Hello, i am looking for help

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

Sorry about the slow reply.

I am away for a long weekend, and my only internet access has been on my phone for the past day and a a half. Your answers show that you are definitely looking in the right direction.

I' now have an internet connection but there is a lot going on here, so I'll reply to you again in a few hours with some comments and some more questions.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

About the inside and outside. The sense of Me exists, it is related to the limits of my body.

Yes, but you will discover, if you look carefully, that the "sense" of "me" is NOT based on any direct experience. You can not "feel" a me. What you call "sensing" a me is based PURELY on the idea that there is a "me", and that idea is generated PURELY by thought.

If we were able to remove all your memory and thought, and leave you with just pure awareness, how would you come up with a sense of "me"? Do you see that there is nothing in direct experience that tells you about a "me", except for thought?

As we go on with this process you will discover that you are not the thinker of thoughts, so all thought and memory stuff can not be relied upon for the truth.

It's very important that we investigate whether you are the thinker of thoughts, so we will do that at the end of this post.

On the other hand, I dont perceive myself into my body. I dont know what is happening into my arm, but now there is pain i my arm. I can see that without the story there is only pain, but it is difficult to get ride of the story, it is difficult not to locate the pain and stay only with the pure pain

Yes, it is very difficult to report purely direct experience because thought comes in to tell a story about everything all of the time. In a way what we're trying to do here is look at the true nature of pure subjectivity. So we really want to look PURELY at the "PURE" experience of reality, without any of the thought stories. In your description above, a more accurate description of the situation would have been: There is a sensation which feels uncomfortable and there is a thought which says that the sensation is pain and that it is located in an arm.

As for staying with pure pain, to do that, look at the pain and imagine trying to describe the sensation to someone who has never known what pain felt like. That's one way to look at the true nature of pain.

But think about a dream. In a dream you "see" images and "hear" sounds, and "feel" sensations, but the body is not feeling the sensation, the eyes are not seeing the images, and the ears are not hearing the sounds.

I can see that from my perceptiompn now, specially if I close my eyes, the bundaries between inside and outside are difffcult to establish. I say it is difficult because i dont feel I am vanished into the whole, there is a sense of me somewhere, sort of centre or sense of HERE

Everything is always only ever HERE, that is correct, but let's discover whether that "here" has a location, or whether "here" is just whatever appears in awareness in the moment. You will notice that every single experience only ever happens "here", you never experience anything anywhere other than "here". But if you look carefully, you will discover that from direct evidence, without thought stories, there is no here or there.

Now, with your eyes open, take a look around you, and WITHOUT any thought stories about what is "here", take a look around you and tell me what it is that defines here and there. You will probably notice your computer, and you may say that it is "here", and if you look across the room at a picture on the far side of the room, you will say that picture is "there". But if you report your direct experience, without any thought story, you would just say that there are two objects appearing in awareness. Both objects appear equally in awareness. The images of each object are both equally "here" in awareness. Do you find any difference in the awareness of things that you call "here", and things that you call "there"?

Is the image of the computer any "deeper" in awareness than the painting across the room?

Everything in awareness is always deeply "local" and inseparable from the awareness of it. You will find that you can not separate the image of the computer from the awareness of the image, exactly the same as you can't separate the image of the picture from the awareness of the image.

Notice that when you dream there seems to be a sense of "here" and "there", but in reality there is no distance anywhere in the dream. The entire dream (with all of it's apparent distances) takes place "here" in awareness.

I can see there is no direct experience of a me. And I believe that Me is a concept, a thought but that is not clearly seen. I dont know if it is kind of faith, or another thought with no more relevance than any other thought. And you talk about direct experience.

Ok, so you say that you are unable to find a "me" in direct experience, but you are able to find a "me" when you think about it. So now we need to discover whether thought is something that you think, or whether thought is just something appearing in awareness, and doing its own thing.

I think that you've seen that thought is the only thing in direct experience that says that there is a "me", so it's now very important to discover for sure whether or not you are the thinker of thoughts. Does it seem completely impossible to you that you may not be the thinker of thoughts?

Can you see that if you are DEFINITELY not the thinker of thoughts, then the idea of a "me" is nothing more than a thought appearing in awareness? Sounds, sensations, images, and thoughts appear in awareness, but if you are not the thinker of thoughts how can you trust what thoughts say about what you are?

Talking about awareness, I see that awareness is awareness of something (colours, things, emotions sounds...), but I have a doubt, now I am aware of writing, but other times, for instance, If I am watching a good movie, There is watching a movie, but I am not necessarily aware of the fact that I am watching a movie, ther is only the movie. i dont know if this is nonsense or irrelevant.

