Seeking the end of Seeking; Wanting the end of Wanting

[Ronaldo]

I take your silence as difficulty in getting the pointers, let's see if I can make things easier to digest.

Sight is perhaps the strongest sense and most difficult to work with, so let's try other ways.

1. Place your hand on a table, eyes closed and notice:
Without thoughts explanations, is there a hand and a table? Or is there only sensations?
Can it be known where the hand/body ends and the table begins?
Can it be known what the table is made of, what the hand is made of?

Is there anything other than this tingling, weaving, pulsating sensation?
Now is there a "me" who experiences sensation, or is there only, just sensation?
Can there be sensation without the experience of sensation?
Are the sensation and the experience one or two separate things?

2. Next try tasting something, or drinking coffee or juice.
With eyes closed, taste and smell, notice the thoughts explaining what is eaten/drunk.
Let the thoughts subside and focus on the pure raw tastes and smells.
Is there a distance between the taste/smell and the experience of the taste/smell?

3. Do the same for sound.

Let me know how it goes.

Regards
Ron

[SeekerJ]

Hey Ron,

I have started working again so sorry for the delayed response.

what/who is confused? Aren't these just thought appearing "I'm confused", is there anyone really confused?

I guess no one is confused.

who/what needs to know why? What/who needs to figure it out?

The 'me' wants to know and be sure, have certainty.

Are you the observer? Is there an observer?

I guess not.

But is there one to be found?
Is there an observer separated from what is just happening?

There seems to be but upon inspection this observer seems to just be more thoughts. So in reality there seems to be no 'separate' observer observing my thoughts - which means ... there is no me, only things happening... so how can people be held accountable for 'their' actions when things just happen and there is no separate 'self' directing or controlling these actions...

Is there any separation between the seen and the knowing of it (not what it's called, not what story comes up)? - the raw, simple, pristine experience of the seen?

No. The knowing of my experiences is the only one constant, changeless thing. Not the content of my experiences, which is temporary and changes. To confuse my true nature to be the content of my experiences (thoughts, sensations, perceptions) is to suffer. The only constant is the knowing of these experiences in an empty space. Upon searching for an observer it cannot be found but only an empty aware space in instead. Things happen to me?.. I guess not. Things just happen in an empty aware space.

Is there any separation between a sound and the experience (or the knowing) of the sound?
Notice that the tags that come up "this is a fridge" "it's in the kitchen", "it's white" - whatever, are these actual experience or a thought?

My computer humming is my example. There seems to be a separation between the hearing of my laptop humming and an observer in the back of mind noticing this. But upon investigation I cannot find this observer, and only find an empty knowing that 'I' am hearing this humming sound. It makes you think if we currently perceive the world accurately through our senses, or if when our senses are changed such as being heightened under chemicals, then this is a more accurate experience of the nature of things.

'I' am not this empty space instead of the observer, instead the empty space just is. I can identify with it but it is not mine, it feels like in or through this empty space everything happens, the content of the world and our experiences, a single consciousness flowing thought all cells giving life, and we receive it like a radio transmission. We are life itself, and the content of our experiences is just the TV screen of which life is projected. This cannot be proven. It just feels this way.

Is there anything to be found except for experience?
And what knows experience? Please don't say that you do

.

I don't think so, or I cannot find anything else.
The way we experience things is by the knowing of this experience. Without the knowing, we wouldn't be aware of our experiences, this knowing seems to be a separate self/ observer, but when searched for it disappears and is replaced by an empty, spaciousness, knowing space in which our experiences seem to happen. Is this separate from our experiences, I don't know. It just seems to be.

is there a hand and a table? Or is there only sensations?
Can it be known where the hand/body ends and the table begins?
Can it be known what the table is made of, what the hand is made of?

It's strange. There is no hand. Only feeling. Sight really focuses our attention and makes it hard to snap out of sensing this fake observer.
I can only say where feeling ends, this could be seen as where the hands end. I can feel the table through 'my hand', so I can feel the end of 'my hand' and the beginning of another object.
The table feels smooth and soft. WIthout names and labels, it just is.

