Help Me Please!!

[Brenda]

Where do thoughts come from?

Thoughts appear to come from deep inside of me, like from my gut. I can feel them rise up with in me.

Where are they going?

They float up from within and as they get to my head, they have a chance to be attached to, or else they continue to rise and just dissolve. It is similar to conceiving a baby.

Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?

You can't stop the thought, but you can stop the emotion that attaches to it. For example, as a thought arises you can choose to attach to the thought, or decide you want different types of thoughts and then they will arise.

Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?

No, you can not predict the thought but can guide the topic.

Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Yes, you can have very painful thoughts and refocus your mind to a happier thought and then those thoughts will come up.
It is like there is a computer deep with in us, that just randomly produces various thoughts based on past beliefs and filters. As you choose to select a different topic, the thoughts will keep rising but the topic will change.

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?

There is no "I" to be found, they come automatically, like there is a computer program inside designed to continually produce thoughts.

“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?

I am not sure what the "I" is. It seems there is something that can change you thought topic, although that is just another thought

What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’

There is no thinker, just random thoughts continuing to bubble up.

Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?

There is no thinker in the experience, they are one and the same.

Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

Yes, this seems to be true but then are there 2 thinkers? You know how you can have a debate in your mind with yourself. I do feel that they are just thoughts too, but what is changing the type of thought.

Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?

Do thoughts create more thoughts? Then they are not linear, One thought can create multiple sub thoughts or a new thought entirely. So there is not a thinker deciding to change the type of thought, but a thought deciding on a new thought?
If this were to be true, then a thought can subdivide multiple times creating new ideas or old ideas depending on the filters that have been created within us.
If this were true, then we are saying we are just a robotic form or a computer, like a thought generator?

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

As one learns to lengthen the gap between thoughts,
I guess this doesn't prevent a thought but prolongs a thought. If a thought thinks the next thought

A thought appears, runs through a filter, maybe in the heart, to determine if emotions and reactions attach to it. If so, the thought is born and determines the next thought. If nothing attaches to the thought, then a new thought is released and goes through the same process. An entire story can be created from this one thought as the thought continues to think new thoughts to generate the story.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Most of your replies didn’t come from actually look at the experience. They are only thought assumptions, speculation.

But that’s all right in the beginning. We are so used to think and take the content of thoughts are reality, that we hardly know how to look at the experience directly without thought interpretation.

But in order to see through the self, you have to shift your attention from looking at what THOUGHTS have to say ABOUT AE, to LOOKING the EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY.

The whole point to SEE what is there WITHOUT THOUGHT INTERPRETATION.
Thoughts are constantly interpreting, judging, categorising the experience, thus creating a conceptual overlay on the AE. And since these thought constructs are almost always on, we forget how to see the pure experience without this thought overlay. This overlay distorts our seeing, since we mistake the thought overlay with reality. We believe that thoughts convey the truth without ever questioning and actually checking (by seeing the experience directly) if thoughts are really correct.

With these exercises we are looking ‘under’ or ‘behind’ this thought overlay to see what is actually there.

Actual experience (AE) is: sounds, smells, taste, colour/image, sensation, and seeing the appearance of a thought (as a phenomenon). But what the thought about is not AE.

Only sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation and thought as a phenomenon can be experienced.
Everything else is just a conceptual overlay, a thought interpretation on the experience.

I don’t want to bombard you with 30+ questions, so I will reply in several shorter posts instead.

V: Where do thoughts come from?

B: Thoughts appear to come from deep inside of me, like from my gut. I can feel them rise up with in me.

This is not the actual experience, this is a thought story. You have to ignore these stories and see what is there WITHOUT thoughts or ‘under’ thoughts.

Please close your eyes, and just observe as thoughts come and go.

Without thought, how is it known that thoughts are coming from the gut?

Can a thought be actually felt?
Or only sensation can be felt?

Can anything else be felt than a sensation?

What is the actual experience of ‘thoughts rising up from the gut’? Is this a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

Remember, actual experience (AE) is: sounds, smells, taste, colour/image, sensation, and seeing the appearance of a thought (as a phenomenon). But what the thought about is not AE.

Vivien

[Brenda]

Actual experience (AE) is: sounds, smells, taste, colour/image, sensation, and seeing the appearance of a thought (as a phenomenon). But what the thought about is not AE.

Okay, so actual experience is actually using our senses directly and not allowing a thought to distort it.
Do we see the appearance of a thought? I am not sure I understand this statement.

Without thought, how is it known that thoughts are coming from the gut?

We cannot feel thoughts without thinking because we cannot use our senses like sight, sound, smell, etc for the actual experience, therefore I do not know where the thoughts are coming from. I cannot see the appearance of a thought, so I do not know where the thoughts originate.
Thoughts arise without any interaction. One cannot see, feel, hear, etc a thought arise. They just arise naturally.

Can a thought be actually felt?

A thought cannot be felt because the thought needs to create the feeling. The feeling comes once we attach to the thought.
So the AE of thought does not exist.

Or only sensation can be felt?

I am not sure I understand the difference between a sensation or a feeling. Are they not the same?
Or is feeling associated with a thought, but a sensation can stand on its own?
I have the same confusion about Looking vs Observing. Is the difference that looking is using your natural senses and observing is attached to thought as well?
Please clarify.

Can anything else be felt than a sensation?

I am stuck on this sensation vs feeling. Can you give me an example?

What is the actual experience of ‘thoughts rising up from the gut’? Is this a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

When I quiet my mind to look for thoughts to arise, I have an empty sensation in my gut. But I am not sure, am I imagining this?

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Okay, so actual experience is actually using our senses directly and not allowing a thought to distort it.

Yes.

Do we see the appearance of a thought? I am not sure I understand this statement.

