Seeking Guidance to End the Seeking

[Skygazer74]

Hi Nick,

I am still working on that DE piece. Yesterday I think this would have been answered differently. I had a very busy day and sitting down to practice tonight,

That is ok, there is no shame or fault here, or getting things right or wrong - you are not yet through the gate so there will be this sense! I know sometimes the pointings can look like criticisms or our work getting marked with a red pen, but it's not about that :)
This is what we are working on, but we can't rush or make it happen without going into looking deeply step by step. We can't work it out intellectually, so it is unlike most work we have done before. The intellect is often what obscures the simplicity of direct experience.

I still have this sense that this is all a hallucination and that I am the see-er

So what is this sense when you look at it really directly?
Can a sense or sense organ communicate this?
If so, how does it say that 'I am the see-er?

I found myself going to the body sensations and really got stuck with the sense I am this body. As I write this, I know intellectually thats not true, but with the eyes closed, the sense that I am this complex of sensations called body, was what was identifying with the See-er.

Here too - the sense - 'I am this body.' We are talking about sensations, is there anything in the sensations which says this is body? Or 'I am this body?'

Even just focusing on the blackness, I had a sense that “person”, “body”, “I” are mental constructs, and I felt a little glimpse or experience of just seeing blackness with these other sensations, but there is no person here.

Right - perhaps this answers my questions, but I want you to keep looking until you see that clearly and until glimpses join together.
Yes - there are sensations, and blackness. Looking directly, there is nothing in sensations or blackness that signifies person or body or I. These are constructs as you say.

Best wishes,

Nic

[Skygazer74]

How are you doing Nick? No pressure, just checking in :)

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic-

Time has been a problem over the past few days, but amongst the time pressures of work I have been inquirying. And I should say my web page when I refreshed it a few times over the past 24 hours was not showing your response from Wed, until this morning - logging back in through the browser showed up your two messages.

That is ok, there is no shame or fault here, or getting things right or wrong - you are not yet through the gate so there will be this sense! I know sometimes the pointings can look like criticisms or our work getting marked with a red pen, but it's not about that :)
This is what we are working on, but we can't rush or make it happen without going into looking deeply step by step. We can't work it out intellectually, so it is unlike most work we have done before. The intellect is often what obscures the simplicity of direct experience.

Yes, I am seeing this - I have understood intellectually, what cannot be understood intellectually. Some glimpses I have had over the past two weeks or so have been at moments quite shocking, and then like a huge rolling big surf wave, the hypnosis drowns the moment.

So what is this sense when you look at it really directly?
Can a sense or sense organ communicate this?

This is a good question. This sense is a little hard to describe. I am unsure if I am still experiencing the mind or something else. But today, I have moved from a little confusion, to the knowing sense that all there is is the experiencing of the seeing. With my eyes closed there is blackness - the seeing is blackness with other things through the eyes. If I do not follow the sensations elsewhere - thoughts, body sensations, nothing else - then all there seems to be is an experience of this blackness. The sense organ (seeing and hearing - I tried hearing too) presents the unfolding of whatever currently is, and that is the direct experience.

So this sense I am referring to - sense seems like the wrong word today, simply because to your pointing, I do not believe a sense or sense organ can communicate what I am trying to explain. Experience of the blackness is all that is, and it is not from a body or its contents because they are form. "I" am that which is experiencing. I Am That - I am that, before thought.

If so, how does it say that 'I am the see-er?

I have a knowing, which I know sounds like its right out of a non dual teaching. I am unsure how to describe it differently. There is a sense sometimes - most often - when I am experiencing the sense that "I" am looking out, experiencing the view but it is dense with the conditioning. Its just a feeling, but its not a feeling; those experiences are hard to separate from likely this "Nick" experience. But I am having the sense, a different one, that is before Seeing. That the experience through the eyes is an arising, it is an experience in that which "I" am. Trying to keep it simple and true.

' We are talking about sensations, is there anything in the sensations which says this is body? Or 'I am this body?'

I love these questions. As I write, these sensations are form and story. It is the mind that is thinking that these sensations are the body, and once I am lost in that thought I am experiencing the body as if it is real. But there is something before all of that, which seems to be the place of Now, where that is not present. And then the sensations rise or appear on their own accord, and they come with years of association to these beliefs that this is the experience of the body. Back to the blackness, there is absolutely nothing in that that commnunicates "I am this body". What happens is that there is nothing but the blackness and actually, this "Nick" that I feel I am is really not there. But as soon as I fall into thinking, the raw sensation of seeing and experiencing is obscured.