It's very relevant. It's important to notice that the "me", and even the body, is not in awareness all of the time. In fact you would be surprised how often there is no me and no body in awareness.

My question is: when I am conciously aware of a thought, isnt there a separation between something thatis aware and the thought or the sound?

Think about this carefully, and remember that we are investigating direct experience. When there is a sound, there is awareness of the sound. Without the awareness of the sound could there be a sound? And without the sound, could there be awareness of the sound?

Please remember that you can only rely on direct experience when answering the above two questions.

You say that awareness and the thought are inseparable, but I think I perceive some separation because sometImes I am aware of a thoght and other times thoughts are happening but i am not fully aware of them. i am kind of distracted??

This is just imagination. There is never a thought without the awareness of it. If you are unaware of a thought then it does not exist, and if you are aware of a thought then it exists. Sometimes it seems like there are things happening at the periphery of awareness, but in truth, all that means is that there is less thought attaching to the things that are appearing in awareness but seem to be on the outer edge of awareness.

The stuff appearing in awareness that has a lot of thought attaching to it SEEMS like the focus of awareness, and the stuff which has less thought attaching to it SEEMS to be on the outskirts of awareness - or in the "distracted zone".

I dont forget the question if there is a thinker of thoughts. I believe that thoughts happen, but I think it is a second hand knowledge. i cant see it by myself.

Thoughts happen but is there a thinker of those thoughts? It's now important that we fully and carefully investigate whether there is a thinker of thoughts.

Answer the next four questions, but before you do, you need to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of your answers:

Are you able to completely stop all thoughts whenever you like? Are you able to stop yourself from ever having an unhappy thought? Are you able to decide what the next thought will be before you have any thought?

Finally, if your answer to any of the above questions is no, then explain how you could possibly be the thinker of thoughts.

[azabache88]

Hi, John, thank you for your answer. Please dont worry if you cant write for whatever reason.
If I have understood properly what you say, then there is no thinking, only thoughts arising in awareness. I have some difficulties with that, because sometimes I can see clearly that thoughts appear beyond my intention, but other times I have the feeling of being thinking, for instance, now while I am writting this. It seems to be a process, though I believe that thinking can be an illusion created by thoughts. I observe myself, but, to be honest, I have to say that I havent seen clearly yet that the me is created by thoughts instead of a me which creates the thoughts. I need more time to investigate this, cause you say that is a key point.
John, if there is no me, there is no free will, there is no choice. Whatever happens, happens.
On the one hand I have the feeling or the thought or whatever that the Me doesnt exist, that it is a byproduct of thoughts, memories, an ingrained concept, but on the other hand the sense of me, no matter how illusory it may be, is present because I experience myself as a separate individual and I live in the division between me and the rest of the world. I d like to get ride of this burden, cause I think the Me is not necessary and I cant see it, feel it in a particular place...
I keep observing the process of thoughts and i try to set aside the story telling by thoughts.
I understand that everything appears HERE, in awareness, no matter the distance, but I can avoid to locate this body here. I feel the me in relation with this body, so there seems to be a center from which I perceive things here or there. You suggest there is no center, awareness is whithout center?
I see I cannot separate awareness from the thing i am aware of. Always i am aware I am aware of something.
i have to go to work, but I 'll keep observing toughts.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

If I have understood properly what you say, then there is no thinking, only thoughts arising in awareness.

It's important that you don't believe anything I say. It's very important that you discover for yourself whether you are the thinker of thoughts or not.

I have some difficulties with that, because sometimes I can see clearly that thoughts appear beyond my intention, but other times I have the feeling of being thinking, for instance, now while I am writting this.

Ok, so at least you can see for certain that some thoughts are completely beyond your intention. Now think about this carefully: if you are not the thinker of some thoughts, how can you be the thinker of any thoughts? Thinking happened, and writing of a reply to me happened, but what makes you believe that the thinking which happened for the writing of the reply was "you" thinking?

There was reading of my reply, and there were thoughts about what I wrote, then there were thoughts about a reply, and there was typing of a reply. What direct evidence in that experience told you that there was a "me" doing that thinking and typing?

It seems to be a process, though I believe that thinking can be an illusion created by thoughts.

If you are saying that the idea of being the thinker seems to be an illusion created by thought then yes, you are noticing something very important.

I observe myself, but, to be honest, I have to say that I havent seen clearly yet that the me is created by thoughts instead of a me which creates the thoughts. I need more time to investigate this, cause you say that is a key point.