Yes, the appearance of thought is seen / known, isn’t it?

How else would you know if there is a thought present without actually experiencing the presence of the thought (as a phenomenon)?

Can you see that the presence of a thought is experienced?

Let’s say there it the thought present: “It’s sweet”. The presence of this thought is experienced. Can you see this?
But the content of this thought ‘sweetness’ is NOT experienced. Can you see this?

If the content of thought (what the thought is about) ‘sweetness’ contained experience than the word/thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted. Can you see this?

So the thought ‘it’s sweet’ is present, it’s experienced as an arising thought.
But what the thought is about (the content) ‘sweetness’ is NOT experienced.
Can you see the distinction between the two?

Could you please write a similar example?

We cannot feel thoughts without thinking because we cannot use our senses like sight, sound, smell, etc for the actual experience, therefore I do not know where the thoughts are coming from. I cannot see the appearance of a thought, so I do not know where the thoughts originate.

You are making a logical conclusion here, without actually looking at your immediate experience.

It’s not about that we have 5 senses, and since thought is cannot be experienced through those 5 senses then thought doesn’t exist. Not at all.

There are the 5 senses + the knowing of the presence of the thought. So it’s actually not 5, but 6.

A thought cannot be felt because the thought needs to create the feeling.

Thoughts DO NOT create feelings. This is just another assumption what we will investigate later.

So the AE of thought does not exist.

The AE of thought EXIST!

Since when a thought is present, it’s known/experienced that it’s there. Can you see this?
However, what the thought is about, the content of a thought, CANNOT be experienced. Is this clear?

I am not sure I understand the difference between a sensation or a feeling. Are they not the same?
Or is feeling associated with a thought, but a sensation can stand on its own?

Sometimes feelings are being equated to emotions. And emotion is a sensation + thought.
We will look at this later.

V: Can anything else be felt than a sensation?

B: I am stuck on this sensation vs feeling. Can you give me an example?

We say that color is seen, smell is smelled, sound is heard, taste is tasted, and sensation is felt.
We don’t say sensations is sensationed. Thus we say that sensation is felt.

But just because the word ‘felt’ is used, it doesn’t mean that sensation equals to feeling ( = emotions).
Since a feeling or an emotion is a sensation + thought.

So nothing else can be felt other than sensation!
A sound cannot be felt.
A color cannot be felt.
A taste cannot be felt.
A smell cannot be felt.
A thought cannot be felt.
Only sensations can be felt. Nothing else. Can you see this?

I have the same confusion about Looking vs Observing. Is the difference that looking is using your natural senses and observing is attached to thought as well?

It doesn’t matter what word we use, looking or observing. These are just thought labels. The label doesn’t matter.
What matters is to SEE what is there in experience. We label this as ‘looking’.

The important point is that experience has ONLY 6 elements: sound, color, taste, smell, sensation, and the presence of a thought. Nothing more. Can you see this?

When I quiet my mind to look for thoughts to arise, I have an empty sensation in my gut. But I am not sure, am I imagining this?

Regardless of it being an imagination or not, thoughts arising from the gut cannot be felt!

This is just a thought story, a conceptual overlay on the AE of a sensation labelled ‘gut’, and the knowing of the presence of a thought.

In AE there is only the sensation + thought. Nothing else. Can you see it?

And only the content of another thought makes the claim that the previous thought arose from the gut. Can you see this?

But this is just the content of a thought. And the content is never experienced, is not happening, it’s just an imagination. Can you see this?

However, as an arising thought is present (as a phenomenon). Is this clear?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Yes, the appearance of thought is seen / known, isn’t it?

A thought is known. It grabs your attention to make itself known. I am not sure where it comes from though. it just appears.As I look, there it is.

How else would you know if there is a thought present without actually experiencing the presence of the thought (as a phenomenon)?

This is true. I am not sure I see the thought, but I do "know" the thought is there or maybe another thought knows the thought is there . As the thought appears, I know it, or experience it.

Can you see that the presence of a thought is experienced?

Understood. We must experience the thought to know it is there, but as long as we do not add emotion or thought, then it remains as is, a AE.

Let’s say there it the thought present: “It’s sweet”. The presence of this thought is experienced. Can you see this?
But the content of this thought ‘sweetness’ is NOT experienced. Can you see this?

Yes. We experience the fact that there is a thought, but not the contents of the thought. Because if we were to experience the sweetness, we would be adding emotion to the sensation.

If the content of thought (what the thought is about) ‘sweetness’ contained experience than the word/thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted. Can you see this?

We are experiencing that a thought exists. We have to know it exists or we wouldn't know it was there. If we try to experience the content of the thought, would take thought, and would not be AE.

So the thought ‘it’s sweet’ is present, it’s experienced as an arising thought.
But what the thought is about (the content) ‘sweetness’ is NOT experienced.
Can you see the distinction between the two?

Yes this is clear.

Could you please write a similar example?

A thought arises of the ocean breeze across my face.
I experience the thought has arisen, but I do not experience the feeling of the breeze, just the experience of the presence of the thought.

Since when a thought is present, it’s known/experienced that it’s there. Can you see this?

Yes, if we did not experience that a thought has risen, we would not know it is there.

Only sensations can be felt. Nothing else. Can you see this?

Everything else just is. A sensation is felt so we can experience that we have a thought.
It may be just an understanding of the specific word.
a feeling or an emotion is a sensation + thought.

Only sensations can be felt. Nothing else. Can you see this?

I understand.

The important point is that experience has ONLY 6 elements: sound, color, taste, smell, sensation, and the presence of a thought. Nothing more. Can you see this?

And the only on of these elements that can be felt is the sensation. the rest just are.

In AE there is only the sensation + thought. Nothing else. Can you see it?

does thought create a sensation or just a knowing?