Is there anything other than this tingling, weaving, pulsating sensation?
Now is there a "me" who experiences sensation, or is there only, just sensation?
Can there be sensation without the experience of sensation?
Are the sensation and the experience one or two separate things?

Nothing other than the sensations, no observer but a knowing of what I am observing.
The experience of sensation cannot be known without the sense of knowing.
They feel the same thing. The experience and the knowing of the experience, but there is no separate self as in a little controller saying this is what I am feeling now, this is just a thought. A well oiled machine it seems. Very well oiled, to give the strong illusion of this separate self.

.

Next try tasting something, or drinking coffee or juice.
With eyes closed, taste and smell, notice the thoughts explaining what is eaten/drunk.
Let the thoughts subside and focus on the pure raw tastes and smells.
Is there a distance between the taste/smell and the experience of the taste/smell?

I ate a chocolate bar. The taste was delicious. Thoughts popped up this is this etc. When the thoughts subsided there was only knowing / experiencing and it was blissful. No distance.

[Ronaldo]

Hi SeekerJ

You use a lot of "seems" and "I guess" in your replies, good that you're being honest about it, but every step needs to be seen, doubt is you thinking about it, not looking at it, or perhaps looking and then analyzing, theorizing, conceptualizing. You have to look again and again until it's seen, I can't look for you and taking my word for it is of no value either.

R: who/what needs to know why? What/who needs to figure it out?

S: The 'me' wants to know and be sure, have certainty.

Is there a 'me', or are there just thoughts about 'me'?

So in reality there seems to be no 'separate' observer observing my thoughts - which means ... there is no me, only things happening... so how can people be held accountable for 'their' actions when things just happen and there is no separate 'self' directing or controlling these actions...

Look - is there an observer or just thoughts about an observer? Really look.
Do you notice the thoughts that say or implicitly suggest "I see the tree", "I hear the sound", "the tree is outside there, in a distance from me (the observer)" - but is any of these statements true? So what if part of the face is in the view - this IS all that is seen, where is it "me"?

Try this:
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 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 self/me or anything that is doing the choosing?

Is there a me/I controlling and moving the hand?
Is there a ‘I’ controlling which hand to raise?
Is there a controller? Where?

How is the decision made?
Is the decision made by an I/self?
Is there a decision maker? Where?

Repeat this many times before replying.

...only find an empty knowing that 'I' am hearing this humming sound. It makes you think if we currently perceive the world accurately through our senses, or if when our senses are changed such as being heightened under chemicals, then this is a more accurate experience of the nature of things.

Yes, there is no observer to be found, and no such thing is needed for it to be, for an experience.
Asking if "we perceive the world accurately" comes from a deep belief that you're a separate entity perceiving a world outside of you, and so you're asking if what you perceive of this world is the actual truth... but the question is all wrong, there is no you and no world outside of you.
Let me try and illustrate this - when you dream at night about walking in the street, is there a street outside of your dream avatar? Isn't is all made of the same thing? If you take a substance your dream will be different, is it a truer or falser dream?

...a single consciousness flowing thought all cells giving life, and we receive it like a radio transmission. We are life itself, and the content of our experiences is just the TV screen of which life is projected. This cannot be proven. It just feels this way.

These metaphors don't work for me, I don't see life as projected or received. Please let's forget about fancy spiritualism and focus on what's here. Turning things into nice packages with tags and bow ties is a recipe for new beliefs not seeing.

Without the knowing, we wouldn't be aware of our experiences, this knowing seems to be a separate self/ observer, but when searched for it disappears and is replaced by an empty, spaciousness, knowing space in which our experiences seem to happen. Is this separate from our experiences, I don't know. It just seems to be.

An "empty space of knowing" is yet another concept. There is no hearing and the knowing of it, seeing and the knowing of it, there is just the experience. Experience is self knowing, there is no mediator, experience knows experience, everything just IS and there is nothing but that self-knowing one experience! A thought content is made up of imagined experience and is also known without a knowing subject - it is an imagined experience. Look for yourself if this is true or not.

can only say where feeling ends, this could be seen as where the hands end. I can feel the table through 'my hand', so I can feel the end of 'my hand' and the beginning of another object.

