The truth doesn't need my belief to exist

[Sidstrate]

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

Yes, clear
I like the socks! good example. I’ve been trying to crack a code, but now I will look.

self is not the thinker, the doer, the one acting, the hearer, the one who sees, tastes, feels or the thinker or something like the body. When it is understood as deep experientell knowing, that something else hides behind the illusion.
This is not so. Nada, nope, no way.

Can you please explore this a little?

Much Love

[Jadzia]

I’ve been trying to crack a code, but now I will look.

No code to crack, actually all you need to do is look and that as often as you can.

Can you please explore this a little?

There are a lot of beliefs what self is, what it does. These are the most common:
1. Identification with something or things that exist in actual experience - e.g. I am the body, I am the thoughts, I am the feelings.
2. Identification as the owner of something or things that exist in actual experience - e.g. It is my body, they are my thoughts, they are my feelings.
3. Identification as the controller of something or things that exist in actual experience - e.g. I control the body, I choose what to think, I am the doer, the chooser, the thinker.
4. Identification as the observer of actual experience - e.g. I am the experiencer of experience, I am the perceiver of perceptions, I am the awareness that is aware of actual experience.

We will explore point for point together, some will be quick others might take a bit more time.


Remember the breaking down of daily experience into colour/form, taste, smell, the seen, bodily sensation and thought. Lets walk from there and with time you will have explored if you are the thinker of your thoughts, the decider or the instigater of actions and so on.

Do it with an apple - do you have one?
If not use another fruit or vegetable, just switch apple in the following text for what you have. :-D

When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Just answer the questions in blue.

Love
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

Thank you for your significant email.

I have been exploring the questions with not much to report.

I'll come back with (hopefully) more tomorrow.

Much love

[Jadzia]

It is good that you take your time.

In case you get stuck or feel stuck we can walk through the exercise together.

Love
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

I’m looking at a carrot
I know that carrot is a word

I see orange -
I see shape & colour
There are thoughts
I see an object
I pick it up
Sensations
It feels & looks to me like an object

Colour, shape
Feeling sensations
Thoughts
There is an observer
There is a director, pointing where awareness goes

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

I see an object
I know this is not direct looking
But so far, I have not been able to get past that it is an object

An object that i can pick up.
I see a bird fly past. I see a bird
I try again, it becomes an object.
But no further.
I see it as an object separate from the sky, separate from me

However, is an apple actually known?

No, it’s a label that most people would agree with

[Jadzia]

Well Done.

I’m looking at a carrot
I know that carrot is a word

Yes, carrot is a word/label.

I see orange -
I see shape & colour
There are thoughts
I see an object
I pick it up
Sensations
It feels & looks to me like an object

Now lets be very precise here.
Shape and colour is seen. Colour is labeled orange and shape is labelled carrots by thoughts. Object is simply another label for something that in DE is colour, thought, sensation (feeling), smell, and in case you did bite into it - taste.

What it feels like and what it looks like is all added by thought. There is just a sensation and just a form.

DE of carrot is sensation, thougths, colour form, good.

There is an observer
There is a director, pointing where awareness goes

If you only use direct looking and see what you find in your actual experience right now - where is observer, director found?

I see an object
I know this is not direct looking
But so far, I have not been able to get past that it is an object

What do you expect happens when you use direct looking?
Everything disapears? ;-) It won't.

I see a bird fly past. I see a bird
I see a bird fly past. I see a bird
I try again, it becomes an object.

This actually is it - do you see a bird or just a form labeled object? In DE there is just colour form, seeing, no bird, no distance, no flying past. All this is added by thoughts content.

However, is an apple actually known?
No, it’s a label that most people would agree with

Yes, just a label,what is seen is just colour - all the rest is added by thoughts.

‘Looking’ is just plain looking at what is here right now. It is moving from the conceptual down to the actual experience). The term “Actual Experience” or "Direct Experience" is used to refer to experience ‘right now,’ without the thought stories. So, actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought, at face value. What thought says ie, the content of thought is NOT experience. This is evidenced by the fact that you cannot taste the word 'carrot'. So, when looking at actual experience (AE), you are looking at raw experience WITHOUT what thought says ABOUT the raw experience.

Mull this over and share your thoughts.

Love,
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

If you only use direct looking and see what you find in your actual experience right now - where is observer, director found?

OK, I’m a bit stuck here. What or who is pointing the focus of awareness?
When I focus on the sensation of my coffee, what or who has instigated this, pointing & directing me to take note of the coffee cup & not on something else like directing me to look out of the window?

Could this (the director) be a thought, a sensation? I investigate further…

I know that I do not create my own thoughts
I can see that I do not create my own thoughts
Can I see that the director is a thought? Mmmm…..

