Focusing on finding out the truth about self

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

There are thoughts about a decision being made. But, that’s not a decision, it’s a thought. Decisions aren’t made, per se… Things are just happening, in a way. There can even be a “decision” (e.g. “I’m going to drink this cream right now after one second”) that doesn’t follow with the decision’s actions happening.

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?
Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?
If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.

Let’s start to investigate the body and sensations. The illusion of the self is not just simply coming from thoughts, but also from the belief that “I am the body” or “I have a body” or that this or that sensation is ‘me’ or the location of the ‘me’, or that this or that sensation is happening to ‘me’. So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating a ‘sense of self’.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivien,

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?

Yes, it is completely clear that there is no chooser in actual experience. Thoughts still appear with ideas of choices, and sometimes thoughts worrying about which choice was made with some painful sensation. These aren’t evidence of a chooser though, just thought. And, those thoughts don’t linger, they pass quickly.

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?

Yes. What ever appears in experience is completely uncaused. Even thoughts about choice, choices, or free will just appear uncaused as experience. I don’t choose anything, because an I only exists when thought is there, which is uncaused.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No. There are sensations, but not any experience of distance.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. There is sensation of the body against a chair and of arms on legs, but it doesn’t indicate weight at all. Although there’s a sensation where my back is, and where my chest is, one sensation isn’t in front of another which would indicate volume.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

There is a variety of sensation, but none of those are evidence for shape or form.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

Not at all. Where body meets clothing, there is sensation. But, then again there is only sensation sometimes. These sensations aren’t even evidence for a body or clothing. It’s just sensation.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Looking very carefully, there’s no boundary experienced. There’s sensation, there might be thought about a body and a chair, and that’s it.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No. Experience isn’t really three-dimensional like that. Infront, behind, inside, outside, those aren’t experienced. A sensation “inside” the body is not experienced “behind” the sensation of clothing.

If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?

There’s no inside.

If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

Sensation is just experience. There’s no inside or outside, experience isn’t a shaped.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

It actually refers to a variety of sensations. When my eyes are open, it refers to a change in color from the background to what is considered skin or other parts of the body.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The actual experience of the body is thought. If the thought arises "I need to feed the cats," the I in that thought is about the colors and sensation labeled body. The actual experience of that I is thought.


Thanks again for your time Vivien, much appreciated.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Experience isn’t really three-dimensional like that. Infront, behind, inside, outside, those aren’t experienced. A sensation “inside” the body is not experienced “behind” the sensation of clothing.

Excellent looking :)

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?

When all thoughts and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
-

Let’s see if there is a connection between a visual image and sensations.

Here is an exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from the visual image/color meaning the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’).

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the image/color, the ‘object’ seen (hand).
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you find?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivien. My gratitude for the reply.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?

No. There is sensation. But, that sensation isn’t evidence of a hand or touching, or a hand doing touching for that matter.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?

No, it doesn’t. There’s just pure sensation as you say. That sensation doesn’t provide any evidence that there is a hand or a table.

When all thoughts and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?

There’s just sensation. It’s just through training and conditioning that I can call that sensation a hand touching a table.

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?

No, that’s just an idea. There’s just sensation.

Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No. There’s no evidence for a feeler in experience. If the idea of a feeler appears the actual experience of it is thought.

But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

The color and sensation are real, but there is no connection between the two experienced at all. Tapping my finger on the table, sensations arise at the same time as I hit my finger, but there’s no sensation coming from the color.

Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes. That’s strange! Someone must have taught me that.

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Indeed. I guess you could say they are “beside” each other. The experiences are just happening. No link, no hierarchy as you say and as was experienced.

What do you find?

Even if a hand’s color and sensation are compared to a foot’s color and sensation, one is not happening above or below the other. Experience is a lot simpler than that. It’s just thinking that complicate matters. How do I know that this color is labeled a belly? Someone told me. How do I know that sensation comes from my head? Someone told me. Things are not really like thought imagines. The idea that these sensations come from parts of the body are just there because of training and repetition we all go through from our care givers. I’m watching it happen with my nice who is a toddler. It’s just a way to communicate with each other. None of it is needed for what's happening to happen, but it's there anyway.


Thanks,
- Kat

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

You did a nice looking. Now let’s investigate if there is a hearer or a seer in experience.