And only the content of another thought makes the claim that the previous thought arose from the gut. Can you see this?

and if you experience the contents of the thought, that is thought.

But this is just the content of a thought. And the content is never experienced, is not happening, it’s just an imagination. Can you see this?

Yes, understood.

However, as an arising thought is present (as a phenomenon). Is this clear?

This is the same as an knowing.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Your replies are quite confusing. Sometimes you make a clear statement, but in the next reply you negate your previous comment.

Could you please tell me how do you reply to these questions?
Are you investigating my questions through thinking and making logical conclusions?
Or are you actually looking at your immediate direct experience and check if my statements are in line with your direct experience?

A thought is known. It grabs your attention to make itself known.

This statement assumes that thoughts are some sort of entities or agencies that have a power to do things and perform actions, like grabbing attention.

Can the process of ‘thoughts grabbing attention’ be actually experienced?
If not, how it is known that thoughts are grabbing attention?

but I do "know" the thought is there or maybe another thought knows the thought is there .

Again, you are making the assumption that thoughts are entities that has the power to do things, like knowing and being aware of another thought. But is this really true?

Can a ‘thought knowing the presence of another thought’ be directly experienced?
If not, then how is it known that thoughts can know that another thought is there?
Are thoughts aware?

A thought arises of the ocean breeze across my face.
I experience the thought has arisen, but I do not experience the feeling of the breeze, just the experience of the presence of the thought.

Yes!

and if you experience the contents of the thought, that is thought.

At one point you seem to see the clear distinction between a thought and its content, then suddenly in the next comment, like the above, you are confused about the distinction.

Is English your native language?

How could the content of a thought be experienced?
Can the CONTENT of the thought “It’s sweet” be experienced?

V: Can you see that the presence of a thought is experienced?

B: Understood. We must experience the thought to know it is there, but as long as we do not add emotion or thought, then it remains as is, a AE.

When you say ‘understood’, then you just believing what I wrote, you take my word for it, or are you actually checking in experience if my statements are in line with experience?

“but as long as we do not add emotion or thought, then it remains as is, a AE.” – what do you mean by this?
What does emotion has to do with the AE of thought?
Are you saying that emotion takes away the AE of thought? Or what do you mean exactly?

Yes. We experience the fact that there is a thought, but not the contents of the thought. Because if we were to experience the sweetness, we would be adding emotion to the sensation.

“If we were experiencing the sweetness, we would be adding emotion to the sensation” – what do you mean by this?
What does sweetness have to do with emotion?

What do you mean by the word ‘emotion’?
Are you saying the emotions make the content of a thought AE?

If yes, then you are saying opposing things, since previously you stated that emotions take away the AE of a thought.

How did you come to the conclusion that emotions have ANYTHING to do with the AE of a thought at all?

A sensation is felt so we can experience that we have a thought.

Are you saying that without a sensation a thought cannot be experienced?
How did you come to the conclusion that ‘sensation is felt so we can experience that we have a thought’?

V: In AE there is only the sensation + thought. Nothing else. Can you see it?

B: does thought create a sensation or just a knowing?

There is a HUGE misunderstanding around sensation and thought.

Please describe to me what you mean by the word ‘sensation’.
Also, what do you mean by the word ‘thought’?
And what do you mean by the word ‘emotion’?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Could you please tell me how do you reply to these questions?
Are you investigating my questions through thinking and making logical conclusions?
Or are you actually looking at your immediate direct experience and check if my statements are in line with your direct experience?

I read your comments in the morning, practice and process the teaching throughout the day, and respond at with.
I guess some of my answers are through thinking. I will need to take a closer look at this. I didn't realize I was doing this, but you may be right.
I do try to have the direct experience, but don't always see it as you describe and that is where the thinking comes in.
I still do not know know where the thoughts come from. I do agree we experience them as they arise as I just know they are there, but I do not see where they are coming from.

Can the process of ‘thoughts grabbing attention’ be actually experienced?
If not, how it is known that thoughts are grabbing attention?

Maybe the wording isn't correct. I am not sure I experience every thought. Sometimes i look and there is a thought on top of another thought, and I am not sure of what the first thought was. So this is what I mean by "grabbing my attention". I know that thoughts do not have power, some thoughts are more experienced than others.

Can a ‘thought knowing the presence of another thought’ be directly experienced?
If not, then how is it known that thoughts can know that another thought is there?
Are thoughts aware?

no this cannot be experienced. Thoughts do not have any power, they are only experienced.

Is English your native language?

English is my native language. Is there a reason you ask this?
I am being honest in my responses as requested and sometimes do not see what you are saying, so am doing my best to see.

How could the content of a thought be experienced?
Can the CONTENT of the thought “It’s sweet” be experienced?

This is sometimes confusing to me. For example, If a thought comes to take a bite of an apple. I experience the thought, but I cannot experience the content of this thought until the bite is actually taken?

When you say ‘understood’, then you just believing what I wrote, you take my word for it, or are you actually checking in experience if my statements are in line with experience?

I say understood when the question was answered in a different response. Sometime is seems the same question is being asking over. I am checking in to see but I still do not see where the thoughts come from.

“but as long as we do not add emotion or thought, then it remains as is, a AE.” – what do you mean by this?
What does emotion has to do with the AE of thought?
Are you saying that emotion takes away the AE of thought? Or what do you mean exactly?

A thought is just a thought with no filter on it. Once emotion is associated with the thought, is is no longer a AE.
Emotions change the experience to an illusion as it starts to tell a story.

“If we were experiencing the sweetness, we would be adding emotion to the sensation” – what do you mean by this?
What does sweetness have to do with emotion?