What do you expect happens when you use direct looking?
Everything disapears? ;-) It won't.

It’s difficult to imagine what to expect. I'm not sure my expectations helping.
I look & ask myself what am I seeing, what are the layers of thoughts?

‘Looking’ is just plain looking at what is here right now. It is moving from the conceptual down to the actual experience). The term “Actual Experience” or "Direct Experience" is used to refer to experience ‘right now,’ without the thought stories. So, actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought, at face value. What thought says ie, the content of thought is NOT experience. This is evidenced by the fact that you cannot taste the word 'carrot'. So, when looking at actual experience (AE), you are looking at raw experience WITHOUT what thought says ABOUT the raw experience.

Mull this over and share your thoughts.

I thought a lot today about a caveman in simpler days. I expect that he would have had at least some internal labels. Friend/Foe, Food/Poison, Hot/Cold. And I know that this is fine, I now know that the objective is to NOT eliminate, just see.

I close my eyes
I’m holding a warm cup of coffee
It is warm, the warmth is my labeling of the sensation with a layer of thought
It is a sensation
If it was very hot & it was burning my skin
Is it still sensation
A sensation with a different thought & a different reaction
I am experiencing (holding a cup of coffee) through the awareness of sensation

Much Love

[Jadzia]

OK, I’m a bit stuck here. What or who is pointing the focus of awareness?
When I focus on the sensation of my coffee, what or who has instigated this, pointing & directing me to take note of the coffee cup & not on something else like directing me to look out of the window?
Could this (the director) be a thought, a sensation? I investigate further…

Here we go: you can make it absolutely simply for yourself right now.
When something can be taken in by the senses it exists, as something heard, seen and so on.
If something can't be taken in by senses, the way it can be experienced is in the content of thought. It doesn't exist.

So where is the director found in direct experience/senses?
Check carefully.
Is this one seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt?

If not it would mean it appears in content of a thought.

Now it burns down to the question how real is the content of thought? Does that what it talks about exist?
Content of thought meaning what a thought is about.

Do this exercise please:
Close your eyes for a moment.
Imagine you sitting somewhere you really love to sit, where you feel wonderful. Picture it fully, paint it as colourful as you can.
Really go into it, feel it, enjoy it for a moment.
Notice everything turning up, from mood, to sensation.

Now open the eyes.
How real did everything feel?
Real?
Still it wasn't there wasn't it?

Do this and share what you found.

Love,
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

So where is the director found in direct experience/senses?
Check carefully.
Is this one seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt?

This makes sense to me

I close my eyes & search for a sensory experience of the director

Do this exercise please:
Close your eyes for a moment.
Imagine you sitting somewhere you really love to sit, where you feel wonderful. Picture it fully, paint it as colourful as you can.
Really go into it, feel it, enjoy it for a moment.
Notice everything turning up, from mood, to sensation.

Now open the eyes.
How real did everything feel?
Real?
Still it wasn't there wasn't it?

Do this and share what you found.

I felt a lightening of my nervous system
A warmth
I found myself smiling

It was nice & my mood lifted but no, it didn’t feel real. It was a watered down experience - maybe 10%

I didn’t feel the sand between my toes (sensations)
I didn’t feel the breeze on my face (sensations)
I couldn’t hear the ocean (sounds)
I couldn’t smell the fresh sea air (smell)
I could see the sky, but I didn’t sense the great expanse of space & blue sky (seeing)

Much Love

[Jadzia]

I close my eyes & search for a sensory experience of the director

What does this mean? You didn't see, hear, tasted and smelled one?
And now you try if you can feel a director? In the sense of physical senation?
How is this going?

It was nice & my mood lifted but no, it didn’t feel real. It was a watered down experience - maybe 10%

Yes, there is a huge difference between direct experience and imagined one. The latter one sure is lacking.

Please, do always answer all questions.

Love,
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

I close my eyes & search for a sensory experience of the director

What does this mean? You didn't see, hear, tasted and smelled one?
And now you try if you can feel a director? In the sense of physical senation?
How is this going?

I have searched many times for the director as a sensory experience & nothing. It just happens.

I’ve been spending the day trying to see what i am (the director).

The closest I’ve come up with so far is that, like a thought, it comes out of nowhere. This thought of self - mingled with a sensation which changes each time I look.

So on occasion I can isolate it as a thought. So the director is a thought. But I need to look more.

[Jadzia]

So on occasion I can isolate it as a thought. So the director is a thought. But I need to look more.

Do it.
It might be that the only way the director only appears as content of thought, like in a story told, a story about something. Like in the story of Santa. Only because ´Santa appears in a story it doesn't turn him into a real entity. Or Batman, or Tarzan or ....