Look again, notice the thoughts and imagined images that give this one experience the object and subject explanation. There is the sensation, and there are thoughts about it.

The experience and the knowing of the experience, but there is no separate self as in a little controller saying this is what I am feeling now, this is just a thought. A well oiled machine it seems. Very well oiled, to give the strong illusion of this separate self.

Yes, it's a very well done illusion....

Take some time to experience all this.

[SeekerJ]

Is there a 'me', or are there just thoughts about 'me'?

Just thoughts about me

Look - is there an observer or just thoughts about an observer? Really look.
Do you notice the thoughts that say or implicitly suggest "I see the tree", "I hear the sound", "the tree is outside there, in a distance from me (the observer)" - but is any of these statements true? So what if part of the face is in the view - this IS all that is seen, where is it "me"?

Just thoughts about an observer.
Yes I notice those implicit labeling thoughts.
Are these statements true? Let me think. It is true I am having these thoughts and these are labels. Is it really a 'tree' beyond the label? Then no, it just is, and would be without me giving it this label.

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a self/me or anything that is doing the choosing?

I don't know what is choosing. If it is a thought then I wasn't aware of this thought.
There was no self or me doing the raising.

Is there a me/I controlling and moving the hand?
Is there a ‘I’ controlling which hand to raise?
Is there a controller? Where?

No me controlling the hand or choosing or raising it.
No controller.

How is the decision made?
Is the decision made by an I/self?
Is there a decision maker? Where?

The first few times were deliberate and slow and I thought about which hand. After this I was fast and I was not aware of any thought saying which hand would move. Maybe there was a thought or controller, but even if there was I wasn't aware of it.
When I move slowly and deliberately I can have more thoughts and plan actions more carefully but when I move fast then things just happen.

Let me try and illustrate this - when you dream at night about walking in the street, is there a street outside of your dream avatar? Isn't is all made of the same thing? If you take a substance your dream will be different, is it a truer or falser dream?

It would still be a dream, but there would be a 'you' having the dream. If there is no I then there s just perceiving. What is being perceived? the things we have given labels to. Are they being perceived correctly as to their true nature or form? Who knows.

Look again, notice the thoughts and imagined images that give this one experience the object and subject explanation. There is the sensation, and there are thoughts about it.

This one is tricky for me. My hand was in the air initially. I felt my hand and the wind.
Then my hand was on the table. My feeling only extended to the surface. I could only feel where my hand was touching.
I couldn't feel the whole of the object.
There was just feeling, but that feeling was limited, as in I couldn't feel my phone which was on my table.

[Ronaldo]

Hi Seekerj

If feels like you're starting to see that there is no free agent here, that there is no "me" running life, that is key. But the doubt is there.

Fast and slow action - can they really be different in essence? Or perhaps action happens and thought is a narrative, a story around the action? It's often obvious to see that they are not required for action, but it can indeed be extremely hard to see when there is something that looks like intention and then action. I'll give you a taste of that:

Put the palm of your hand facing up, and only curl (move) one finger each time (any finger), watch what is the difference of moving them with intention and then without intention, switch moving them with intention and without intention (but move them).
Do you find a real difference?

When you find yourself thinking about something else, and your fingers keep moving - does intention moves them, or they just move?

How is this intention controlled? Does intention affect action, or is that just something thought claims "I'm moving the 3rd finger now" but the movement just happens?

Next time you take a shower, pay attention how the hands move, how complex tasks are happening, and how there is nothing you do to make it happen. Are there decisions and choices, or is this that nothing but an added story..

Reality is what remains when thought is absent - what we call senses, but that is a label on an assumption that there is someone sensing, reality is just what is here now, without the imagined experience of thought content.

[SeekerJ]

Fast and slow action - can they really be different in essence? Or perhaps action happens and thought is a narrative, a story around the action?

Is the action is fast there does not seem to be any thoughts i.e. I don't a thought I am going to jump out of the oncoming car, I just do it.

But when I move slowly I can have thoughts which precede the action. I.e. I have a thought I will touch my phone. Then I touch my phone. Did I touch my phone because I had the thought I would touch my phone? It seems so, it seems this thought gave me the intention to touch my phone and I did it.