Correct me as maybe I am not understanding this. When I see a thought, I experience the thought, not the content. If we cannot experience the content of any thought then how does the illusion take place. I feel that if I connect with the thought, that the story may start to unfold creating the illusion.

What do you mean by the word ‘emotion’?

Emotion refers to happy, sad, frustrated, etc. Emotions

Are you saying the emotions make the content of a thought AE?

no. I see that if threes emotion associated with a thought, then it is no longer a AE. Is this incorrect?
If this is incorrect, then this is not clear to me.

How did you come to the conclusion that emotions have ANYTHING to do with the AE of a thought at all?

Doesn't emotions negate the AE all together? if not, I do not see.

A sensation is felt so we can experience that we have a thought.
Are you saying that without a sensation a thought cannot be experienced?
How did you come to the conclusion that ‘sensation is felt so we can experience that we have a thought’?

What is your definition of a sensation?
Things may be unclear as we are using different labels?
I am not saying you need a sensation to have a thought, as a thought can be seen or known, but it can be possible.
Sometimes as I have a sensation in my body, it brings my attention to see I have a thought.

Please describe to me what you mean by the word ‘sensation’.
Also, what do you mean by the word ‘thought’?
And what do you mean by the word ‘emotion’?

sensation - any type of feeling within the body
thought - an idea or statement that comes to mind
emotion - happy, sad, frustrated, etc.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I read your comments in the morning, practice and process the teaching throughout the day, and respond at with.

All right. Here is a very importing thing. The world (and the internet) are full of teachers and thus with teachings. But I am not a teacher, I am not teaching you anything. Since teaching means that I make a statement and you either agree with me and thus believe me, or not. Teaching happens on the level of intellect (thoughts) only.

We are already FULL of beliefs about awakening, we don’t need more.

What we are doing here is quite the opposite. We are not adding more beliefs, rather we are investigating that the beliefs you currently hold whether they are in line with experienced. And as a result, you are going to LOSE certain belief and not gaining more.

So please never ever take any of my statements for granted, never believe me!

Rather, stop, and look at your experience (but NOT your thoughts), and check if my statements are correct or not.
Can you see the difference between the two?

So when I ask: Can you see this? – then I am not asking you to consider this intellectually, by thinking about it and then either agreeing with my statement or not. But rather I am asking you to stop, ignore everything thoughts have to say, and LOOK at your immediate experience and actually SEE and CHECK in EXPERIENCE if those statements are right or not. And then use words as precisely as you can to describe the experience clearly, without adding any extra.
All right?

I guess some of my answers are through thinking. I will need to take a closer look at this. I didn't realize I was doing this, but you may be right.

Our default state is to pay attention to thoughts, and not to experience. So at the beginning it might not be easy, but the more you do it, the easier it gets.

I still do not know know where the thoughts come from. I do agree we experience them as they arise as I just know they are there, but I do not see where they are coming from.

Excellent! Since there is no actual experience of the origin of thoughts.
Thoughts don’t come from anywhere, and they don’t go anywhere in experience.
Thoughts either there, or not.
Can you see this?

English is my native language. Is there a reason you ask this?

I was asking this because a great number of people signing up to this forum are not native English speakers, and sometimes misunderstandings are coming from language issues.

I am being honest in my responses as requested and sometimes do not see what you are saying, so am doing my best to see.

I appreciate your honesty, and I don’t doubt it :)

V: How could the content of a thought be experienced?
Can the CONTENT of the thought “It’s sweet” be experienced?

B: This is sometimes confusing to me. For example, If a thought comes to take a bite of an apple. I experience the thought, but I cannot experience the content of this thought until the bite is actually taken?

No. The thought: “Let’s bite into this apple” is experienced only as an arising thought, as a phenomenon.
But the content, biting into the apple is not. Never. Not even when you actually bite into the apple.

Do you remember the first exercise I gave you about labelling everything with ‘sensation, thought, taste, smell, sound, color’? You might want to redo it.

So when biting into the apple happens the AE is only taste + sensation.
biting into apple = taste + sensation
Thinking about biting into an apple = thought
Can you see this?

I say understood when the question was answered in a different response. Sometime is seems the same question is being asking over. I am checking in to see but I still do not see where the thoughts come from.

Yes, I often ask the same questions again and again, and I will do so!

You have to SEE things EXPERIENTIALLY hundreds or thousands of times. So you have to LOOK again and again and again. This repeated looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about the realization!

With looking, you ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the looking and looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

A thought is just a thought with no filter on it. Once emotion is associated with the thought, is is no longer a AE.
Emotions change the experience to an illusion as it starts to tell a story.

Here is the misunderstanding. Not the emotions are responsible for the illusions, quite the other way around. This whole illusion is mainly created by THOUGHT.

Not the emotion is telling the story, but THOUGHT.
We will investigate this later.

V: How did you come to the conclusion that emotions have ANYTHING to do with the AE of a thought at all?

B: Doesn't emotions negate the AE all together? if not, I do not see.

No, the presence of emotions have nothing to do with AE.
Could you please tell me what you mean by actual experience (AE)?

When I see a thought, I experience the thought, not the content. If we cannot experience the content of any thought then how does the illusion take place.

The content of a thought is never experienced, but we BELIEVE that the content of thought is experienced!

So the illusion is created by BELIEVING that the CONTENTS of THOUGHTS are REAL, are EXPERIENCED, while they are not.
I feel that if I connect with the thought, that the story may start to unfold creating the illusion.

You see, for example the above comment is NOT seen only as a thought, but rather its content is BELIEVED to be real.
And since the content is believed to be real, it is believed that there is an ‘I’ that could connect with a thought.

If the content of this thought wasn’t believed, it wasn’t taken as real, then it would be clear that there is NO ‘I’ at all that could connect or not with a thought.
Can you see this, even if just intellectually?

