Guidance for deep looking

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

Before seeing through separation, almost all of us believes that separation means that I am inside the body, probably in the head, this is what we call here, and there is a world out there. Thus there is a border or a dividing line between me and not-me. And this line is the skin, where the body ends. Everything inside the skin is me, everything outside the skin is not me.

So, in essence, I am the body, and everything else that is not the body, is not me.

Look, if this is how it seems to be.

Yes thats how it seems to be. When looking at the chair the table the cup it seems to be over there separate to me.

But, is there someone or something INSIDE the body?

No one can be found in the body. There's no controller / I in the hands feet legs torso and none that can be found in the head.

Can you find anything else inside the head than sensations?

No just sensations , thoughts appear to come up in the head, and emotions appear to start there.

Isn’t the body empty of a self / me?

Yes. I can't find any self in the body.

Isn’t the body, including the head, shows up AS an experience? As an experience of sensations?

Yes the body shows up as lots of sensations.

So the body is experienced, just as the body is experienced.
Or more precisely both the body and the laptop IS experience. Can you see this?

ok sitting here looking at the laptop the laptop can be seen as part of experience. Its colour, the letters, words on the screen, the keyboard. And the body is being experienced through sensations in the back, legs head etc.

And where the hands touch the laptop there are different sensations.

So both are experience.

I can see that.

But thoughts persist that the body is where I am.

I think part of the reason is vision. The front of the laptop can be seen but not my face. So thoughts say looking is happening from here because this body's face cant be seen.

Normally we believe that the body is the subject of experience, the body is the experiencer, and it experiences the world out there. So the body, or more precisely the head, becomes a reference point in space, where the outside world (not me) is experienced FROM. So the seeming distance between here and over there is coming from the position of the body in space compare to other objects.

But how could there be distance if the body is just as much an experience than the world?

Struggling with this - yes the body and laptop are both experienced. Sensations from the laptop aren't experienced unless my hand touches it but sensations from the body are experienced all the time.

Just realized I may be falling into thinking there is an experiencer again. The laptop experience differs from the body experience. It is visual unless touched by this body. The body experience is sensations and visual.

How could there be a distance or separation if the body is just one object among many?

I seem to be having some trouble seeing this. The cup the table the laptop appear as experience - got that. As does the body as sensations. Other bodies appear visually unless touched by this body - in experience.

This body has to get up and walk to get to certain other objects. So in that sense there is seperation?

Isn’t this just a thought based artificial division of experience / life / existence, slicing it into two distinct part, into a body here (me) and the world there (not me)?

Right now fingers are typing on the keyboard. There is no-one here controlling them. There is an internal voice. It is sayign what it wants to and triggering more thoughts and emotions and sensations. There are thoughts about effort and sensations labelled as effort. The internal vice can be heard here it seems not anywhere else.

So at least here is different from elsewhere (in other bodies)?

But isn’t BOTH the body and the world is just an experience?

Yes but can't see no seperation at the moment.

We are confusing the physical distance between the body and an object (which both are known, both are experience itself, and creating a false impression of separation between me and not-me.

ok this is what I am doing then.

But they are BOTH experience itself.
The body is NOT the experiencer the world.
The body is NOT a me / self.
They are equally ‘parts’ of experience / life / existence.

Can you see this

So ther is physical distance. As you say that is experienced but no separation between me and not me because there is no separate I here?

There is also a separate view point that I assume is part of experience for others but don't experience here?

Thanks again Vivien!

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

Yes but can't see no seperation at the moment.

Because you imagine separation to be something else then what it is. You have a misconception about separation and non-separation, so you are looking for your own image or idea of non-separation.
But what you imagine to be separation is not what it is.

This body has to get up and walk to get to certain other objects. So in that sense there is seperation?

This is your idea I’m talking about. You’ve built up a concept what separation or non-separation means, and now you are trying to find evidence for that idea, and since you fail, you make conclusion that there is still separation.

But what if separation is not what you think it is?