But did 'I' have control of my thought to touch my phone? I don't think so. What is 'I' if it is separate from directly perceiving my senses and thoughts? If there is no controller separate from the perceiver and there is only perceiving, then there was only a random thought which appeared stating 'I will now touch my phone', and then I touched my phone. I experienced and perceieved this but I could not 'control' this action or intention or thought because there is no 'me' (as in a controller and director of my thoughts).

Do my thoughts direct my actions. Yes, I guess so. But are they 'my' thoughts? No they seem to be random expressions of energy in my mind determined by a a pattern past experiences, genetics, personality traits and who knows what else. There does not seem to be a separate 'thing' from experiencing and perceiving this thought and senses.

When you find yourself thinking about something else, and your fingers keep moving - does intention moves them, or they just move?

How is this intention controlled? Does intention affect action, or is that just something thought claims "I'm moving the 3rd finger now" but the movement just happens?

This is a good example.

My fingers were moving slowly with intention and then when moving fast they just seemed to move on their own without the need of a 'thought' preceding the moving of the finger stating 'this finger will now move'. DId I need to have a thought to move a finger? No, or at least I was not aware of having a thought. Could a thought precede the moving of a finger and give an intention to move the finger? Yes, I have the thought I will move this finger and then I moved it. But there was no controller of the thought other than me just experiencing and perceiving the thoughts and movement of the finger.

Reality is what remains when thought is absent - what we call senses, but that is a label on an assumption that there is someone sensing, reality is just what is here now, without the imagined experience of thought content.

Without thought there is still life, I am still moving and doing things. I don't need thought, but if I think it can be useful in planning intended actions, but who is the one thinking? I cant find that controller of my thoughts, I only find more thoughts or emptiness.

No thoughts is just experiencing the senses of what is real. The contents of thoughts are imagined. Are thoughts helpful? often yes, but it doesn't mean it is real, as opposed to my senses feeling a table. Does it matter? Yes, because my understanding of personal sense of self has been built upon layers of memories which are thoughts and thoughts are not real, so my sense of self is not real like feeling a tree is real, but my sense of self is imagined... which means my body is real but 'who' I am inside when I think of myself is not real... so why do people create so much mind made suffering for themself? Because they attach who they are in their thoughts to be real, as opposed to imaginary and they suffer because their mind made sense of self is just imaginary thoughts and are often negative etc. The mind wants to come back home and not be trapped in an illusion that it is identified with thoughts and is imaginary.

[Ronaldo]

But when I move slowly I can have thoughts which precede the action. I.e. I have a thought I will touch my phone. Then I touch my phone.

Do you always touch the phone? Do you always end up doing what you thought you should do? And when that happens, is there always a reason why, or does it just happen or not happen. Anyway, whether you see it or not, I hope it's clear that the thought itself is not something under any control, that is the key realization, that that thing we like to call "my mind" is not to be found and the process of thinking, despite how it's perceived is a total mystery.

Do my thoughts direct my actions. Yes, I guess so.

Did you look at that clip I shared of Spira to the very end? Even these experiments you take for absolute truth have shown that action is decided well before the thought appears. But I don't see any point in diving any deeper into this, staying in this logical arguments is not going to get you anywhere. What matters is clearly seeing how thought is not under your control, yes, there is a seeming association with patterns from childhood, your so called genetics gives you an amplitude of thinking ability if you like, etc. etc. But these are still nothing but concepts in thought, and relaying on memory.

Let's investigate the notion of time.

What is memory exactly? I'd like you to bring up:
1. an image of something you remember well
2. something someone said to you

please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?
When the memory appears, when does it appear? I am asking about present time or past time.
What is the difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened in the past?

Then, look at a thought about the future, maybe what you plan to do etc.

When does the future thought appear, when does that take place?
How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will (maybe) happen?

What evidence is there that you went for a walk a while ago, or the dinner you had yesterday?
I'm talking real actual evidence not a story.

What can you say about past and future, where do they take place?

[SeekerJ]

HI Ron,

Do you always touch the phone? Do you always end up doing what you thought you should do?