Today I am processing the fact I am quickly losing my conviction about what I know to be true or not. Ironically, I feel more sure today that "Nick" does not exist. I am letting some percolation with some of my realizations Nic. Waves - thats the best I can explain whats going on right now.

Thank you Nic,

Nick.

[Skygazer74]

Hi Nick,

Ah yes, sorry, there do seem to be some issues with the site sometimes.

Anyway this was a joy to read, some discernible shifts - really great looking. Now we will move into doing something very similar but with eyes open!

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

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

1) With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'what can be seen' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?
3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Justin be found that is witnessing 'what can be seen'? Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?


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

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Nic Response
Hi Nic-

Thanks for these exercises....ok...

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

Yes. With my eyes open, just literally focusing on the seeing, then if I stick with that seeing sense, then I can confirm that what is experienced is ultimately what can be seen. So the colors and shapes are coming in, and I am seeing those colors and shapes. From this faculty, that is all I can confirm.

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

When I read your questions and do the exercise, there is this strong thought sense that answers the question before I have even spent some silence with it. And I am also feeling a sense of detachment - only slight and possibly imperceptible at times - but its there. Rather than getting swept up with the thought, I am able to notice it, marvel in how it just unfolds as it does, and go back to the exercise....

So from this seeing sense, there is nothing else. There is just this light and color that comes in. That is really all there is that I am able to say that I am experiencing through these windows onto the world. Yes this mind comes in at times, but staying with just the seeing, I admit there is only seeing going here.

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

I spent some time with this. I know that “I” exist - not the “Nick”, but the sense of “I” thats here. But I cannot find the witness. Whatever it is looking out is my truth, but I cannot find it. I guess I can admit that since I have this sense of who is looking out, this witness, I have a knowing that this is who I am, but I do not know what I am.

I cannot find this witness that I know I am.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Justin be found that is witnessing 'what can be seen'? Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?

I know that seeing is truly experienced, but I cannot find this witness. Yes - only what can be found is the experience of seeing. I cannot find this “I”. I felt my mind trying to figure this out - if all phenomena is mind/thought, and all such phenomena are made manifest within Consciousness, then the only thing I can really be sure of is this sense of “I” that I cannot find, is the constant. In fact nothing other than seeing can be found, and even the seeing cant be found, only experienced. And thus all there is is what can be seen, made possible by Awareness.

Complicating things again - but this Awareness is what is seeing. I know this to be true intellectually now - quote convicted in it in fact. But I do not feel it yet. And I cannot find it.

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

No - the see-er cannot be found. My mind is highlighting that I am not smart enough to see the see-er lol. Ignoring the mind, there is some curiosity around the fact that after all of this investigation, the one doing the seeing remains elusive. And to suggest what the see-er is, is by definition of the mind - a concept/thought. I am getting this - even Awareness is Form - my mind is trying to conceptualize Awareness, which has moved me from a place of Being, back into the Mind.

Hhhm...I am understanding that the only experience going on is the experience of seeing - what comes after that is a product of the mind, which we have avoided by sticking with the seeing. Seeing is experienced, but by what I dont have an internal experience of - even though I have had glimpses over the past few weeks or so. Tonight all I feel I do know, is that there is only “what can be seen”, but something is experiencing/seeing this, and I cannot find it.

There is seeing - that cannot be denied. I am experiencing the sight/seeing faculty. It is happening - its not made up. But I cannot find who is doing the seeing.

Thank you Nic,

Nick.

[Skygazer74]

Hi NIck,

Stirling work! Your reply reminds me of the Bahiya sutra, might be worth a read for you!

So it seems clear from your response that:

- you cannot find a see-er even though it was assumed to be there.
- there is awareness and there is seeing, but simply without an entity being aware or doing the seeing.
- The only place this entity arises, or can be found, is as a thought (or a construct assumed pre-thought)

Let's try this with sound;

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'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) 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?

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic-

I will respond throughly this weekend. Life got a little more full this week and personal time has been close to zero. I will get back to you this weekend.

Thank you, 🙏🏼

Nick

[Skygazer74]

Hi Nick,

I don't mind at all, but for your benefit, or the benefit of your enquiry it would be good to keep it a little more live. Ideally you can do some looking or enquiring every day even if that doesn't always translate into responding and writing on here.

This is going to be complicated as I am going away on Wednesday for a retreat - I may well have time and opportunity to respond to you while I am there but the signal is patchy so it is unlikely. Effectively I will be offline for ten days so I would like to leave you with some reflections to keep it alive while I am away.