V: We are confusing the physical distance between the body and an object (which both are known, both are experience itself, and creating a false impression of separation between me and not-me.

M: ok this is what I am doing then.

But they are BOTH experience itself.
The body is NOT the experiencer the world.
The body is NOT a me / self.
They are equally ‘parts’ of experience / life / existence.

Yes. So your assumption about separation is about the physical distance between the body and other objects. But this will never change. The body will never merge with other objects; how would that even be possible? Seeing won’t become a big mash-up of one single color, without no divisions.

Separation is not about not being individual or distinct objects. Not separation is not about not being able to distinguish between the body and the food. How would you know that hunger means that the food needs to be put into the mouth? Which mouth? What food? If you couldn’t to distinguish between a car and the body, then how would you jump away from the car when it’s dangerously too close

Separation is not even about not seeing other objects and other bodies from the perspective or the point of view of the body. The point of view of the body will remain.

All of these has nothing to do with the perceived separation.

So ther is physical distance. As you say that is experienced but no separation between me and not me because there is no separate I here?

Exactly.

There is also a separate view point that I assume is part of experience for others but don't experience here?

When separation is seen to be just another illusion, we won’t become superhumans with special powers to read others thoughts and feel others feeling and emotions. We won’t gain super powers.

You are making it o something very complicated and mystical.
This is very simple and very ordinary.
Realizing reality as it is, is not about gaining something.
Rather about losing our beliefs which are in the way of seeing the simplicity of what is.
It’s very down to earth. Like sobering up.

This body has to get up and walk to get to certain other objects. So in that sense there is seperation?

So what? Just because the body moves to get a cup, does this mean that there is an autonomous, self-governing, inherent self INSIDE the body HAVING the EXPERIENCE of the cup and the world?

Struggling with this - yes the body and laptop are both experienced. Sensations from the laptop aren't experienced unless my hand touches it but sensations from the body are experienced all the time.

Do you believe that sensations are INSIDE the body?
So there are two things going on: sensations + a body?
Is there anything else to the body than sensations?

So there are sensations + a another type of special sensation called ‘body’, which the first type of sensations are IN?
Or all there is to the body are the sensations?

And the body is being experienced through sensations in the back, legs head etc.

Is the body experienced THROUGH sensations of the body parts, or all there are to the body parts are the sensations?

Just realized I may be falling into thinking there is an experiencer again. The laptop experience differs from the body experience. It is visual unless touched by this body. The body experience is sensations and visual.

Yes, you are falling for thinking.

Why should the experience of the body be the same as the experience of the laptop? Is that even possible? What would be of the world if everything would suddenly disappear into one single amorphous soup?

But thoughts persist that the body is where I am.

Where I am? What is this I that is there where the body is?
Is there an I inside the body? Or beside the body? Or bellow? Or above? Or at the top of the head?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

Sorry haven't replied for a few days - I have been looking... appreciate your help.

This body has to get up and walk to get to certain other objects. So in that sense there is seperation?
So what? Just because the body moves to get a cup, does this mean that there is an autonomous, self-governing, inherent self INSIDE the body HAVING the EXPERIENCE of the cup and the world?
Struggling with this - yes the body and laptop are both experienced. Sensations from the laptop aren't experienced unless my hand touches it but sensations from the body are experienced all the time.

Do you believe that sensations are INSIDE the body?

From direct experience body sensations don't match what is seen. So with eyes closed my hand feels like a warm, fuzzy blob with no fingers or thumbs - The sensations change when it moves or touches something.

Are the sensations inside the body? From direct experience they seem to be bigger than the body. But thoughts say they are inside the body because they come from the body.

So there are two things going on: sensations + a body?

Ok I see - the body is just a word/label. The sensations are experience. With the eyes open the view of a hand is something pink with fingers and a thumb. And sensations are also present which don't match up to what is seen.

The hand or the body isn't going on (experienced). But sensations and vision is. So they are just sensations and what can be seen which are experienced and thoughts about what is experienced.

The label body is a thought.

Is there anything else to the body than sensations?

