identification?

Is it my me? To whom belongs the me?

Are you able to see the thoughts with content “mine, me” just as a thought?

A thought is real in as far you can observe it in AE.
But is the content of a thought real?


If you go and watch a movie and it is a well done one you might get emotionally sucked in,
laugh and cry with the unfolding story of the characters.
But deep down you know as realistic as it seems to be - it is just fantasy.

Same with the catching story of Marcin.
There is strong stickiness especially to the "I,my, mine" thoughts for quite a while.

Is there a thinker of thoughts, or do thoughts just happen?

Let’s look at thought and the content of thought a little more.
Write the word "I" on a piece of paper.

Look at the word, is that YOU?

Speak the word “I” silently; be aware of any sensations or responses to this word.

Are any of these reactions in your body or mind by themselves YOU?

Now say the word “I” aloud.

Is that sound YOU?
Is the combination of any of these, the word, the sound, the thought YOU?”
Is the thought, "I exist" you?
Is the thought "I" you?


All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

Again I didn't have enough time to finish writing an answer to you in the recent days. At the beginning some things seemed too unclear, and then life piled up many urgent things to do. Below is what I managed to put together till now:

The overall question in all that is:

Is there identification?

Yes, there is. "I" identify with experience, with thoughts, with the "I" story.

Is it my me? To whom belongs the me?

"I" has no owner. It's just there. It seems to be a composite thing, even self-contradictory at moments, but nevertheless part of this perceived reality.

Are you able to see the thoughts with content “mine, me” just as a thought?

It seems twisted somehow, as if it was a kind of a vortex - some thoughts seem to float freely, but those that form "I" are twisted and seem to move constantly. Or maybe they are just linked together. I don't know how to separate them, how to see them clearly as thoughts.

Moreover, what has been seen in the last days is that perception is similar to augmented reality - basically all sensory input is incessantly interpreted and labelled and fit into some mind's scheme. When there is some prevalent mood or a thought tendency, mind seems to go so far as to try to bend the sensory perception to fit it into what it wants to be true. When there is unhappy mood, nothing seems to work, when there is some mental pursuit, for example to try to see the truth of "no self", mind tries to bend itself to show the reality without the self, by hiding it, denying it, labelling it as unreal, etc. But as you say, it is not a riddle to be solved by mind, so it feels frustrated again and again.

A thought is real in as far you can observe it in AE.
But is the content of a thought real?

Logically, it should not be so, but it seems quite real. This "augmented reality" is quite compelling here. Like the scent of the fake Christmas tree - it was undinstiguishable from the AE at first.

Let’s look at thought and the content of thought a little more.
Write the word "I" on a piece of paper.

Look at the word, is that YOU?

Well, there is a strong feeling that this word somehow expresses "me". And there are emotions arising about it. Now "I" really like "me", "I" want to keep it - this feeling of "me" feels good now, after you encouraged me to embrace it.

Speak the word “I” silently; be aware of any sensations or responses to this word.

There is a feeling like a big tender and warm bubble growing when "I" is pronounced. And now it shows how susceptible is the mind to any suggestions: after you suggested that "I" should be embraced, it has become warm and nice to feel this "I".

Are any of these reactions in your body or mind by themselves YOU?

No, they aren't. They are just sensations and thoughts. I can see them as separate from "me".

Now say the word “I” aloud.

Is that sound YOU?
Is the combination of any of these, the word, the sound, the thought YOU?”
Is the thought, "I exist" you?
Is the thought "I" you?

No, all of the above are not true. But all of them point to "me", or have a big "me" label on them.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

Again I didn't have enough time to finish writing an answer to you in the recent days.
At the beginning some things seemed too unclear, and then life piled up many urgent things to do.
Below is what I managed to put together till now:

Thank your very much for this long and honest reply.
If things are unclear please mention them so we can deal with ( :
So we try now:

Yes, there is.
"I" identify with experience, with thoughts, with the "I" story.

Ok. Now you know and are certain about it.
We’re going to have a look at that, if you like.

"I" has no owner.
It's just there.
It seems to be a composite thing, even self-contradictory at moments,
but nevertheless part of this perceived reality.

So it seems there are two “Me” – personalities.
Somehow we’re getting lost in words and language here.
There is a ‘ME’ which acts according to conditioning, let’s call it the separate self.
It exists through the story that gets repeated in the mind and also in the mind of others.

This self is all about story: “I’m born on this and this date in this and this place,
this was my childhood and it was so and so and than this and that had happened.
This was very bad, this was very good, I like this, I don’t like that.
This is nice, this is ugly.
I’m such and such tall and my body is such and such, etc etc.”