I don't always end up doing what I thought I would do, especially if I am moving very fast such as instinctively. Yes I see the thought may guide or prompt my actions I.e. I think I need to build a bridge, then I build a bridge. But I can see that 'I' don't control that thought I need to build a bridge. I don't where it comes from (or what creates that thought) but the thought just arises. Yes, when I look for 'my mind' (the idea of a person floating around in my body directing my thoughts and actions) I cannot find 'my mind'. When I try to think about my mind I can't locate it. So as far as I can tell/ experience, I am just experiences happening to 'me' (or 'my' experiences). That is a profound realization. It is still a total mystery.

Something related I heard Spira say which I wanted your thoughts on was that he claimed a lot of philosophy of mind was based on Thomas Magel in 1970's saying that an 'organism has consciousness if and only if there is something to be like that organism', and that this definition is essentially that an organism is conscious or has consciousness, as he felt as a person has consciousness, with the assumption being human beings have consciousness.

Spira, states that it is not 'we as a body or mind that has consciousness but only consciousness has consciousness'. I.e. does it make more sense for 7 billion people to each have their own separate consciousness that is born and dies with them, or rather for there to be one ever-present consciousnesses which acts through all forms of life.

Or i.e. during a dream, the dreamers mind localizes itself in the mind and sees its own localized activity from the mind of the dreamed world, which is an analogy for science today being based on the mind of the dreamed character which superficially makes sense (i.e. I am a separate subject of experience and separate from everybody else, the world preceded me, so my body emanated from the world, and therefore my conscious emanated with me and when I die my consciousnesses will die as well). However, when we wake up from a dream we immediately see that reality is not divided from multiplicity of subjects and objects in the dreamed mind and the whole dream was an activity of an 'undivided' mind and own mind overlooked its own nature and localized itself as its own imagination, and from this perspective my own imagination appeared as an outside world.

So our minds are a like a microcosm of the universal mind and so behaves in a similar way as the universal does. So consciousness is dreaming or imagining the universe through dreaming or imagining itself but only perceives the world it has created from a finite mind inside of consciousness which it assumes the form of and perceives a localized time and space called a human being. This is itself an effect of thinking and perceiving, and like waking up from dream we realist that time and space in the dream didn't take up space actual mind. The activity of thinking and perceiving causes timing and space to be refracted in conciseness (gods language is silence, and language itself is only an explanation).

Did you look at that clip I shared of Spira to the very end?

The video is profound in that it alleges brain messages occur before thoughts. So re the phone example, my brain sends a message to touch (or think about my phone), then i have a thought touching my phone, then I touch my phone, then I think I choose to touch my phone because of that thought. But if the thought was after the brain message than it was the brain message which initiated the touching, the thought about touching was just an after action , and then the thought that I associated that decision with my myself was also an after action. So I don't control the thought and don't know where it arises, but more importantly 'I' don't control my brain message to touch (or think about) my phone. Where does this brain message come from and what causes this brain message? I don't know, maybe patterns of behavior, genetics, environment, learned habits - but as you say the important realization is that i (the idea of there being an embodied observer and controller of my thoughts and actions) do not control these brain messages, or even my subsequent after thoughts. So do I really control my destiny, decisions, choices and free will, from this message the answer is no.

Do you have any more videos or summary articles on this point, it is a really important point to understanding this concept.


ACTIVITY:

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Thought or memory

When the memory appears, when does it appear? I am asking about present time or past time.

The memory/ thought appears now (or just after I read the question).

What is the difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

Memory thought from the past; general thought could be a thought about the now or future or otherwise.

How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened in the past?

Through thought.

Then, look at a thought about the future, maybe what you plan to do etc.

When does the future thought appear, when does that take place?

Now (of just after reading the question)

How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will (maybe) happen?

Through thought.

What evidence is there that you went for a walk a while ago, or the dinner you had yesterday?

Only the thoughts of memory. Or pictures of dinner last night, and thoughts/ memories from someone else at the dinner. Also clues such as feeling full, having the taste of last nights dinner on my mouth, empty containers, dirty dishes.

What can you say about past and future, where do they take place?

They take place now in the form of thoughts... I know I am close to grasping this idea but I just haven't understood it yet.