Just what can be sensed through sight and smell and hearing.

So there are sensations + a another type of special sensation called ‘body’, which the first type of sensations are IN?


Or all there is to the body are the sensations?

Yes from direct experience there is just sensations and what can be seen etc. The word body is a label/thought.

And the body is being experienced through sensations in the back, legs head etc.

Is the body experienced THROUGH sensations of the body parts, or all there are to the body parts are the sensations?

So the body is sensations - from direct experience. And what can be seen (hand, arm etc). So these are more labels for what can be seen - right now typing on the keyboard.

Yes everything else is thought. In direct experience the body is sensations and sights etc.

Yes I can see that I have a mental image of the body - walled off from the rest of the world separated by skin. Images of a figure separate from others.

But the actual experience isn't the word body but what is sensed (sensations etc).

The "body" then is a mental image/idea.

Why should the experience of the body be the same as the experience of the laptop? Is that even possible? What would be of the world if everything would suddenly disappear into one single amorphous soup?

Yes thats my error thinking that separation means physical separation. I can see the world can't exist if things arent physically separated.

But thoughts persist that the body is where I am.

Where I am? What is this I that is there where the body is?

Ha - can't find it. Looking now there are sensations and thoughts / emotions. Including thoughts are a self/me (or rather an assumption) but when "i" look there is no controller or separate I.

Is there an I inside the body? Or beside the body? Or bellow? Or above? Or at the top of the head?

Ok looking

beside the body - no.

above - no.

inside - no.

Top of head.

All that can be found is sensations and thoughts about sensations and emotions.


Thanks again Vivien -I appreciate your patience with this.

Mike

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

And sensations are also present which don't match up to what is seen.

Exactly.

We usually believe that the sensation is INSIDE of the pinkish colors, labelled ‘hand’.
But when you look very closely, you can discover that the sensation is not inside the color. These are just two stream of data (color + sensation). But experience doesn’t communicate that one is inside the other.

The hand or the body isn't going on (experienced). But sensations and vision is. So they are just sensations and what can be seen which are experienced and thoughts about what is experienced.
The label body is a thought.

Yes :)

Yes I can see that I have a mental image of the body - walled off from the rest of the world separated by skin. Images of a figure separate from others.

Excellent observation. We all have a mental image of ‘our body’. And we believe that this image is ME.

Yes thats my error thinking that separation means physical separation. I can see the world can't exist if things arent physically separated.

You are not the only one assuming this. This is a common assumption.

So let’s dive deeper into the notion of separation.

What is it that is seeing itself as separate?
Can you tell what this separate self is separate from?
Where is the line that divides this I from the whole?
Where is the container that this separate self/I is being held in?
Is there someone being inside the body, if so, where?
And when there is a seeming separation, how do you know that it’s a feeling of separation? What is giving the information about separation?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien
Just taking some more time to look at this if that’s ok. Will reply tomorrow 😊

[Vivien]

Yes, of course, no problem. Just be thorough.

Have a nice day :)

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

Yes thats my error thinking that separation means physical separation. I can see the world can't exist if things arent physically separated.
You are not the only one assuming this. This is a common assumption.

So let’s dive deeper into the notion of separation.

What is it that is seeing itself as separate?

I don't know. I really dont know. Stuff happens by itself. Thoughts and actions - but a thought says I did it and that thought triggers another thought that says I am separate.

Can you tell what this separate self is separate from?

thoughts say it/I am separate from the world outside and from other people.

Where is the line that divides this I from the whole?

One thought says its the skin - the outer edge of what is seen, but another thought says the separate self is in the head somewhere and not in the rest of the body which would mean the dividing line would be somewhere between the head and the rest of the body!

Where is the container that this separate self/I is being held in?

There is an assumption that the separate self/I is in the head somewhere/ behind the eyes. That thought would suggest it is contained in the head.

But when I look I can't find a separate I - just thoughts and sensations and emotions.

If someone (say a surgeon) removed my face - thinking would still go on and the I thought would still exist. (at elast thats what thought says).