Yes, it is a key point, and it is very important that you investigate this very carefully. Every time that there is a sense that you are the thinker take the time to find out whether that "sense' comes from direct experiential evidence, or whether it comes from a thought process.

The point is that as soon as you realise that at least some thoughts are not your thoughts then obviously it's clear that thoughts can not be relied upon for the truth, but nor can they be stopped. For that reason there needs to be some intelligent discernment between which thoughts can be confirmed as truth by direct experiential evidence, and which ones are telling stories that can not be verified by such evidence.

John, if there is no me, there is no free will, there is no choice. Whatever happens, happens.

Exactly - just like it always has :)

And thought tells thousands of stories about what happens.

On the one hand I have the feeling or the thought or whatever that the Me doesnt exist, that it is a byproduct of thoughts, memories, an ingrained concept, but on the other hand the sense of me, no matter how illusory it may be, is present because I experience myself as a separate individual and I live in the division between me and the rest of the world.

Ok, but can you see that when you say "I live in the division between me and the rest of the world" the only division in there is the idea of a "me"? If there was no "me" in that sentence then there would be no division.

This is why I asked you whether you were able to find any division between awareness and what it is aware of. Relying on direct evidence ONLY, do you find any separation between the world and the awareness of it? Aside from the thought created idea of a "me", where is any division or separation?

I d like to get ride of this burden, cause I think the Me is not necessary and I cant see it, feel it in a particular place...

Ok, so if you can't see it or feel it in a particular place, and you can only find it in thought, then you will see how important it is to discover whether there is a thinker of thoughts, and how important it is to verify thoughts against direct experiential evidence.

I keep observing the process of thoughts and i try to set aside the story telling by thoughts.
I understand that everything appears HERE, in awareness, no matter the distance, but I can avoid to locate this body here.

You will notice by observing direct experience that not only the body, but EVERYTHING, including all images, sounds, sensations, emotions, smells, and thoughts is always DEEPLY "local". Aren't ALL places in awareness right "here" in direct experience? EVERYTHING is located "here", but does "here" have a location?

I feel the me in relation with this body, so there seems to be a center from which I perceive things here or there.

The body appears regularly in awareness, and thought says that because bodily sensations are perceived the awareness of them must be located "in" the body, but from direct experience ONLY, do you find the body to be in awareness or do you find awareness to be in the body?

When you say that you "feel" the me "in relation with this body" what is that "feeling"? Can you describe the "feeling" without adding a thought story to direct experience in order to answer that?

You suggest there is no center, awareness is whithout center?

Without relying on thought stories, and judging purely from direct experience, Do you find that awareness has a center? Do you find awareness "in" anything "here", or do you find that everything here appears "in" awareness?

I see I cannot separate awareness from the thing i am aware of. Always i am aware I am aware of something.

Ok, so you can find no separation between everything "this" and the awareness of it. Do you see that the only idea of anything being separate from anything else is just a thought story? And do you see that it's only a thought story that creates the impression of a "me" that is separate from "this"?

[azabache88]

Hi, John
I can see that awareness is a kind of continuum without borders with the world. There is no perciebable frontier in awareness between me and the world. But, honestly I have to say that all seems to be the same, a certain feeling of being me somehow. Perhaps because I still have the sense of being the one who thinks, I can see that I am not the producer of cerain spontaneus thoughts, and I can deduce that therefore I am not the maker of the thoughts, but my feeling, and I have the impression it is real, is that somehow, I can manipulate the stream os thoughts. I know I have no evidence of it, but the sense of being a separate individual is still there.
I guess i have to keep watching the thoghts, though I find very difficult to set thoughts telling a story,aside. And, after all, who is the one that try to put the thoughts aside, perhaps another thought, and I would be running in a circle. But this may be a story, too, not my direct perception.
I also see that in awareness I cannot see the me, so all it is happening and if there is no me, cant be location, but the impression of near and far is still present, perhaps a pn inconscious identification whith the body throug the story of me being an indivdual.
It is so difficult to trust more in subjetive perception than in concepts, stories, habits, etc!!!. If I close my eyes is easier that the sense of here or me result like a vague idea, but when I see these legs or hands I can avoid feeling them mine or "more mine" than the ones in front of me.
I keep observing every time I remember to be aware, though in fact, i guess I dont remember, but thoughts related to be aware happens some times and some times not.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

I can see that awareness is a kind of continuum without borders with the world. There is no percievable frontier in awareness between me and the world. But, honestly I have to say that all seems to be the same, a certain feeling of being me somehow. Perhaps because I still have the sense of being the one who thinks, I can see that I am not the producer of cerain spontaneus thoughts, and I can deduce that therefore I am not the maker of the thoughts, but my feeling, and I have the impression it is real, is that somehow, I can manipulate the stream os thoughts. I know I have no evidence of it, but the sense of being a separate individual is still there.