What is your definition of a sensation?
Things may be unclear as we are using different labels?

By the word ‘sensation’ I mean bodily sensations.

If you pay attention to the sensations in your hand right now, you can feel a subtle tingling sensation.
Or if you pay attention to your butt sitting on the chair, you can feel a pressure, which is a sensation.
Or if you pay attention to the sole of your feet, whatever you feel there that is a sensation.
Physical pain is also a sensation.
Hotness, coldness are also sensations.
The contracted sensation in the chest that comes up when somebody tells you something nasty, is also a sensation.
Can you see these?

Sometimes as I have a sensation in my body, it brings my attention to see I have a thought.

Yes, but if this happens, then there are the AE of a sensation + the AE of thought.
And only another thought tells the story that the previous thought was done or triggered by an emotion.

This is a BELIEF in cause and effect, and thus in the belief in time.
Cause and effect is just a belief, NOT experience. We will investigate this later.

no. I see that if threes emotion associated with a thought, then it is no longer a AE. Is this incorrect?
If this is incorrect, then this is not clear to me.

No, it’s not. The presence of the absence of an emotion has nothing to do with AE.

AE is nothing else than these 6 ‘things’:

- Sound
- Color
- Taste
- Smell
- Sensation
- Thought (as a phenomenon, but NOT the content, NOT what the thought is about, what it’s saying)

Can you see this clearly?

Please read this post SEVERAL TIMES very carefully, before replying.
Some things might be clearer after reading it through a few times.

Vivien

[Brenda]

All right. Here is a very importing thing. The world (and the internet) are full of teachers and thus with teachings. But I am not a teacher, I am not teaching you anything. Since teaching means that I make a statement and you either agree with me and thus believe me, or not. Teaching happens on the level of intellect (thoughts) only.

This is a true statement. This is a belief that needs to be released. I know it is time to go within, I have stopped reading all books and listening to others, but I continue to look for other peoples opinions.
There is some resistance about being guided, meaning it needs to be done on my own, but I am softening this resistance and am excited to actually see this for myself.

We are already FULL of beliefs about awakening, we don’t need more.

This is another resistance. There are so many beliefs in side of me that need to be released. I spent years creating these beliefs and now see that they are incorrect. So please be patient, many are very strong, but are all getting unjarred as I look at what is.

What we are doing here is quite the opposite. We are not adding more beliefs, rather we are investigating that the beliefs you currently hold whether they are in line with experienced. And as a result, you are going to LOSE certain belief and not gaining more.

This is exactly what needs to happen and I am ready to see the truth of what is.

So please never ever take any of my statements for granted, never believe me!

Thank you. I will LOOK for myself.

Rather, stop, and look at your experience (but NOT your thoughts), and check if my statements are correct or not.
Can you see the difference between the two?

I definitely did not see the difference at first, but things are coming clearer. Still difficult to see. I have a belief there is always an answer, but looking, I see there is not always an answer. This is a relief.

So when I ask: Can you see this? – then I am not asking you to consider this intellectually, by thinking about it and then either agreeing with my statement or not. But rather I am asking you to stop, ignore everything thoughts have to say, and LOOK at your immediate experience and actually SEE and CHECK in EXPERIENCE if those statements are right or not. And then use words as precisely as you can to describe the experience clearly, without adding any extra.
All right?

I see I do not always choose the best words to describe what I am seeing. That is in my personal life as well. There needs to be more precision in my statements. As I write this, I feel resistance to use the word "I". Interesting.
Yes, so ignore the contents of the thought in order to see what is.

Our default state is to pay attention to thoughts, and not to experience. So at the beginning it might not be easy, but the more you do it, the easier it gets.

Yes, I did not realize I did this, or I guess did not know there was a difference. I see there is a difference, and will LOOK first.

Excellent! Since there is no actual experience of the origin of thoughts.
Thoughts don’t come from anywhere, and they don’t go anywhere in experience.
Thoughts either there, or not.
Can you see this?

This I definitely see, or I guess don't see. lol
I felt there had to be an answer, but couldn't find one.

Do you remember the first exercise I gave you about labelling everything with ‘sensation, thought, taste, smell, sound, color’? You might want to redo it.

So when biting into the apple happens the AE is only taste + sensation.
biting into apple = taste + sensation
Thinking about biting into an apple = thought
Can you see this?

This is where my confusion was/maybe is, I am not sure. I see it differently now, though.
So I experience a thought, and I see the contents of the thought, but do not experience it.
The actual experience is actually doing it, for example biting an apple, and this act has no thought so it is an AE.
An AE has no thought attached to it.
So when I bite the apple and think how sweet this is, that is content of a thought, and so that is the illusion, or a story.
Correct?

You have to SEE things EXPERIENTIALLY hundreds or thousands of times. So you have to LOOK again and again and again. This repeated looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about the realization!

lol. this was exactly where my resistance was. I needed to find something, so fed into the story. The belief of needing to have an answer was causing resistance. In the past year, I have learned that saying "I don't know" is okay, and yet here I am, trying to find an answer. My career is based on always having an answer, so this will be fun.

With looking, you ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the looking and looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

This is a key point. To keep looking, and of course, I agree.

Here is the misunderstanding. Not the emotions are responsible for the illusions, quite the other way around. This whole illusion is mainly created by THOUGHT.

Not the emotion is telling the story, but THOUGHT.
We will investigate this later.

This piece has really tripped me up, because the belief was about emotion. I see now that it all starts with the thought, so dropping this belief I will be able to see things clearer and makes perfect sense.
I experience the thought. If I listen to the contents of the thought, this creates the emotion, and the story starts to unfold.
One cannot experience the content of the thought, so as I look, I can see it is not really there, it is not true.