What we are trying to find out is whether all this convictions are true?
What remains when all these assurances aren’t there anymore?
Will you die then? Who is that ‘you’?

Who is the one who has a dream, or a nightmare during sleep?
Where or who is the actor in the dream? It appears all to be so very real.
But then, waking up, the actor is totally gone.
Did ‘you’ die by waking up? Obviously not. It was not a big deal at all.
The dream was just an acting out of the mind with another body –
while the person called Marcin was in deep sleep.

As long the feeling of “Me” is good, all is well. No need to change or do anything about.
But when the feeling turns into a bad one, you are compelled to find your way out.
You don’t want to stay with it and the reflex is to try to stop it or create some distraction;
speak out to somebody, have some chocolate, run, scream, or whatever.
However these ‘bad’ feelings are just an expression of change. It is like a swing:

The swing goes forward; very pleasant feelings. Then it turns backwards; very unpleasant feelings.
Basically it is just the same process.
But one likes to cling to the pleasant ones and tries to avoid the unpleasant ones.
If one is able to look really closely and without any bias it becomes so clear:

There is only the one who perceives and the perceiver is the same as perception.
This perceiver is referred as ‘you’, but at the same time it is clear that this ‘you’ is not a separate entity.
It is just beside the whole scene. It is always there.
It is in no way hidden. At the same time it can also be said that the ‘you’ doesn’t exist.
It cannot be seen by thought or the mind as all these factors are also due to change.
They are also caught in the swing-state.

I It seems twisted somehow, as if it was a kind of a vortex - some thoughts seem to float freely, but those that form "I" are twisted and seem to move constantly. Or maybe they are just linked together. I don't know how to separate them, how to see them clearly as thoughts.

Thoughts are just thoughts are just thoughts…
They don’t have an intrinsic life or quality.
You don’t need to do anything with thoughts and you would also not be able to do so.
All that can be done is just to realize: Ah, thoughts. Ok.
Can an inherent thinker be found?
Would anything that would suggest to be the thinker be anything other than a concept or an idea?

Moreover, what has been seen in the last days is that perception is similar to augmented reality –
basically all sensory input is incessantly interpreted and labelled and fit into some mind's scheme.
When there is some prevalent mood or a thought tendency, mind seems to go so far as to try to bend the sensory perception to fit it into what it wants to be true. When there is unhappy mood, nothing seems to work, when there is some mental pursuit, for example to try to see the truth of "no self", mind tries to bend itself to show the reality without the self, by hiding it, denying it, labelling it as unreal, etc.
But as you say, it is not a riddle to be solved by mind, so it feels frustrated again and again.

Yes, it cannot be pursued intentionally. As the mind is part of the whole story,
it can never be a satisfying tool for realisation. But what you describe is already a great realisation.
You see how the mind works and how it by all means tries to prove authorship.
This is a great realisation indeed!

Logically, it should not be so, but it seems quite real. This "augmented reality" is quite compelling here.
Like the scent of the fake Christmas tree - it was undinstiguishable from the AE at first.

Yes, the stories of the mind are very convincing. And by all means it will try to stick to the grip on you.
Once you see that all these thoughts are just stories without any inner truth or value you won’t be compelled
to believe all these stories.

You might know the example with Santa Claus.
Do you believe in him? Did you ever?
Or any other figure; Batman or anything like that.
You know it is just a story and as story itself has some value.
But nothing more. It’s nothing to get bothered or exited about.

Well, there is a strong feeling that this word somehow expresses "me".
And there are emotions arising about it. Now "I" really like "me", "I" want to keep it –
this feeling of "me" feels good now, after you encouraged me to embrace it.

Yes, keep it. Once you are 100% sure about the difference between the story and perception
all false things will fall away naturally. You are there; but the story is just a story.
So it is totally OK to feel good about it.

There is a feeling like a big tender and warm bubble growing when "I" is pronounced.
And now it shows how susceptible is the mind to any suggestions: after you suggested that "I"
should be embraced, it has become warm and nice to feel this "I".

Yes, that’s OK. Just be aware what this “I” really is. Whether it’s just a fancy story
or a profound deep and lasting truth?

No, they aren't. They are just sensations and thoughts. I can see them as separate from "me". “
So a mere story without any deeper meaning.

Please try to add a little meditation practice to your daily routine.
Five minutes before getting out of bed and five minutes before falling asleep would suffice.
Even two minutes will do.
You may do it while lying down however the sitting position would be even better.
See what works best for you.
So here it comes:

Just give all your attention to the breath.
Natural breath, as it comes in and as it goes out just naturally.
You might also be aware of the belly expanding and constricting with each breath.