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic-

Completely understood about needing to do enquiry every day - I work 15 hour days with two teams in different continents. We have had some family challenges over the past week which has been quite exhausting, so I havent been getting up at 4:30AM like I normally do.

Absolutely no problem if you are on a retreat Nic - I wouldnt expect to interrupt the space you will get into on that retreat.

I will work with the hearing exercise, and wait for your return.

Thanks,

Nick.

[Mettafort]

Hearing

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

No. There is just the sound.

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

I would have to conclude No. A sense of being aware of sound can come up, but sitting in some silence and then attending to only hearing, the attention is on hearing and that is all there is. Nothing else.

3) 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

When it comes to purely hearing, there is nothing but hearing. The sense of “I” (which I am referring to as Nick) is not actually there, nor the rest of the questions. There is just what is heard. And to take it slightly further, listening to the birds chirping in the garden, there is just the sound of the birds, and I am aware that first there is the sound and then there is the attribution of the sound to the bird.

There is just a sound, and there is this “awareness” that is hearing the sound or experiencing the raw hearing.

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

If I understand this question correctly, then no. There is just the hearing of the birds, as direct experience. Everything else about the sound of the birds is a story that arises within. It isnt actually experienced that the chirps are more than a sound - I attribute the meaning automatically. But ignoring what arises post-facto, the raw experience is 100% just a sound that is heard, heard inside awareness.

My only quandary here is “would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?”. If the notion that “I” am hearing comes up - that is Thought. Anything that engages the sound beyond the raw experience is arising from the mind. The only piece to this that feels legit is the experience of this sound in awareness. Without the awareness there isnt even a bird sound, since there is no bird sound anyway - that is only the paradigm my mind appropriates onto this sound once its been received.

So just as with SEEING, there is only SEEING and there is only raw objective HEARING. That is the pure experience, and with that there are no other “objects” that are directly experienced. Anything beyond this baseline, is Thought.

When I write that, after thinking through the experience, I am aware that part of this answer is from deduction. I understand that the bird sound was first just experienced through raw hearing, and that the meaning of the sound arises within. There is no inherent bird sound, and there isnt an inherent hearer either - both are constructs of Thought. As I write this, a part of me has expectations - surely this is quite profound, so why doesnt it feel like an aha moment. I think I need to spend more time to allow it to be deeply understood - the gravity of it that is.

Thanks Nic,

Nick.

[Skygazer74]

Hi NIck,

Great looking, and reflections - I am glad you are aware that some of the path you went down was deductive! It really is as simple as looking into experience and seeing that it is only thought that creates the experience of 'I!"

I am sorry for the gap, I hope that the insight has continued to arise and integrate during this time?

Let's look at thought - I know you have done some meditation so some of this might seem basic but try to answer from looking rather than knowing nonetheless? I also appreciate that you are very busy at the moment, so feel free to do this in small chunks while you are free to look during your day if you like:

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?
Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic!

Nice to hear from you. No issues at all with the gap - I have been doing something with this, in various shapes and forms, every day. I hope your retreat was a good experience.

OK...

Where are they coming from and going to?

They arise from the darkness (had my eyes closed). They are sometimes close, sometimes in the distant, sometimes colorful, sometimes bland. They come up out of nothing, and return back to nothing.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No - it seems to be some sort of happening that occurs off its own volition.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Yes. Whilst I was meditating with my eyes closed, if I wanted to think about what I am going to do today I could.

Can you predict your next thought?

Never!

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

This had me stumped. During this meditation, I did dance with thinking about something - some tasks at work. However with just a light focusing on the thought of the task at work, whilst I was thinking about that general idea, the thoughts were completely random in that regard. I can stop myself fro thinking negative thoughts, but it can take effort. And as soon as the effort is put to the side, the thoughts do whatever they want again.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

I can't choose when it is a random event, just observing, unless I react to the experience of the thought (aversion) and then actively choose to think of something else. How successful that can be is not absolute.