Could you please tell me what you mean by actual experience (AE)?

Up to this point I did not understand what AE meant at all. I heard what you were saying about AE is:
- Sound
- Color
- Taste
- Smell
- Sensation
- Thought (as a phenomenon, but NOT the content, NOT what the thought is about, what it’s saying)
But I could not see it.
So when I take a bite of an apple, there is no thought in that, so that is AE, however, don't I first have the thought to take the bite, and then bite it. I guess this is not true, because as I look, this often just happens. I don't think about the bite I am going to take, it just happens. Although sometimes there is a thought first, so I experience the thought, then I taste the apple, so did the thought create the actual bite, or does it just happen on it's own and the thought is just narrating it.
This part is still a little confusing.
Thought - Bite the apple.
I experience the thought: AE.
The contents of the thought are "Bite the apple" but this is just a thought.
I bite the apple - Taste AE.
The next thought - "this apple is sweet"
I experience the thought.
But the content of that thought "this apple is sweet" is a judgment, or an illusion.
This is where people believe the content of the thought and create their story.
I see that the content "this apple is sweet" is not truth just a belief, it is just a thought.

I don't mean to keep beating on the same topic, but want to be sure this is what you mean? As this is a new way of seeing for me. And as you say, I need to keep looking to see this. I see how we get stuck on the belief or a past memory of this. Often I believe how great it is before I even take the bite.

The content of a thought is never experienced, but we BELIEVE that the content of thought is experienced!

So the illusion is created by BELIEVING that the CONTENTS of THOUGHTS are REAL, are EXPERIENCED, while they are not.
I feel that if I connect with the thought, that the story may start to unfold creating the illusion.

You see, for example the above comment is NOT seen only as a thought, but rather its content is BELIEVED to be real.
And since the content is believed to be real, it is believed that there is an ‘I’ that could connect with a thought.

If the content of this thought wasn’t believed, it wasn’t taken as real, then it would be clear that there is NO ‘I’ at all that could connect or not with a thought.
Can you see this, even if just intellectually?

I see this both ways I thing now. I know I am to see this all on my own, but I didn't see it in this way on my own which caused to must confusion, or maybe resistance. I could not see this. I do see this now, and need to continue to look in this way. Wow!!

If you pay attention to the sensations in your hand right now, you can feel a subtle tingling sensation.
Or if you pay attention to your butt sitting on the chair, you can feel a pressure, which is a sensation.
Or if you pay attention to the sole of your feet, whatever you feel there that is a sensation.
Physical pain is also a sensation.
Hotness, coldness are also sensations.
The contracted sensation in the chest that comes up when somebody tells you something nasty, is also a sensation.
Can you see these?

I see this now. I can have a sensation, but don't believe the thought that arises. I was definitely BELIEVING my thoughts.

Thank you Vivien, hopefully, I am more on track here.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I know it is time to go within, I have stopped reading all books and listening to others, but I continue to look for other peoples opinions.
There is some resistance about being guided, meaning it needs to be done on my own, but I am softening this resistance and am excited to actually see this for myself.

Others' opinion won’t help you at all. Seeing that there is no separate self cannot be done by believing it. Since it’s not a belief. It’s a fact. So you have to see it for yourself, so the current belief you hold that there is a self, a me, can fall away by seeing that there is none.

This is the work you have to do for yourself. Nobody else can do it for you. Since you are the one who is believing that there is a you.

I spent years creating these beliefs and now see that they are incorrect. So please be patient, many are very strong, but are all getting unjarred as I look at what is.

I am here to help you as long as it takes, but I can only point you where to look, you are the one who has to do the work. I cannot do it for you. Nobody can.

I definitely did not see the difference at first, but things are coming clearer. Still difficult to see. I have a belief there is always an answer, but looking, I see there is not always an answer. This is a relief.

Only thoughts want answers, but we are looking ‘under’ thoughts, so there won’t be clear-cut answers there.

As I write this, I feel resistance to use the word "I". Interesting.

Please do NOT leave out the word ‘I’ from your comments. If you do so, you are giving me a false impression that you can actually see something, while in reality you hold the same beliefs, you only left out the word ‘I’ from your sentences. Your written words are the only thing I can work with, and ask questions based on your comments. For this investigation to work, you have to describe your experience as precisely and truthfully as you can.

lol. this was exactly where my resistance was. I needed to find something, so fed into the story. The belief of needing to have an answer was causing resistance. In the past year, I have learned that saying "I don't know" is okay, and yet here I am, trying to find an answer. My career is based on always having an answer, so this will be fun.

There are some things you will get a definite answer from this inquiry:

You will be able to clear SEE that there is NO you. No Self. Not at all. Not even with a capital S.
You will be able to see that what you believe yourself to be is just a fantasy.
That YOU are just an illusion.
The body is there, but there is NO YOU inside the body, experiencing through the body.
Also there isn’t an immortal Self either.

I give you an explanation why you have to see these for yourself.

Thought will always ‘want’ to understand and intellectualize everything, this is what thoughts are ABOUT: analysing, interpreting, and putting everything into categories or into order, and most of all, conceptualizing the actual experience.
And it’s not problematic in and of itself. But for this investigation we have to stick to the pure experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

Why? Because the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. The self is just a concept. It’s not a real thing. It’s a fantasy. It’s a mirage in the desert. For a newborn baby, there is no concept of self. For the newborn there is only pure experiencing. And just later, when language is introduced, the concept of a self emerges, out of the thin air. It’s just a fabrication, but with time this fabrication is taken as reality. And what is the problem with that? It’s suffering. Only a self could suffer.