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'.

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Now let’s look at the seer.
Can you actually see the back of the eyes where the image comes from?

How is it known that the eyes see?
Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?
What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?
Now focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivien,

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

No, there’s just what can be heard.

Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard’?

There’s nothing experienced that’s hearing. Usually, I think that my ears hear and that’s processed by the brain. But there’s only what is heard, and no experience of ears hearing, sound being processed, or brain.

An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard’?

Not at all. There’s no evidence in hearing of an I/person/brain/ears. There’s just the sound of what’s heard.

What do you find?

Sound is just happening now without a receiver. Ideas like “I heard something” are just a way of talking to other people about these things. Looking at the fan, there’s no evidence that the sound is coming from the colours labeled fan. There’s no link between them, no process witnessed where the fan makes a sound. Sure, if the button is pressed to turn the fan off, the sound stops. But that’s just how this interesting illusion works.

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, it can’t be. It’s just as you say. There’s no hearer in experience, and when one comes in (e.g. “I’m hearing the fan”) that’s a thought

Can you actually see the back of the eyes where the image comes from?

That’s the scientific explanation for sight, which is great, but no, the back of the eyes isn’t seen. And, an I can’t see, it’s thought.

How is it known that the eyes see?

That’s just a nice story. Eyes are only seeing when there’s thought there saying so. After all, there’s sight in a dream which doesn’t involve eyes seeing.

Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

Heheh, there’s no behind in actual experience :) But, no. There’s just sight, nothing is experienced behind sight, and nothing seeing sights.

What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Nothing at all. There’s just an absence of thought and a variety of sensation, color, and sounds.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?

It’s more like a screen of colours than two holes looking out. It’s similar to wearing VR goggles. Things look like they have depth, but it’s just a screen where colours change to emulate depth.

Now focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?

No, the colours aren’t experienced going into the sensation of eyes. The sensation of eyes aren’t doing anything at all—that’s not in experience.

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

There’s just what’s seen. There’s no separate seer outside of actual experience that is seeing things.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

No. For that to be true there would have to be something outside of experience that could be experienced, and then experiences would have to be seen going over to that other separate awareness, and that separate awareness would need to be experienced becoming aware of the experiences. None of that is happening at all.


Thank you! By the way, is the length of time that is taken to look important?

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

You did an excellent looking!

By the way, is the length of time that is taken to look important?

It depends on how easily the looking comes. I would say that the frequency of looking is more important than the length. The more you look the bigger the chance for happening it naturally. So it’s very good if looking is going on (as a habit) after seeing through the self, to help old conditinings to fall away.

Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... q0RhEFGLeA

So let’s look at emotions, what they really are. Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Thanks Vivien. So you would recommend doing some looking throughout the day then? I tried that a bit today, sometimes with a question like “is there an I seeing?” or just looking at experience without a question.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

No, the contractions around my diaphragm and face and in my chest doesn’t “suggest” amusement. It’s just sensation.

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Yes, “amused” is a label that is about the sensation, but the label arises after the sensation. The sensation is there for some time without the label, and doesn’t need the label to be in experience.

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Ah, no, the sensation it’s self isn’t good. That’s a category, or label that can be learned. Even if there’s some additional thinking “this is good,” it doesn’t touch the sensation, it doesn’t change it, it doesn’t interact with the sensation at all. The sensation is just as it is, sensation, or neutral as you put it, no good or bad is IN the sensation.

There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Ahh, okay. Yes I do. There’s sensation, contraction in some areas, and then some thought like “I don’t want to do this” (I opened up a paper I’m writing). But, there’s no I suffering—no suffer. If I wanted to talk to someone about this pain, I might say “I’m suffering.” But, that’s just a label for that memory of the experiences.


That’s an interesting video by the way. Thanks for sharing it. With my eyes closed, I see why a sensation seems like it’s located somewhere in the body. A little image like you talked about shows the torso, for example. So, just like that rubber hand video, the illusion of a sensation coming from somewhere is created. Ignoring the image, sensations aren’t located anywhere. They are just a part of experience. Same thing as when my eyes are open and I touch my own hand, it just seems like the sensation is coming from my hand, although that’s not what is actually experienced.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Thanks Vivien. So you would recommend doing some looking throughout the day then? I tried that a bit today, sometimes with a question like “is there an I seeing?” or just looking at experience without a question.