Ok, let's investigate this "sense" of being a separate individual. Can this "sense" be verified through any direct experiential evidence?

Take a very close look and tell me, is this "sense" some sort of sensation, or is it purely based on thought.

I guess i have to keep watching the thoghts, though I find very difficult to set thoughts telling a story,aside.

Yes it is difficult at first. Go back and read my earlier explanation of the difference between reporting direct evidence and reporting thought stories, and just try that exercise again for yourself.

And, after all, who is the one that try to put the thoughts aside, perhaps another thought, and I would be running in a circle. But this may be a story, too, not my direct perception.

This is a good observation. What we're doing here, in a way, is to play thought's own game, and expose thought to itself. You know your own subjectivity. You know that when you say the word red, you could never describe the subjective "feeling" of red. In other words you could never describe red to a blind person. It is this subjectivity that we're investigating, and subjectivity has ZERO thoughts. Thoughts appear in this subjectivity, and sensations, people, planets, and emotions appear here, and it is possible to notice what is pure subjectivity, and what is a thought story about subjectivity.

It's not easy, but it is possible. Like I say, try that exercise and see if you understand what I mean.

I also see that in awareness I cannot see the me, so all it is happening and if there is no me, cant be location, but the impression of near and far is still present, perhaps a pn inconscious identification whith the body throug the story of me being an indivdual.

Yes, except for thought, the body appears in awareness more often than anything else, but it doesn't appear there all the time. Often the body, and even Manuel, doesn't appear in awareness until it's 'looked for'. When watching a movie is a good example of this.

Thoughts feel like they're the very closest "things" appearing in awareness, and the body always seems to be the closest "object" in awareness (distance wise). Language and concepts have developed in awareness and thoughts have developed that say that the body is 'here' and other stuff is 'there', but when you close your eyes, do the sounds of the birds or other sounds seem any more distant than the sound of your breath? Remember to exclude thought stories.

You can even do this with your eyes open. Take in the view in front of you and exclude all thought stories. Can you see that the image that appears in awareness is one image, and subjectively the entire image is as close as a thought is. The entire image is "felt as being right "here" and right "next to" the thoughts about the image. Can you see this?

It is so difficult to trust more in subjetive perception than in concepts, stories, habits, etc!!!.

Yes it is, but only at first. Once it becomes clear that you are not the thinker of thoughts it becomes far easier, and in fact it's the stories and habits that become the difficult thing to trust.

If I close my eyes is easier that the sense of here or me result like a vague idea, but when I see these legs or hands I can avoid feeling them mine or "more mine" than the ones in front of me.

Just because legs and hands appear in "this", doesn't mean that they are "yours". There has to be a "you" for them to be yours. Without thought stories why would you say that the hands are "yours" but the sound of the bird singing outside is not "yours"?

Are any of the things that appear in this subjectivity "you"? If so which ones are yours? Please explain how they are "yours" using only direct experiential evidence.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

It may help you to watch this video before answering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BM8aQTrHOo[/quote]

[azabache88]

Hi, John
I'll write you back with more detail, but tonight, I woke up in the middle of the night with a sort of panic attack. I had the phisichal sensation of being near death. I dont know if this can have anything to do with this observation or has to do with stress due to work, or something I ate for dinner, I even believed I was having a heart attack.
Now I am feeling fine.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi, John
I'll write you back with more detail, but tonight, I woke up in the middle of the night with a sort of panic attack. I had the phisichal sensation of being near death. I dont know if this can have anything to do with this observation or has to do with stress due to work, or something I ate for dinner, I even believed I was having a heart attack.
Now I am feeling fine.

Don't worry about it Manuel. Many have spoken about having this sort of symptom when the"I" is being investigated. It seems to be psychosomatic, and goes away once the "I" is seen through. If anything I would say that it's a good sign :)

[azabache88]

Hi, John
I was watching the video you reccommended me. I found difficult to understand because sometimes they talk too fast to me. I think I could grasp the fundamental meaning. I have found interesting the similarity with what we were talking about awareness and the sense of the me inside the body.
I have a problem now. I am very nervous because the possibility of a new, I dont know the word, panic attack. When I sit and observe my thoghts,etc, I beguin to feel a sensation of fear.
I ll write you later.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

How can there be anything to fear? If there is no personal I now, then there never was a personal I, so what could change? It doesn't mean that you don't exist, it just means that you're not what thought says you are.