So for the infant there is only pure experiencing. Sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation. She is in direct contact with experience. But as cognition develops she starts to conceptualize her experience. Putting everything into categories, labelling the experience, etc. And of itself it’s not problematic. But this conceptualization is overlaying the experience, and it gets thicker and thicker. And at some point she hardly can access her direct experience, since she can only see the conceptual overlay. Like seeing everything through a pink tinted glass. At some point pinkness gets so natural (used to), that she even stops knowing/seeing that everything is just coloured pink, but not in reality. And at that point this conceptual overlay is believed to be THE TRUTH. Pink becomes the ultimate truth. The pinkness distorts our perception of what is really going on.

Whatever thoughts ‘say’, is the truth/reality from now on. This is how humans live their lives. We hardly can connect with our immediate experience since we believe that the overlaying thought concepts are all there is. And of course concepts are very useful when solving a problem, building a bridge or a house. But concepts/thoughts are just tools. But for humans the tool itself is overthrown what is really happening and creating all sorts of problems. This tool cannot be turned off. It’s like having a hammer as tool. The hammer is very useful for hitting the nail into the wall, but it’s not so useful for making dinner. But for humans, thoughts (the hammer) cannot be switched off, and we hammer everything with thoughts.
Thoughts, as a tool, has its place and value when a problem needs to be solved, but when the task is done, we should be able to put the tool (thoughts) down and just rest in the natural peace of experience. But thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay in and of itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.

This is why we have to stick to our immediate experience while doing this investigation. Not to devaluate thoughts and concepts, but rather to see what is really going on ‘behind the scenes’. When investigating the nature of reality and the self we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself on the first place.

So, from now on, please try to put aside all doubting thoughts, and just trust the process. Trust your immediate direct experience. Trust that this process will yield result. If you stay with the actual experience and just keep looking and looking, you will be able to distinguish what is really happening and what is just a fabrication. At the end, many of your intellectual answers will be answered by your direct experience.

It’s the process of looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about of the realization.

So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?

So when I take a bite of an apple, there is no thought in that, so that is AE, however, don't I first have the thought to take the bite, and then bite it. I guess this is not true, because as I look, this often just happens. I don't think about the bite I am going to take, it just happens. Although sometimes there is a thought first, so I experience the thought, then I taste the apple, so did the thought create the actual bite, or does it just happen on it's own and the thought is just narrating it.
This part is still a little confusing.

I won’t give an answer for this question, because my comments worth nothing to you. If I give an explanation, then you just decide whether you believe me or not and still don’t know how to SEE this for yourself.

Rather, I will give you exercises to see this for yourself.

I would like to ask you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

Vivien

[Brenda]

So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?

I do trust the process and commit to looking and looking and looking.
I am not leaving out the I on purpose. I notice sometimes that it does not come to me as it used to.

Rather, I will give you exercises to see this for yourself.

I would like to ask you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

I hear the refrigerator running.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I hear the refrigerator running.

Good. Now can you repeat the exercise and investigate:

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was the "sound of the fridge"?
In other words, what is it that suggest the sound was a fridge?

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of fridge’?

LOOK at experience very thoroughly many-many times before replying.

Vivien

[Brenda]

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was the "sound of the fridge"?

I am so easily fooled. As soon as I read this question, I realized that I believed the thought. I didn't even recognize it, it happens so fast. Yes, after I do this again, I see that thinking it was the fridge was just a thought from a memory so that would not be an AE as I am basing my answer on a thought that I believed.

In other words, what is it that suggest the sound was a fridge?

Definitely a thought. Memories and thoughts are one and the same, A thought.
I looked for sound, and heard something. Immediately after hearing the sound, I experienced a thought that wanted to label the sound and I believed it, therefore had a story that I heard the frig running.

As I look again, a sound occurs and I experience a thought which wants to label it.
The content of the thought is "the frig is running". If I do not believe that thought, then it is just a sound that is heard, and that is it.
I experience the sound and that is it.
Looking again,
As I give attention to the sound, I experience the thought with the contents of what it is. When I do not believe the contents of the thought, another thought arises reminding me of the same label. When I continue to just hear the sound a thought comes to me that this is just a sound, that I am not connected to and is not a part of me. It is just there and there is no control associated with it, it is just there. As I allow that thought to pass, I continue to get thoughts to explain the sound. The thought arises that my consciousness has expanded, and the thoughts keep coming. Providing me with a story that I may be more interested in believing.
I continue to not believe the thoughts and eventually I stop experiencing the thought, and I just see the sound. period. nothing more.

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of fridge’?

The AE of hearing the sound is just that. Nothing more. Just the sound, no labels.

I did this again with taste. I have a mixture of 5 ingredients.
As I take the first bite, many thoughts come flooding in. It is cold. it is sweet, it is wet. why are these thoughts coming, etc.
As I ignore the contents of the thoughts, I feel the sensation of the food in my mouth, and a flood of more thoughts come in to explain those feelings.
As I look at the food being chewed, I see that nobody or nothing told me to chew, it just happened. no control, no doing, it just happened. As I continued to look, I took another spoonful and the thought came that again, it just happened. There were no thoughts associated with the movement of the food into my mouth or how my mouth reacted until I focussed on it. It was like there was an external force making this happen but I did not see any force or any thought of how to eat that food. As I did not believe this thought, things got very isolated, and there was no thought, just the seeing of the food being put in my mouth and chewed.
Next I get a sensation in my stomach, and the thought arises that it is cold inside of me and I am digesting it. I don't believe that thought and the next thought changes the subject onto my arm. I keep looking at the sensation in my stomach and again realize the turning in there is not being controlled by anything I can see. I am certainly not making it happen, but I can feel it is happening. As I continue to look at the sensation in my stomach, thoughts arise. I know they are there, but focus on the sensation of my stomach. Some thoughts are justifying what is happening in my stomach and others are changing the subject.
I notice as I am looking at the sensation in my stomach, my body is doing other things that I am not aware of, or telling it to do. For example, my tongue is moving along my teeth, my toes are moving agains the chair, none of which I knew was happening. I don't see anywhere that these movements are originating. As I look at these movements thoughts arise to narrate why they are happening, but none of which held any truth.