Thanks

[Ronaldo]

I am just experiences happening to 'me' (or 'my' experiences).

Does experience happen to me? There is 'me' and experience? Or experience is the only thing?
Isn't "I" or "me" imagined, assumed, dreamed? Where is the proof that a me experiences it? Where is that me?

a person has consciousness, with the assumption being human beings have consciousness.

That's based on a belief that one is an organism made of matter, living in a world made of matter, then the second step is saying that unlike the rock, the organism has some level of consciousness akin to its development stage. There is an undeniable imagined body and it seems like you're living a life in that body, but there is no direct support for this, there is direct support showing this is made up of thoughts. It's just the story of me.


Regarding Spira and the dream minds - yes, that's a good model, if you feel the need to have good theoretical basis to allow for more relaxation, i.e. that this is not crazy but has some fundamental rationale, I would recommend you look into Bernardo Kastrup e.g. The Idea of the World, there are some free versions of other books of his. I found it fascinating to read back in the day, but we can't get into this here, and it will not help you see even if you have a clean theory of how this can take place. It's still all happening in thoughts, you've got to look and not keep theorizing and thinking about it.

Where does this brain message come from and what causes this brain message?

Does it matter? Is there a brain in actual experience? What if thought and brain are the same phenomenon, I experience a thought, you measuring my brain experience a brain and an EM field, but so? We can theorize and come up with some nice explanations, I'm not saying it's not helpful on the way, but at some point you have to see the total futility of it, it's mental masturbation leading nowhere. You need to reach that point or we're going to be stuck here for a very long time, and I'm close to retirement.


Let's look at the exercise:

Memory thought from the past; general thought could be a thought about the now or future or otherwise.

You're saying there is a past, and the memory is from there? How on earth do you know that? Proof please, how do you know you had dinner last night? How do you know you went to school when you were 17? Based on what exactly? We are after absolute actual experience, not thought stories.

Q: How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened in the past?

A: Through thought.
So the thought content says or implies "this happened in the past" or "when I was..." - ok. What do we know about thought stories?

Also clues such as feeling full, having the taste of last nights dinner on my mouth, empty containers, dirty dishes.

Aren't all these more stories? Of course we're not used to accepting dirty dishes to appear in the sink, or feeling bloated without eating... but realize that this is all nothing but story, all that is experienced is happening right now, everything else is imagined.

They take place now in the form of thoughts... I know I am close to grasping this idea but I just haven't understood it yet.

Yes, there is no past and no future outside of stories... shocking isn't it?
The idea that time is linear, starting way back and stretching to an endless future is an idea. The common accepted notion is that now is like a bead moving on this infinite thread of time, but there is no direct support for it. Isn't everything happening right now? The mountain is created as it's seen right this instant, the bridge is built and exists now. It can't be grasped.
Bring up the dream analogy again, a dream can take seconds and seem like hours, the concept of time is only in thoughts, the dreamed world appears and disappears in the instant it's known.

[SeekerJ]

Does experience happen to me? There is 'me' and experience? Or experience is the only thing?
Isn't "I" or "me" imagined, assumed, dreamed? Where is the proof that a me experiences it? Where is that me?

'My' senses pick up on experience happening. Experience just happens. But 'I' am aware of this experience happening. What is this 'I' that is aware? I don't know and I guess it could be imagined or assumed but I just don't know what this 'I' is.

However, there is a constant awareness of my experiences and senses. Experiences are just happening and I don't know if they are happening to 'me' because I don't know what the 'i' is.

But there is an awareness or knowingness behind these experiences and senses. How do I know this? Because I am aware. What is the I that is me and is aware? I don't know, but still I am aware.

You can probably tell I am quite confused right now... but it seems good that I am opening my mind to exploring these concepts now... they are hard to grasp.

There is an undeniable imagined body and it seems like you're living a life in that body, but there is no direct support for this, there is direct support showing this is made up of thoughts. It's just the story of me.

Thanks for your explanation. Does this come from the knowledge that our 'body' is actually 99.9..% empty space so in actual fact we are just energy, which is perhaps floating in space? Scientists continue to look for this dark, dense, dead matter but they have not found it.

It's still all happening in thoughts, you've got to look and not keep theorizing and thinking about it.