When there are thoughts just let them be there like the chirping of birds outside.
They are there but don’t listen to them intentionally.
Just be with the breath as it comes in naturally and passes out.

It does that all the time mostly unintentionally.
Now you are there just to witness the whole process;
breathing in – breathing out.
Coming – going. In – out.

If you might get caught in a thought just see how quickly you come back to natural breathing.
You might simply note: Ah, just thought. Then again: In breath – out breath…

You might try this also during the day with open eyes; waiting somewhere, having a little break, on the toilet…

Please let me know how you go.

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

It's been again some busy days here and that's why I am answering so late. Thank you again for all your time, questions and comments. All of it is really invaluable!

Yes, there is.
"I" identify with experience, with thoughts, with the "I" story.

Ok. Now you know and are certain about it.
We’re going to have a look at that, if you like.

Yes, very much! While it is clear that this "I" is a very inconsistent thing and nothing certain can be said about it, the identification nevertheless goes on for most of the time. This seems similar to a central part of a stage, where a main character is supposed to appear.

There was however some change in the last days, the identification seems suddenly somehow less strong. It became easier to perceive "I" as just a story, one of many stories possible and in no way encompassing the reality.

Thank you for what you wrote about the whole "me" story and how it works in the last post. It seems to really start making a difference now.

The swing goes forward; very pleasant feelings. Then it turns backwards; very unpleasant feelings.
Basically it is just the same process.

While this is only a thought, it seems striking how synchronicities can suddenly show up. Basically just before your post I've read these words of Plato's Socrates, here in English translation: "What a strange thing, my friends, that seems to be which men call pleasure! How wonderfully it is related to that which seems to be its opposite, pain, in that they will not both come to a man at the same time, and yet if he pursues the one and captures it he is generally obliged to take the other also, as if the two were joined together in one head." Basically the same message as yours! And moreover, because of some work development, I could experience this mood swinging quite clearly in the last days, but this time it felt more like an exercise and not something which really defined anything.

Please try to add a little meditation practice to your daily routine.
Five minutes before getting out of bed and five minutes before falling asleep would suffice.
Even two minutes will do.

I've meditated for several years now, albeit irregularly. The method has been no different from what you have described: paying attention to breath and noticing thoughts as something passing while getting back to the breath. I ususally meditate sitting cross-legged about 20-30 minutes at a time, but not daily - whenever there are too many things to do in a day, I just tend to skip meditation. Additionally, sometimes throughout the day I pay attention to the breath, but usually very briefly. Many insights, inlcuding recent ones, have been formulated after meditation. But probably results would be better if it was a daily practice in the formula you recommended.

Best regards,

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

Thank you again for all your time, questions and comments. All of it is really invaluable!

You are most welcome. ( :

While it is clear that this "I" is a very inconsistent thing and nothing certain can be said about it,
the identification nevertheless goes on for most of the time. This seems similar to a central part of a stage,
where a main character is supposed to appear.

Ok, just keep on checking whether there is something real - besides a thought - that owns and directs the body.

Is the identification a direct experience?
Where does it take place?

Direct experience is seamless. There is just the mere experience.
There is a sense impression; either thought, sensation, sight, a sound, a smell, a taste and?
Is there something else?

Look really closely:

Before identification comes in there has to be a sort of a gap in experience.

There’s this gap and then only the idea of the “me-concept” shows up.


Therefore: MIND THE GAP!


(In the London Underground this warning is played via loudspeaker for every incoming train.
There’s a gap between the platform and the train and passengers are reminded not
to fall into it. So Londoners must be very mindful people… ( : )

While this is only a thought, it seems striking how synchronicities can suddenly show up.
Basically just before your post I've read these words of Plato's Socrates, here in English translation:
"What a strange thing, my friends, that seems to be which men call pleasure!
How wonderfully it is related to that which seems to be its opposite, pain, in that they will not both come to a man
at the same time, and yet if he pursues the one and captures it he is generally obliged to take the other also,
as if the two were joined together in one head."

Yes, great. This is just pure suffering.
Anything in the phenomenal world is due to change.
There's nothing permanent or lasting.
Therefore there’s nothing to cling, nothing to grasp.

When you really see it, there is a strong yearning just to come out of it.
You like to throw it away like some stinking litter. Or like a poisonous snake.
No time to waste, you throw it immediately.
There is nothing like: At present there’s not time. Maybe later…
Once you really see it it just drops naturally.
But take care not to make another concept out of it.