[quote[ Can you pick an choose any kind of thought? [/quote]

Yes and no. In an observing capacity, whatever comes up just comes up and is all over the spectrum of thought and the feeling it imbues. But I can to choose to think of something else, but to do that I have to move from observing to participating in the thoughts, as "Nick" it seems.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

For sure if I am just sitting as the observer, whatever will happen will happen in the mind and it all unfolds on its own accord. It isn't in this capacity, possible to prevent a thought fro appearing. In fact I have noticed this in my everyday life recently - thoughts that are not who I am today on this planet, come up and in some cases can be quite shocking. They are thoughts I would not actively choose - violations of morals and my views of what is right or wrong. But they just come into the head. So I do believe there isn't really an ability to prevent a thought from appearing, although I can actively move my attention to thoughts that I am trying to generate - for example, thinking of a nice white sandy beach and blue skies, to help myself get relaxed. But that is a different process it seems.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

OK I understand this. I agree that the thoughts are doing their thing, and any thought about the thoughts is just that - another thought. The thoughts are as random with this mind as clouds in the Sky. They seem to be pulled from a domain of thoughts that are part of something that has been experienced over the years. For example it would be odd for me to have a thought about a subject area I know nothing about, so the thoughts seem to be random collisions like balls bouncing around and hitting each other...not sure if that analogy works but what appears is definitely random. A thought can come in, and appraise the thought, but that is like a meta-thought, or reflective thought. But it is all thought.

I do agree that there are thoughts about thoughts, and those thoughts are just thoughts. I think the real question that's arising now is, when I feel like it is me, "Nick" choosing to have a thought, is that really true? Rather, the solid "Nick. I mean if "Nick" is a thought, and thoughts are random and unfolding however they do, then when a thought about a thought happens, I guess I feel like it is this solid "Nick" that was able to change a thought AFTER it appeared, but all of that is thought. hhhm....

thanks!

Nick.

[Skygazer74]

Hi Nick,

Thank you, nice looking.

Yes and no. In an observing capacity, whatever comes up just comes up and is all over the spectrum of thought and the feeling it imbues. But I can to choose to think of something else, but to do that I have to move from observing to participating in the thoughts, as "Nick" it seems.

Can you say a bit more about this? What happens in DE when you move to participate as "Nick?"

I think the real question that's arising now is, when I feel like it is me, "Nick" choosing to have a thought, is that really true? Rather, the solid "Nick. I mean if "Nick" is a thought, and thoughts are random and unfolding however they do, then when a thought about a thought happens, I guess I feel like it is this solid "Nick" that was able to change a thought AFTER it appeared, but all of that is thought. hhhm....

Hmmm :) Yes, so is it clear that "Nick" is just a thought?
Can you find any thinker of the thought?

It appears that the illusion of identity occurs with the chooser. So let's have a look at choice:

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

Don't go to thoughts, examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:-

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?
What is it that is controlling the hand?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Can anything be found that makes the hand move?
How is the decision made?

Best wishes,

Nic

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic-

Apologies, this was definitely longer than I anticipated, to respond. I spent a lot of time with this tonight, and I intend to do this exercise again immediately after waking up tomorrow morning. I had an interesting sense of something, and I would like to explore it some more before I answer those 6 questions at the end.

I appreciate your time, and I will return with my full response tomorrow when I have rested - the busyness of the day has my mind very active tonight.

Thank you!

Nick.

[Mettafort]

Hi Nic-

Apologies, this was definitely longer than I anticipated, to respond.

'Yes and no. In an observing capacity, whatever comes up just comes up and is all over the spectrum of thought and the feeling it imbues. But I can to choose to think of something else, but to do that I have to move from observing to participating in the thoughts, as "Nick" it seems.'

Can you say a bit more about this? What happens in DE when you move to participate as "Nick?"

I spent some time with this, to go back over what was coming up/what is coming up for me with this. I can sit, be still, and be aware of sound as just sound - with my eyes closed - so thats the predominant experience; the sounds all around. And then soon enough I am aware of the mind. And I am aware that I am aware of the mind. I am however finding it difficult to know what is direct experience when it comes to the question of can I choose any thought.

I understand that the "I", does not exist; its falsehood. So to think that it is "Nick" having these thoughts, is also to be entrapped by the mind. I do have awareness of the thoughts arising, but no sooner am I aware, I am in them, as them - in the dream....if that makes sense. But then I remember I am here to observe whats going on, which is a thought. It feels like I did have that thought, and there is this "Nick" having thoughts.

I am having a hard time to breakdown direct experience however. I notice thoughts arising, and I sense I am the observer. I will say, that for a moment I had the experience of remaining in my center, and reminding myself that anything that is popping up in my mind, is thought. I was sat here and as thoughts began to arise, I heard/experienced "Nick" saying "here comes thoughts". I would normally be swept into "Nick" as soon as that thought comes up - its as if "Nick" is the source from which the thoughts arise. Certainly one like this - a voice in my mind. But...I caught myself and reaffirmed that "here comes thoughts" is a thought, and that eddied off and there was a little silence actually. That was interesting - I abided as this observer/sense. Yet the volition to have a specific thought does seem real - I dont know if that is "Nick" or not, that has that volition however.