Definitely. The more you look the easier it comes and eventually looking becomes natural. If you want to work through conditionings then looking is the key. Look until there is nothing left to investigate. And this might take several years. Seeing through the self is just a first step, just the beginning.

Ah, no, the sensation it’s self isn’t good. That’s a category, or label that can be learned. Even if there’s some additional thinking “this is good,” it doesn’t touch the sensation, it doesn’t change it, it doesn’t interact with the sensation at all. The sensation is just as it is, sensation, or neutral as you put it, no good or bad is IN the sensation.

Yes.

Ahh, okay. Yes I do. There’s sensation, contraction in some areas, and then some thought like “I don’t want to do this” (I opened up a paper I’m writing). But, there’s no I suffering—no suffer. If I wanted to talk to someone about this pain, I might say “I’m suffering.” But, that’s just a label for that memory of the experiences.

It's not just there is no sufferer, but there is no suffering either.
There is just a sensation, and only thoughts label it as ‘suffering’.
But suffering as such cannot be experienced. Can you see this?

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Definitely. The more you look the easier it comes and eventually looking becomes natural. If you want to work through conditionings then looking is the key. Look until there is nothing left to investigate. And this might take several years. Seeing through the self is just a first step, just the beginning.

Hmmm... Okay. Good to know. It will be interesting to see what happens.

But suffering as such cannot be experienced. Can you see this?

Yes. I see that suffering is just a label on the basic experience of sensation. When the thought of suffering is not there, there’s no suffering just sensation.


Thank you for the primer on pleasant and unpleasant sensations. I didn’t know that the multiple categories of emotion within the two types are the same.

So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?

Yes. They all have a tightness and a different little image of where in the body the sensations are. Although some sensations were sharp and intense, and others dull and aching, I see how they can be grouped as a contraction. It’s a little hard to see how they are unpleasant, but I do notice that they’re hard to focus on. It’s like I want to turn away.


As an aside, I feel a lot of these negative emotions just seemingly randomly throughout the day. They’re often just there in the background. I’d even say they are there most of the time, popping up and fading away. But rarely can I label them. I don’t find it easy to recognize what sensation goes with what label.

So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?

Yes, absolutely. They are of different intensities, but the word “expanded” really works here, especially in contrast to unpleasant sensations. What is expanded, I don’t know but things seem open. My whole body tingles and feels good. I get this same sensation the most intense way when I sit for meditation.

And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes, without the labels there is no distinction other than intensity. But there are the little images of where in the body they are too. Are these labels?

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?

No, it’s just a sensation.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?

No, it doesn’t. Hmmm…. The sensation is just there, changing, fading, growing. Then it’s gone and if it’s pleasant it’s because of labeling.

Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Could you please rephrase your question? :)


I noticed that a pleasant sensation can be there while an unpleasant sensation is also there. Is this accurate? I've heard things like, fear can't find a place when one has a grateful heart, but that's not my experience.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Although some sensations were sharp and intense, and others dull and aching, I see how they can be grouped as a contraction.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it’s dull or aching, or sharp, or intense?
Does the pure sensation itself communicate any qualities of itself?

They’re often just there in the background. I’d even say they are there most of the time, popping up and fading away. But rarely can I label them. I don’t find it easy to recognize what sensation goes with what label.

That’s good. You don’t have to label them. Quite the contrary. Sensations are there to be felt, not to be labelled :)

Yes, without the labels there is no distinction other than intensity. But there are the little images of where in the body they are too. Are these labels?

What is a label?
Without visual thoughts (little images) can the location of the sensation be known?

V: Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

K: Could you please rephrase your question? :)

‘Pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just thought labels over the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation communicate in any way that it has the characteristics of pleasantness or unpleasantness?
In other words, is there an AE of ‘pleasantness’ or ‘unpleasantness’?

I noticed that a pleasant sensation can be there while an unpleasant sensation is also there. Is this accurate?

Can there be more than one sensation at the same time?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it’s dull or aching, or sharp, or intense?