He could remove large parts of the brain and thinking - including the I thought would probably persist. From what I've read in the past no one part of the brain produces the I thought.

But I can see from direct looking that the I thought isn't a separate self.

So even if the source of it could be found that wouldn't tell me where the boundary of the separate self is.

Is there someone being inside the body, if so, where?

Thoughts says the separate self is in the head somewhere. But there's no clear thought about where the border between that separate self and the rest of the body is.

Yes when I look I can see there is a thought saying there is a sort of separate being inside.

But looking now -

There are sensations in the head and face - and there is an internal voice talking. A thought says this is familiar.

Thoughts seem to say that a separate self produces the voice and comes though into the movements of the face. The thought says the separate self is behind them somehow.

But looking now I can't find anything.

And when there is a seeming separation, how do you know that it’s a feeling of separation? What is giving the information about separation?

Im not sure. Its a thought that comes up - reinforced by what others say and how they behave and memories (more thoughts) seeming to back up the idea of a separate self.

Thanks again Vivien,
Mike

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

a thought says

You are repeatedly using this phrase.

Is this your immediate experience that thoughts are saying all sorts of things, or are you thinking these thoughts?
Or are thoughts talking to you, and you can decide to believe them or not?

You are talking about thoughts as if they are actual autonomous, thinking, living agencies, with their own wills to say things, and they are expressing their opinions about things. But is this so?

but a thought says I did it and that thought triggers another thought that says I am separate.

Are thoughts saying this, or you are thinking this?
Where all that information that thoughts are about coming from?
How does a thought know if “I am separate” or not?
What does a thought know about an I or a self?

thoughts say it/I am separate from the world outside and from other people.

And WHAT and WHERE is this I that thoughts are constantly talking about?
Where is the I that is separate from the world and other people?
Where is the separate one? – find it

One thought says its the skin - the outer edge of what is seen, but another thought says the separate self is in the head somewhere and not in the rest of the body which would mean the dividing line would be somewhere between the head and the rest of the body!

Are you sure that thoughts are giving you all sorts of information, and these are not your doing/thinking?
Are you sure that you are not thinking these thoughts?
Or are these thoughts living, intelligent entities, expressing their opinions on the topic?

There is an assumption that the separate self/I is in the head somewhere/ behind the eyes. That thought would suggest it is contained in the head.

But how does a thought know that? How does a thought know that there is an I somewhere behind the eyes?
Are thoughts aware of the eyes or the head?
Can a thought literally see an I behind the eyes?

Thoughts says the separate self is in the head somewhere. But there's no clear thought about where the border between that separate self and the rest of the body is.

Why do you rely so much on thoughts?
Do you expect that a thought would give you the exact location of a border between me and not-me?

Do thoughts know how things actually are?
Are thoughts aware?
Are thoughts alive?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

Sorry for the delay gettign back to you. I had a bit of a pause after your last post hopefully back on track now.

Again I aprecciate you help :)

a thought says
You are repeatedly using this phrase.

Is this your immediate experience that thoughts are saying all sorts of things, or are you thinking these thoughts?
Or are thoughts talking to you, and you can decide to believe them or not?

At first I thought this was just an expression - a thoughts says , just a way of describing what is happening. The thoughts come up - some of them are words/sentences. Which say things(in the sense that the words when put together say something) But when I look I can see there is no-one saying the thoughts.

I am not thinking the thoughts - although this fact is often forgotten. Looking now....

I close my eyes and an image comes up of Mike drinking some water, and a thought: you're thirsty. Then lots of thoughts about this process (mostly words).

There is a thought that I am thinking them - but the thoughts come up by themselves. I can't find a thinker but there is an assumption that there is one. This assumption seems to be weaker sometimes and stronger sometimes.

Or are thoughts talking to you, and you can decide to believe them or not?

I see now that sometimes there is an assumption that there is an I who is receiving the thoughts somehow.

But I can't find anyone when I look. Still there is an assumption that someone is looking.