And moreover, because of some work development,
I could experience this mood swinging quite clearly in the last days, but this time it felt more like an exercise and
not something which really defined anything.

Very nice.

I've meditated for several years now, albeit irregularly.
The method has been no different from what you have described: paying attention to breath and noticing thoughts
as something passing while getting back to the breath. I ususally meditate sitting cross-legged about 20-30 minutes at a time,
but not daily - whenever there are too many things to do in a day, I just tend to skip meditation. Additionally, sometimes
throughout the day I pay attention to the breath, but usually very briefly. Many insights, inlcuding recent ones,
have been formulated after meditation. But probably results would be better if it was a daily practice in the formula you recommended.

Very good!
The longer you practice it, the better.
However here continuity is the secret of success.
When you can’t find time for a longer session you’ll have at least these little five- minutes’ units.


Give all your attention to the breath. Look really closely.
Get really in touch with it.
Stay with the in-breath until it comes to a turning point.
For a short moment it seems to stop and then only the out-breath comes.
Again it seems to stop for a little while before the new in-breath comes.
Maybe you can even notice that the incoming breath is a little cooler
and the outgoing breath slightly warmer.


Please let me know how you go.

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

Ok, just keep on checking whether there is something real - besides a thought - that owns and directs the body.

Is the identification a direct experience?
Where does it take place?

Direct experience is seamless. There is just the mere experience.
There is a sense impression; either thought, sensation, sight, a sound, a smell, a taste and?
Is there something else?

Look really closely:

Before identification comes in there has to be a sort of a gap in experience.

There’s this gap and then only the idea of the “me-concept” shows up.

Yesterday there was a lot of mind-wrestling, e.g. during meditation "I" seemed to flip into an outside viewer watching an ape-like animal sitting on the floor, or "I" was overlaid with an ancient Chinese guy. Today things seem to be different: during meditation the "I" feeling slowly became localized around the body and felt separate as some kind of glowing halo. And it seems to be still separate now, a semi-transparent film added to the reality. There is some serene feeling about being now and here and witnessing everything happening. While the perspective hasn't changed, the separation seems to be gone. However there are still some thoughts doubting the change. The direction seems right now and it feels that meditation is the right thing to do at the moment.

All the best,

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

please try to come back to answer on a daily basis.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
9

What is it that keeps you away from giving all the 10 points?

Where you able to feel the entire length of the breath as suggested in my last post?
Where you able to notice the slight temperature shift within the incoming and out coming breath?

Please refer only to d I r e c t e x p e r I e n c e!

Yesterday there was a lot of mind-wrestling, e.g. during meditation "I" seemed to flip into an outside viewer watching an ape-like animal sitting on the floor, or "I" was overlaid with an ancient Chinese guy. Today things seem to be different: during meditation the "I" feeling slowly became localized around the body and felt separate as some kind of glowing halo. And it seems to be still separate now, a semi-transparent film added to the reality. There is some serene feeling about being now and here and witnessing everything happening.

Ok. These are all fantasies. Let them come and go as they are totally meaningless.
Let them be there like clouds in the sky but do not pay attention to the clouds.
Don’t try to figure out patterns and forms in the clouds; this one looks like an elephant,
this one like a car, etc,etc – this is totally meaningless.

If you were in a desert, dying of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts),
or would you need to drink ‘real’ water?
Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you two options:

(1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written on it, and
(2) in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose to quench your thirst, the label or the water?

So, can the label ‘water’, which is actual/direct experience (AE) of thought, quench your thirst?

Labels are ‘real’ as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the label/thought is ABOUT
is not ‘real’ and is NOT the AE of ‘content’.

Is this clear?

Please do this little exercise and answer the questions by direct experience only:

When getting out of bed the following morning:

Can you see a self making you leave the bed?

Where does the "decision", the "command" to get up come from?

What makes the body get up?

Does a ‘you’ or a thought command the body?

It's always interesting to see the difference between thought content and what really happens.

Can you see a self making the body leave the bed?

Please answer the green marked question all one by one.

One ore two words would suffice.

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

please try to come back to answer on a daily basis.

OK. The problem sometimes is (beside being busy) that I do not have any progress to report about in the first day.

What is it that keeps you away from giving all the 10 points?

That was before. Now I am adamant that I am ready to question everything about "self" and can give the whole 10.

Where you able to feel the entire length of the breath as suggested in my last post?

Yes.

Where you able to notice the slight temperature shift within the incoming and out coming breath?

Yes.