As I am looking at this body, it turns to look out the window. A thought immediately arose about why did my body do that? I did not see a thought that told the body to turn and look. I did not see any outside distractions, it just turned and looked. The thought comes up, why did it do that? who is controlling this body? I suddenly wonder my part in it all. I think I control this body, but as I look, there are so many things this body is doing that I don't even notice until I look.

I have an itch, which is a sensation. Thought arises to itch it. As I look, another thought comes to ignore the itch. As I continue to look the thoughts are coming quickly contradicting each other. Itch it, don't itch it. It is actually kind of funny. As I don't believe any of these thoughts, the itch moves to my back much stronger, and the conflicting thoughts continue. As I continue to look and not believe the thoughts of the itch, thoughts seem to arise stronger with other things I need to do and I lose my focus of just looking.
I do not know that thoughts really come in stronger or weaker, but some thoughts resonate more with me which I may be quicker to believe.

So do thoughts arise stronger at times?
I see all thoughts arise exactly the same way, but I tend to believe the thoughts that allow me to think I have control quicker.
For example, with the itch. there may or may not be an itch. And although that may appear to provide me some control, that wasn't as interesting to me as the thought that I needed to get something done. That thought I quickly believed, and lost my focus. The thought of what I needed to get done, provided me with the illusion there was something that required the "I" to exist, and I quickly moved my focus there.
This makes me think there must be some resistance with letting go of the control of the "I" as the doer.
I will continue to look and look and look.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

As I look again, a sound occurs and I experience a thought which wants to label it.
The content of the thought is "the frig is running". If I do not believe that thought, then it is just a sound that is heard, and that is it. I experience the sound and that is it.

Yes there is the AE of a sound.
But you also noticed that there is a thought present, the labelling thought ‘the fridge is running’, didn’t you?
So you can notice the presence of a thought as a phenomenon. Right?

When the presence of a thought is noticed as a phenomenon, that is also experienced. That is the AE of a thought. Can you see this?
But what the thought is ABOUT ‘running fridge’ is NOT experienced. Is this clear?

I continue to not believe the thoughts and eventually I stop experiencing the thought, and I just see the sound. period.

Aren’t you aware of the presence of the thought that you are not believing in?
Aren’t you experiencing the presence of the thought that you are not believing in?

Do you say that when the content of a thought is not believed, then the thought (as phenomenon) are not experienced at all?

V: What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of fridge’?

B: The AE of hearing the sound is just that. Nothing more. Just the sound, no labels.

So the sound is NOT the AE of ‘sound of fridge’, but the AE of a SOUND only. Is this clear?
The thought label ‘the fridge is running’ is NOT the AE of ‘fridge is running’, but the AE of a THOUGHT only. Is this clear?

So there is NO AE of ‘sound of fridge’. Is this clear?
There is only the AE of sound + AE of thought. Is this clear?

I notice as I am looking at the sensation in my stomach, my body is doing other things that I am not aware of, or telling it to do. For example, my tongue is moving along my teeth, my toes are moving agains the chair, none of which I knew was happening. I don't see anywhere that these movements are originating. As I look at these movements thoughts arise to narrate why they are happening, but none of which held any truth.

Very nice observations.

As I am looking at this body, it turns to look out the window. A thought immediately arose about why did my body do that? I did not see a thought that told the body to turn and look. I did not see any outside distractions, it just turned and looked. The thought comes up, why did it do that? who is controlling this body? I suddenly wonder my part in it all. I think I control this body, but as I look, there are so many things this body is doing that I don't even notice until I look.

Exactly! That’s why we are LOOKING to see that what we BELIEVE what is happening is NOT what is ACTUALLY happening.

Vivien

[Brenda]

But you also noticed that there is a thought present, the labelling thought ‘the fridge is running’, didn’t you?
So you can notice the presence of a thought as a phenomenon. Right?

I have the experience there is a thought, I just do not believe the content of the thought. This is correct.
Yes, I notice the presence of a thought as a phenomenon.

When the presence of a thought is noticed as a phenomenon, that is also experienced. That is the AE of a thought. Can you see this?
But what the thought is ABOUT ‘running fridge’ is NOT experienced. Is this clear?

Yes, I see this. This is clear.

I continue to not believe the thoughts and eventually I stop experiencing the thought, and I just see the sound. period.

Aren’t you aware of the presence of the thought that you are not believing in?
Aren’t you experiencing the presence of the thought that you are not believing in?

Yes, I am experiencing the presence of the thought, just not believing it.

Do you say that when the content of a thought is not believed, then the thought (as phenomenon) are not experienced at all?

This is not what I am saying. I hear the sound and I experience the thought, I just do not believe the contents of the thought.

V: What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of fridge’?
B: The AE of hearing the sound is just that. Nothing more. Just the sound, no labels.

So the sound is NOT the AE of ‘sound of fridge’, but the AE of a SOUND only. Is this clear?

Yes this is clear. I do not believe the content of the thought "sound of fridge".
The AE is the sound only. This is clear.

The thought label ‘the fridge is running’ is NOT the AE of ‘fridge is running’, but the AE of a THOUGHT only. Is this clear?

Yes this is clear. The contents of the thought are not the AE.

So there is NO AE of ‘sound of fridge’. Is this clear?
There is only the AE of sound + AE of thought. Is this clear?

These are both very clear. I see the thought and the sound. period.