You are talking about thoughts as if they are actual autonomous, thinking, living agencies, with their own wills to say things, and they are expressing their opinions about things. But is this so?

No no definately not. Thoughts do not have their own will - they appear and disappear automatically. They don't have any agency.

but a thought says I did it and that thought triggers another thought that says I am separate.

Are thoughts saying this, or you are thinking this?

there is just a thought in the form of words. The words put together make a sentence which says something (but not in the sense that there is any entity saying it.

There is thinking going on.

Looking again now all I find is thinking and sensations and emotions. Also sensations and thoughts labelled together as effort. (I cant find anyone making the effort).

Where all that information that thoughts are about coming from?

I don't know.

Thoughts come up , words images, emotions etc I don't know who is interpreting them.

How does a thought know if “I am separate” or not?

A thought doesn't know anything.

It can't.

Its not a knowing entity. (Not sure what is it but a thought def can't know anything).

What does a thought know about an I or a self?

Nothing - thoughts can be in the form of words like : you are separate or not separate but the thoughts don't know anything.

thoughts say it/I am separate from the world outside and from other people.
And WHAT and WHERE is this I that thoughts are constantly talking about?

I don't know. I can't find it. I'm not sure what I'm looking for. Its just thoughts and emotions and sensations.

Where is the I that is separate from the world and other people?

Where is the separate one? – find it

I don't know. I cant find it. Looking looking can't see it.

One thought says its the skin - the outer edge of what is seen, but another thought says the separate self is in the head somewhere and not in the rest of the body which would mean the dividing line would be somewhere between the head and the rest of the body!

Are you sure that thoughts are giving you all sorts of information, and these are not your doing/thinking?

Thoughts come up automatically sometimes int he form of words/sentence like: why did he say that? or he is really annoying or I'm hungry etc. The thoughts don't say anything as such. There is no entity saying things.

There is information (like I'm hungry) but the thought doesn't say it as such. I don't know who interprets the though/receives. I can't see any receiver either :)

Are you sure that you are not thinking these thoughts?

I can't find a thinker.

Or are these thoughts living, intelligent entities, expressing their opinions on the topic?

No def not.

There is an assumption that the separate self/I is in the head somewhere/ behind the eyes. That thought would suggest it is contained in the head.

But how does a thought know that? How does a thought know that there is an I somewhere behind the eyes?

The thought doesn't know. It doesn't know anything. But there might be a thought/assumption: "you are behind the eyes."

Are thoughts aware of the eyes or the head?

No thoughts are not aware of anything.

Can a thought literally see an I behind the eyes?

No.

thoughts says the separate self is in the head somewhere. But there's no clear thought about where the border between that separate self and the rest of the body is.

Why do you rely so much on thoughts?

When I look at thoughts and see what they are they are not believed as much. Then when they are believed they seem more important.

There seems to be a waking up or remembering and forgetting. I'm not sure what this is or what is is thats remembering and forgetting (to look).

Do you expect that a thought would give you the exact location of a border between me and not-me?

Ahh I see I am expecting way too much of thoughts. No if they can't see are not aware and are not separate entities then how can they.

Do thoughts know how things actually are?

no.

Are thoughts aware?

no - but there is an assumption that they come from something aware.

Are thoughts alive?

no.


Thanks again Vivien for your help.

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

V: Where is the separate one? – find it

M: I don't know. I cant find it. Looking looking can't see it.

OK, so you can see a separate I.
But maybe you can feel the self?

V: Where all that information that thoughts are about coming from?

M: I don't know.

All that stuff thoughts talk about are your beliefs. The beliefs you’ve gathered throughout life. What you’ve learned in school, what you’ve heard from others.
All those thoughts are just your beliefs and assumption. Can you see this?

V: One thought says its the skin - the outer edge of what is seen, but another thought says the separate self is in the head somewhere and not in the rest of the body which would mean the dividing line would be somewhere between the head and the rest of the body!

Are you sure that thoughts are giving you all sorts of information, and these are not your doing/thinking?