Have no fear, there's nothing to fear. You can't be touched :)

[azabache88]

Hello,John
Well, I am relax now. No pRoblem. I dont know what happened the other night, but whatever it was, it is over now.
i ve been investigating is the "sense" of me ii experienced somewhere or if it is a thought. What I can say is that my senses cant find an I, I cant see it, I cant hear it, I cant touch it...but I cant say if it is a thought, because thoughts come and go, and it is difficult to have two different thoughts at the same time. That Me or I seems to be related to something mental, perhaps like a subtle and constant thoug ht, more permanent and rooted than other thoughts or as ifall the thoughts were attached to this fundamental thought.
This ghostly me is more "located" in the head, I dont know, like a more dense center of me. That is the reason I say it has to do more with the head or the thoughts than with the senses.
If you ask me where thoughts are, I would say "in my head" though I think that is the story, because without the story I have no evidence of thoughts appearing in the head...and I dont have evidence of having a head unless I put myself in front of a mirror. in that case i wouldnt have the evidence that the head in the mirror is my head, however when I look my reflecton in the mirror there is an identification of that image with me, but based on memories and perhaps in the fact that if I "decide" to close an eye, the reflection does the same. But i dont have direct evidence right now of having a head.
You asked me if the bird song is less me than my thoughts. i understand that the "right" answer is NO, because both appear in this awareness and both appear here. Now I am hearing noises (cars passing) and thoughts are appearing in the same space without boundaries however, somehow thoughts are more mine, I guess the reason is I am used to considering them My thoughts produced by Me = the thinker.
But how erradicate these habits, these patterns so deeply ingrained?

[azabache88]

Hi, John, today I was walking down the street and observing without thought, to a certain extent, there was awareness and sounds and feelings in t he body and the perception of no limits or boundaries between me and things, though the sense of location and the reference of distance between me and the world was still there.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

Sorry about the slow reply. I can usually manage to reply on weekends but this weekend was also a hectic one because it was my daughter's 21st birthday party.

I congratulate you. You've done some excellent observing!! Your answers show that you're looking carefully.

i ve been investigating is the "sense" of me ii experienced somewhere or if it is a thought. What I can say is that my senses cant find an I, I cant see it, I cant hear it, I cant touch it...but I cant say if it is a thought, because thoughts come and go, and it is difficult to have two different thoughts at the same time. That Me or I seems to be related to something mental, perhaps like a subtle and constant thoug ht, more permanent and rooted than other thoughts or as ifall the thoughts were attached to this fundamental thought.

Yes, good observation. Do you see that if thought has constructed a 'centre' for itself then obviously thoughts will always be 'framed' around such a centre?

This ghostly me is more "located" in the head, I dont know, like a more dense center of me.

When you say "located" in the head don't you mean in thought?

That is the reason I say it has to do more with the head or the thoughts than with the senses.
If you ask me where thoughts are, I would say "in my head" though I think that is the story, because without the story I have no evidence of thoughts appearing in the head...

Another excellent observation!

and I dont have evidence of having a head unless I put myself in front of a mirror. in that case i wouldnt have the evidence that the head in the mirror is my head, however when I look my reflecton in the mirror there is an identification of that image with me, but based on memories and perhaps in the fact that if I "decide" to close an eye, the reflection does the same.

Ok, but if you are not the thinker of thoughts then you could not have been the one to decide to close one eye, could you?

Do you see that you could have said the second sentence without using the word "I"? Take a read of it and please write it for me again without the use of the word "I" in it. Then tell me which of the sentences is closer to direct experiential evidence.

But i dont have direct evidence right now of having a head.
You asked me if the bird song is less me than my thoughts. i understand that the "right" answer is NO, because both appear in this awareness and both appear here. Now I am hearing noises (cars passing) and thoughts are appearing in the same space without boundaries however, somehow thoughts are more mine, I guess the reason is I am used to considering them My thoughts produced by Me = the thinker.

Exactly! Another good observation! Now do you see how important it is to discover whether you are the thinker of thoughts?

But how erradicate these habits, these patterns so deeply ingrained?

You don't have to do anything. As it becomes clearer that you are not the director or producer of thoughts, reality becomes more obvious :-)

[Empty Mirror]

Hi, John, today I was walking down the street and observing without thought, to a certain extent, there was awareness and sounds and feelings in t he body and the perception of no limits or boundaries between me and things, though the sense of location and the reference of distance between me and the world was still there.

This is another great insight :-)

As you continue to notice the lack of separation you'll discover that doing and thinking are just happening by themselves.