Labels are ‘real’ as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the label/thought is ABOUT
is not ‘real’ and is NOT the AE of ‘content’.

Is this clear?

Yes, it's clear. Only AE in my reports from now on.

Where does the "decision", the "command" to get up come from?

There was no command, just as the circumstances changed, the body moved.

What makes the body get up?

Nothing visible. The body gets up when it's ready to do that and circumstances allow or compell it.

Does a ‘you’ or a thought command the body?

No.

Can you see a self making the body leave the bed?

No, definitely not.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

thanks for your quick reply.

The problem sometimes is (beside being busy) that I do not have any progress to report about in the first day.

All that needs to be done is LOOKING…
Whether it is looking into feeling, hearing, tasting etc..
No need for any progress, as progress is just a superimposition of the mind.
So it’s also totally OK just to say: I don’t know, I can’t see, I can’t feel, etc.

This is not about continuing one’s studies with getting marks and all that.
This is about YOU and nothing else… ( :



Ok, now let’s take a closer look at the ‘you’ as the observer:

The usual belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief
that the body as a separate item is responsible or 'DOING' the senses –

'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc

We will begin with 'seeing' –

Just that one sense on its own. Close your eyes.
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'.

There may be other things you can find going on, sure.
If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow.
There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing –
It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed,
I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.

1--- With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

2---Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

3---Can what is witnessing the blackness be found?

4---Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is witnessing the blackness?
Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?

5---Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other
than a concept/idea/thought?




All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

So it’s also totally OK just to say: I don’t know, I can’t see, I can’t feel, etc.

OK. :)

1--- With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

Yes, what's seen is "blackness".

2---Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

No, just blackness. No difference between central and peripheral vision for example.

3---Can what is witnessing the blackness be found?

No.

4---Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is witnessing the blackness?
Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?

It's just blackness.

5---Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other
than a concept/idea/thought?

No, no seer at all.


Best regards,

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

5---Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other
than a concept/idea/thought?
No, no seer at all.

This is wonderful!

So please just close your eyes again.
With eyes closed, you will experience this 'blackness'.

Let's move on to opening the eyes now.

Again, address this very simply –
The 'seeing' sense only for the moment.

With eyes open, a world of objects appears
. . . a room . . . a computer screen etc.
What you can specifically see isn't of interest here,
and whatever it is, I am simply going to refer to it as 'what can be seen'.
This might be a little more tricky, but give it some consideration.

1 --- With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is
'what can be seen' as I mentioned?

2 --- Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?

3--- Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

4 --- Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Marcin be found
that is witnessing 'what can be seen'?
Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

1 --- With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is
'what can be seen' as I mentioned?

Yes, it is.

2 --- Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?

No, there's just this "what can be seen".

3--- Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

No, there is just the experience itself.

4 --- Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Marcin be found
that is witnessing 'what can be seen'?
Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, no "I / me" is needed for the experience of seeing to happen. The experience happens by itself. There is no personal entity active in the experience.

Best regards,

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

No, no "I / me" is needed for the experience of seeing to happen. The experience happens by itself.
There is no personal entity active in the experience.

Very good!

So now let’s go into hearing.

Find somewhere quiet to sit.
Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are,
or sounds from outside. Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

Look really carefully here. Let’s say you hear the sound of a dog
barking. Immediately there might be a thought process saying:
The dog is about 100 meters away from here.

1---But where does the hearing experience actually take place?
Does it take place a 100 meters apart from you?

2---Can it really be said without inference that the sound heard is a dog?
Or traffic, or children, or whatever?

3--- In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?


All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

1---But where does the hearing experience actually take place?
Does it take place a 100 meters apart from you?

No, it is not possible to pinpoint the location where hearing takes place. It's neither close to the body (e.g. not in the ears), nor at the place of the origin of a sound. In AE it just happens without spatial coordinates.

2---Can it really be said without inference that the sound heard is a dog?
Or traffic, or children, or whatever?

No, it's just a sound. Thoughts of course follow it closely, but are distinct.

3--- In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?

No, it's only "what can be heard". There might be some quick "reaction" to a sound - e.g. "being startled by a surprising sound", but this is also just a thought.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Der Marcin,

No, it's only "what can be heard". There might be some quick "reaction" to a sound –
e.g. "being startled by a surprising sound", but this is also just a thought.

Yes, very good.

So now we may start with feeling.
The feeling of bodily sensations.

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images
or thoughts that appear and put them aside.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) –
Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the feeling/sensation which we would normally refer to as
'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find?
Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?

2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?

3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'?
Or is there just 'a sensation'?

4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find? Can an INHERENT FEELER be found?


All the best

nina