M: Thoughts come up automatically sometimes int he form of words/sentence like: why did he say that? or he is really annoying or I'm hungry etc. The thoughts don't say anything as such. There is no entity saying things.

There is information (like I'm hungry) but the thought doesn't say it as such. I don't know who interprets the though/receives. I can't see any receiver either :)

Can you see that the first sentence in the above quote is your own beliefs? That the skin is the edge, or that the self is inside the head, etc.?

Do you see that these thoughts come up since you are holding these assumptions as beliefs?

That description is how you’ve been perceiving yourself to be in your whole life. But your perception has been shaped by those beliefs, overriding or covering up how things actually are.

Is this clear that what we do here is to question these long-held beliefs you have by comparing them with reality/experience?

V: But how does a thought know that? How does a thought know that there is an I somewhere behind the eyes?

M: The thought doesn't know. It doesn't know anything. But there might be a thought/assumption: "you are behind the eyes."

OK, so there is an assumption that I am behind the eyes. But does this stand up to the scrutiny of experience?

V: Do you expect that a thought would give you the exact location of a border between me and not-me?

M: Ahh I see I am expecting way too much of thoughts. No if they can't see are not aware and are not separate entities then how can they.

Exactly! You can never ever be able to see through the self-illusion by relying on thoughts.
And not just because thoughts are not aware, but also because the illusion is mainly created by thoughts.
You cannot see through the illusion with the same tool that is creating it in the first place.
Is this clear?

V: Are thoughts aware?

M: no - but there is an assumption that they come from something aware.

OK, this is something important. So test this out.

How do you know that thoughts are coming from something that is aware? How do you know this?

Is this something you experience, or is this just an unquestioned assumption?

Is this assumption in line with experience?

Can you actually observe (literally) thoughts coming from something that is aware?

If you say you cannot, then why do assume this?
What is your proof?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivian

V: Where is the separate one? – find it
M: I don't know. I cant find it. Looking looking can't see it.
OK, so you can see a separate I.
But maybe you can feel the self?

No just lots of sensations - when I look there is no separate self in them.

V: Where all that information that thoughts are about coming from?
M: I don't know.
All that stuff thoughts talk about are your beliefs. The beliefs you’ve gathered throughout life. What you’ve learned in school, what you’ve heard from others.

All those thoughts are just your beliefs and assumption. Can you see this?

Yes

V: One thought says its the skin - the outer edge of what is seen, but another thought says the separate self is in the head somewhere and not in the rest of the body which would mean the dividing line would be somewhere between the head and the rest of the body!

Can you see that the first sentence in the above quote is your own beliefs? That the skin is the edge, or that the self is inside the head, etc.?

Yes reading it now I can see that.

Do you see that these thoughts come up since you are holding these assumptions as beliefs?

Yes

That description is how you’ve been perceiving yourself to be in your whole life. But your perception has been shaped by those beliefs, overriding or covering up how things actually are.

Is this clear that what we do here is to question these long-held beliefs you have by comparing them with reality/experience?

Yes that clear - thanks for reminding me though. Yes comparing beliefs (like I am in the head, thee is an I in the head etc) with what can be found in direct experience - what there is evidence of.

V: But how does a thought know that? How does a thought know that there is an I somewhere behind the eyes?
M: The thought doesn't know. It doesn't know anything. But there might be a thought/assumption: "you are behind the eyes."

OK, so there is an assumption that I am behind the eyes. But does this stand up to the scrutiny of experience?

no - no I can be found (no separate controlling self). The belief somehow holds on though.

Sometimes there is a thought: how could I see myself (if I am the one looking).

V: Do you expect that a thought would give you the exact location of a border between me and not-me?
M: Ahh I see I am expecting way too much of thoughts. No if they can't see are not aware and are not separate entities then how can they.
Exactly! You can never ever be able to see through the self-illusion by relying on thoughts.
And not just because thoughts are not aware, but also because the illusion is mainly created by thoughts.