No, not at all. It’s just sensation, even contraction is a label about the sensation. Dull/sharp/intense/aching aren’t experienced outside of thought and are interpretations of the actual experience of sensation. It’s possible that none of those are true.

Does the pure sensation itself communicate any qualities of itself?

No, the sensation doesn’t. There does seem to be differences between some of these “unpleasant” sensations, but what ever differences are imagined are just thoughts and don’t really have to do with the sensations.

What is a label?

The actual experience of a label is thought.

Without visual thoughts (little images) can the location of the sensation be known?

Oh my gosh… No, they cannot. When the image is ignored there is just sensation. Location is not a part of actual experience, and it’s implied by thought, by the images. The thoughts/images about location do not linger and are easy to not look at. These thoughts are like an illusion generating machine.

Does the pure sensation communicate in any way that it has the characteristics of pleasantness or unpleasantness?

No, the sensations are not pleasant or unpleasant. Thought implies that they are that way, and without thought they just are.

In other words, is there an AE of ‘pleasantness’ or ‘unpleasantness’?

Not at all.

Can there be more than one sensation at the same time?

Hah… No, the reality of experience doesn't reflect how I was thinking at all. In actual experience, there is JUST sensation. There can be thoughts about different sensations, but this experience of sensation is not divided. There are no separations, walls, gaps, or containers that would make two sensations. There’s no between sensations or locations of sensations experienced at all. Is there even one sensation? There's just sensation.


I was thinking that some sensations seem different, but now… Just looking there is no actual experience of difference either.

[RainKat]

By the way, is it okay to just look at actual experience throughout the day to see what's really experienced? Or, does there need to be a question involved for looking to be effective?

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

No, not at all. It’s just sensation, even contraction is a label about the sensation

Yes, contraction is also just a label. The sensation doesn’t communicate in any way that it’s contracted or not. The sensation just is.

Location is not a part of actual experience, and it’s implied by thought, by the images.

Exactly. Nothing has location. Any sorts of location only implied by thoughts.
Location as such can never be experienced.

Hah… No, the reality of experience doesn't reflect how I was thinking at all. In actual experience, there is JUST sensation. There can be thoughts about different sensations, but this experience of sensation is not divided. There are no separations, walls, gaps, or containers that would make two sensations. There’s no between sensations or locations of sensations experienced at all. Is there even one sensation? There's just sensation.

Yes, nice looking.

I was thinking that some sensations seem different, but now… Just looking there is no actual experience of difference either.

In order to say that there is difference between sensations or anything at all, the concept of time and the concept of memory is needed. We will investigate these soon.

The illusionary self’s main concern is the pleasant and unpleasant sensations. It ‘wants’ to avoid all unpleasant/uncomfortable sensations at all cost, and longs for and clings to the pleasant sensations. It ignores the neutral sensations. Almost all thoughts when taken seriously (as reality) accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant sensations, and thus decisions on behalf of the self is based on these sensations, about wanting and not wanting these sensations. The sensations sometimes can be subtle, but even with the subtle ones, thoughts of wanting and not wanting follows them. Although, it might seem that there is a resistance (not wanting) to a thought, or an idea, or a situation, but actually the resulting sensation is being resisted, not the thought itself, since the sensation gives the quality of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the situation or other person or thought, etc.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

As soon as we ignore the thoughts, labels and visual thoughts, staying only with the sensation, the sensation gradually lessens or even dissipates since it’s no longer fuelled by the thoughts and images. So, if in the future when something triggers a strong reaction, and lots of thought proliferation about ‘me’ occur, you can focus on the pure sensation, so the intensity can lessen, so it will be easier to see that the ‘me’, which the whole story revolves around, is fictionary. That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent verbal and visual thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are simply not happening.

Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

By the way, is it okay to just look at actual experience throughout the day to see what's really experienced? Or, does there need to be a question involved for looking to be effective?

It depends. If it seems like or feels like as if there were a self/me/awareness/knower/etc. watching, seeing or looking, then it’d be very useful to look for the one who/what is performing those actions.

Or if it feels that something is happening to me, then it’s also very useful to look for the thing that the experience is happening to.

But if no entity/agency is seemingly present at all, then questions are not necessary.

But in general questions are very useful, since they direct the attention to actually looking at what the question is about. So each looking could result in realization of no-self.

Vivien