Here is a lovely exercise which might help. It is a bit longer but fun.
The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

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

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

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Love
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

Telling me what to think
Defining when I should be excited

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

I drift in & out
I sometimes like soccer & noticed some good skills for one of the goals

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

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

It’s like the narration is a bit overly dramatic. Detracting from what is really going on.

Commentary not essential. Pretending to be important. For sure, interesting & adding value, but not essential & also subtracting value at times.

I got a real idea of falsehood with commentary. I found myself thinking, let the action speak for itself.

I got the link with my own internal narration. So arbitrary, so inconsequential. Very powerful.

I enjoyed that, thank you
:)

[Jadzia]

It’s like the narration is a bit overly dramatic. Detracting from what is really going on.

What about the narration thought offers , is this destraction too, and if yes, from what?

Commentary not essential. Pretending to be important. For sure, interesting & adding value, but not essential & also subtracting value at times.

Yes.

I got the link with my own internal narration. So arbitrary, so inconsequential. Very powerful.

What makes the internal narration arbitrary?
What makes the internal narration inconsequential?
What makes the internal narration very powerful?
Could you write a bit more of what you observed here?

Telling me what to think
Defining when I should be excited

You wrote this meaning the commentary of the game.
Would this be true for the internal commentary, too?

Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

If the narration is a necessitiy or the instigator you will check in the next exercises, but first please answer all the questions in blue.

Love,
Jadzia

[Sidstrate]

It’s like the narration is a bit overly dramatic. Detracting from what is really going on.
What about the narration thought offers , is this destraction too,

Yes, the narration of thought is often a distraction.

and if yes, from what?

This is such a good question.

From direct experience through my senses? (I’ll call this direct experience)

But I am always having direct experience through my senses. So the narrator is not distracting me from direct experience.

So is the narrator distracting me from being aware of my direct experience ? But then who is the me who needs to be aware of direct experience.

Who is the ‘me’ who gets lost in thought & then comes out of thought?

If that ‘me’ is not lost in thought, the 'me' can become aware of direct experience?

The narrator is distracting from an experience of totality - awareness. The narrator narrows awareness to a separated sense of ‘me’.

Commentary not essential. Pretending to be important. For sure, interesting & adding value, but not essential & also subtracting value at times.
Yes.
I got the link with my own internal narration. So arbitrary, so inconsequential. Very powerful.
What makes the internal narration arbitrary?

Because the narration is so unreliable, so unfounded, so biased on limited perspective, so random.

The narration is based on old data while the universe is presenting fresh new data with each new moment.

What makes the internal narration inconsequential?

Thoughts & opinions pass like clouds, they fade.

Ha ha - I just thought about my little line on my forum profile
The truth doesn’t need my belief to exist!!!

But having said that. Following my narrator, I am here. Which is consequential.
OR is it?
Was I always going to be here, doing this process with you?
The narrator is just trying to keep up with events.
mmmmmmm.

What makes the internal narration very powerful?
Could you write a bit more of what you observed here?

The narrator has the power to manipulate opinion & actions.
The narrator has a lot of power to determine good or bad.
If good, proceed
If bad, run or destroy

A lot of pain has been caused by my own narrator
Much death & destruction around the world by megalomaniacs following their narrator.

But following the comments on the previous question. (Was I always going to be here, doing this process with you?
The narrator is just trying to keep up with events.
mmmmmmm.)

Were these actions always going to take place anyway with or without the narrator?
Once we drop the concept of self volition & sink into everything’s inevitable, it gets very confusing for me.

Telling me what to think
Defining when I should be excited
You wrote this meaning the commentary of the game.
Would this be true for the internal commentary, too?

Yes, but then I learn how to doubt my narrator.
So the narrator loses some power
He cannot always tell me what to think
& cannot always define the moments when I should feel a certain way.

But if the narrator is on catch up - making comments on things that have already happened, he is just adding story to how I feel anyway.
So in this respect he has no power or control
It’s an illusion

So i now doubt the narrator, but who is the ‘I’ that doubts?

OK
So my narrator says
“This person is nice, you should call them”

I doubt the narrator so I don’t call the person
Or
I believe the narrator so I call the person

Who is the 'I' that makes the decision?
Was the call going to happen/not happen anyway?

If I doubted every comment from the narrator, would I do anything at all?
Of course I would.

Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, not a necessity.
Life happens. I sleep, I get distracted. My life happens. All life happens.
Without the narrator or conductor.

I noticed a small sense of panic arising at something minor today. My narrator reminded me to stay calm, feel within, drop the story & breathe. I was able to ride this little wave & return to peace. I was grateful to my narrator for this.

much love