You cannot see through the illusion with the same tool that is creating it in the first place.
Is this clear?

ok this helps me. Yes this makes sense.

V: Are thoughts aware?
M: no - but there is an assumption that they come from something aware.
OK, this is something important. So test this out.

How do you know that thoughts are coming from something that is aware? How do you know this?

I don't. I have no evidence that thoughts come from something aware. They just appear.

Code: Select all

Is this something you experience, or is this just an unquestioned assumption?

Its an assumption.

Is this assumption in line with experience?

My assumption/belief is that there is some kind of space that thoughts come from. There's a gap between thoughts like a silence.

can you actually observe (literally) thoughts coming from something that is aware?

no I can see them appear from I don't know where.

If you say you cannot, then why do assume this?

I'm not sure if its some kind of protective mechanism - but as you say when I look I can't find any thing but thoughts appearing and not appearing. The gaps are gaps there's no indication that the gap is aware.

What is your proof?

When I look there no proof/evidence that thoughts come from something aware.

Thanks again Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure if its some kind of protective mechanism - but as you say when I look I can't find any thing but thoughts appearing and not appearing. The gaps are gaps there's no indication that the gap is aware.

Let’s investigate what is in the gap between thoughts.

So in the gap, there is no thought. But does this mean that there is literally nothing in the gap?
Or the gap is ‘filled’ with experience? The experience of sounds, colors, shapes, smells, tastes, feelings, sensations?

So what is left when there is no thought in the gap?

Whatever is left in the ‘gap’ is reality. What is left in the ‘gap’ is what actually IS.

Can you see clearly that whatever is ‘left in the gap’ that is WHAT IS (experience itself)?

And does this ‘what is’ / experience disappear when a thought shows up?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

I'm not sure if its some kind of protective mechanism - but as you say when I look I can't find any thing but thoughts appearing and not appearing. The gaps are gaps there's no indication that the gap is aware.

Let’s investigate what is in the gap between thoughts.

So in the gap, there is no thought. But does this mean that there is literally nothing in the gap?

No there are sounds, sensations, what can be seen.

Or the gap is ‘filled’ with experience? The experience of sounds, colors, shapes, smells, tastes, feelings, sensations?

yes thats right the gap between thoughts is full of everything that can be sensed.

So what is left when there is no thought in the gap?

yes as you say everything else continues - right now there is the sound of the rain, a car driving past on the wet road, the sensation of the bed, sensations in the body, aches in the feet, the view through the window - a tree blowing in the wind, a grey sky, drops of water falling from the roof.

Whatever is left in the ‘gap’ is reality. What is left in the ‘gap’ is what actually IS.

Can you see clearly that whatever is ‘left in the gap’ that is WHAT IS (experience itself)?

Yes - I can see that

And does this ‘what is’ / experience disappear when a thought shows up?

No it continues - attention shifts to the thought (automatically) for a while. The thought might become the focus of attention for a time, while the rest of experience is not.

Thanks again Vivien
Mike

[Vivien]

Hi Mike,

yes thats right the gap between thoughts is full of everything that can be sensed.

Yes :)

Now, in the gap between two thoughts, experience still goes on.

But is there Mike in the gap?
Or Mike appears only, when there are thoughts ABOUT Mike?

Vivien

[Mike1001]

Hi Vivien

thats right the gap between thoughts is full of everything that can be sensed.
Yes :)

Now, in the gap between two thoughts, experience still goes on.

But is there Mike in the gap?

Or Mike appears only, when there are thoughts ABOUT Mike?

In the gap there is experience including sounds of all different types, sensations in the body, sights.

looking more closely there seem to be some wordless thoughts milling around which are only noticed when get attached to an emotion.

Between the word thoughts (in the gap between them) I thought seems to be there much of the time.



Vivien just wanted to say that I feel a bit stuck right now - I think there must be some resistance or fear somewhere because the feeling of a separate I needing to take control of life is still here.

I'd really appreciate your advice / more questions related to this...

I'm determined to carry on.

Best wishes and thanks again, Mike