Hmmm :) Yes, so is it clear that "Nick" is just a thought?
Can you find any thinker of the thought?

So intellectually, yes, I absolutely understand and get that "Nick" is this conceptual thing that arises. It seems to be one thing to know this intellectually, and a lot different to experience it viscerally. Even as I type this, there are moments when "Nick" isnt here at all, its just my hands moving, the screen filling up with black shapes, and theres a voice I am aware of that is essentially dictating what is typing. But no "Nick". Not even a sense of "Nick", until I stop...and notice my hands or something, and then that sense of being "Nick" is instantly there...but its not there, and then it is there. I get this piece - its clear 100% that this is a construct of the mind. I have had a true wisdom-level glimpse of "Nick" arising and being aware of the fact that "Nick" arose and also disappeared, yet "I" was still here, observing the absense of "Nick".

The next question is definitely key - can I find the thinker of the thought....again I have both an experience and an intellectual response. I know intellectually there is no thinker - there is the experience of thoughts arising and falling....I am struggling to not feel strongly attached to this other part, that thinks he is the experiencer of thoughts - "Nick". Its bloody frustrating! I know this "Nick" is a figment, yet its a challenge to observe the gap between awareness and feeling like I am "Nick" in that moment.

On the process of choosing...

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

OK so this morning, it seems very clear that the choice is a function of the mind - from the stillness, it is the mind that chooses which hand to move.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

No I dont think so. Its like it just arises as the mind comes back into play. With no mind, there would be no raising of the hand - it seems.

What is it that is controlling the hand?

Repeating this, on one repetition I was quite still and then I heard my voice from nowhere in my head, "Move the left hand". I observed that mental voice arise. Where did it arise from? From the stillness, which has to be the mind. And I was intentionally aiming to be still, yet it arose. It does seem like the thing controlling the hand, which obviously doesnt exist anyway, is the same thing that thinks the hand exists on its own - the mind.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No. The controller is coming from the stillness of the mind, when it does eventually come back into the picture, as it invariably does. So it seems then that the "controller" is nothing other than a function of what the mind does, just as the function of this thing called "Nick" is also a function of the mind...which is interesting.

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

In all cases, as I sit as best as I can as the witnesser/observer, the fact this arising of the need or compunction to move a hand then arises - and I am observing it - does suggest something is causing it to arise, but its DEFINITELY not this "I".

How is the decision made?

What seems to be coming clear to me Nic, is that in a simplistic sense/model, there are two levels - the first is in which I am asleep and exist in the world of the mind, and the second is in which I am detached and can observe the world unfolding as random and autonomous as the wind. As if from the second position, I am out in space, looking out and somewhere there is Earth where this apparent life is unfolding. When I am asleep, not actively resting as Awareness, I am living life in the hustle and bustle of the mind and the stories it is creating on Earth. When I am taking the time to become the silence, to recognize my ability to observe, its as if I am able to become separated from this movie and watch it. And the most apparent result of that is that it is absolutely happening on its own.

The mind is behind all of these thoughts, and there is nothing behind those thoughts causing them to do any particular thing. So with this hand exercise it is like I am out in space, resting, not even caring about the hand, just still. But then something arises out of the stillness, "move the hand!" and it seems as that thought comes up, so too does this "Nick" sense.

Something that is still difficult to untangle here is that it also feels like Thought == "Nick". That is, resting in the silence, its just still and peaceful. But as soon as something arises, like this "move the hand!", theres this sense of Me, this "Nick". I am guessing this is part of the trick of the mind. It feels like to have thought, and choice, and thinking or anything that is a leveraging of the mind, "Nick" is there - so it has to be "Nick" having the thoughts.

I admit this is a little confusing on one level, but theres some clarity now on another. The clarity (which I dont know is true or false), seems to be that "Nick" is part of thought, that there is this sense of "Nick" as thought unfolds. The tricky part with this though Nic, is that there are some thoughts, the ones that are clearly a movie or something, when I close my eyes, where there is no "Nick" - they are just thoughts. I am not sure at this point how to untangle that...but nevertheless, this is actually a very interesting revelation.

The decision being made is not coming from this spacious awareness that I truly am. It arises...and all things that arise are from the mind, including objects, sounds (because there is only hearing), and "Nick"...and now I am realizing even these choices...hhhm...

Thank you! It feels like "I" am saying thank you - it is genuine! :)

Nick.