Thanks a lot for your suggestion. Yes it is an interesting topic to explore and I understand often people want to develop a theoretical basis to assist with the physical practice. But I agree with what you said. Any theory is just a 'sign post'. They can be helpful to point me in the direction but they can also cloud me eyes if I don't physically practice. I.e. just hanging a zen quote in my room but not meditating.

I was listening to Eckhart Tolle who said the same thing. The theory is interesting to the mind, but I am still using the mind. So I need to practice the still meditation in order to directly experience my true essence which does not consist of using thoughts, directed attention or the mind.

For example I read a book about the illusory nature of self. In between thoughts there was an awareness of stillness and that this was correct without needing to think about it. But this does not compare to actually meditating this morning, which I did, and 'I' directly observed this empty awareness as it is, there was no need for more theory or thoughts, I was already there, already arrived, at the destination of the illusory self. I knew from experience, without needing to use my mind.

You're saying there is a past, and the memory is from there? How on earth do you know that? Proof please, how do you know you had dinner last night? How do you know you went to school when you were 17? Based on what exactly? We are after absolute actual experience, not thought stories.

Interesting. The past is stored in my mind as memories. I have a memory now and I am reliving the past. Besides memories how do I know the past existed? Through evidence it would seem i.e. I recorded myself eating dinner last night and it was time stamped. I watch the video now, I don't need to use my memory to see at a time which is not now, I was eating. Who is this 'I' eating? I dont know. Did eating happen before now. The video would say yes... I think I am struggling to understand this concept..

The mountain is created as it's seen right this instant, the bridge is built and exists now. It can't be grasped.

I understand this is an important concept, I am still struggling to understand it. But like you said, if I understand this concept it would just because I am using my mind and creating thoughts so I don't know if it would helpful to try and directly experience this concept. For example when I meditate, I can feel a sense of timelessness, that energy just flows through all things... there is only now... but in a relative concept we could say the past did exist before now which can be seen by watching a video of eating dinner last night with it being time stamped. This time would not be now, so it would not be this moment. We could still use time as a concept to understand I ate dinner before this moment....is this concept like saying people don't exist in terms of hard matter as we are basically empty? Yes it is true in factual form, but in relative form it is useful to understand the needs of the body and the needs of time...?

Perhaps you can direct me to some more examples to fully understand this.

Thanks a lot

[SeekerJ]

Also thanks a lot for your patience... hopefully you can tell I am genuinely trying and hopefully I am making some progress...

I totally understand if you are frustrated and need a break... if this is the case then perhaps you could provide me with some practicing instructions (esp when I am meditating), and some theoretical resources, and I can spend a month or so reflecting and reviewing so I can try make a break through?

[Ronaldo]

There is no frustration here, but I do find myself with less time recently and welcoming a break.
Frankly, the real issue is that this line of inquiry isn't going anywhere.

I gave you the pointers I can give, and yes, you did get a good part of these, and it feels like you've made some good strides.

So where are you stuck? Is it possible you are not actually willing to give up wanting? Are you not seeking with your ego (so to speak)? You're looking for the benefits, reducing anxiety, wanting to keep mental hardship and suffering at arms length and there is a desire to reach some higher state of knowledge and peace. At the same time you don't actually dare give up the joy of things (wanting to know is also a thing) and mostly you want to keep being somebody, being a me. It's not a bad thing, it's just not what it takes.

The dive into philosophy, trying to make logical sense and provide a satisfying model of this life is all just like a hamster in a cage running on a wheel. The only thing you need to do is look at actual experience all the time, start from the beginning of our dialogue and really do the exercise fresh, if you are not stunned by what you find you're simply not looking, you're thinking.

When you fully realize that there is no you who is the thinker of thoughts, no doer of things, no-thing animating the body - then you see that there is just this one life running itself, there is no me running the show, not even running the story of me.

[SeekerJ]

Thanks Ron,

I'll take some time to go through all the material again and reflect. I will also try to read The Idea of the World Bernardo Kastrup. I have been searching for this book online but cannot find it. You wouldn't happen to know of a link would you? Thanks

[Ronaldo]

Sounds good, read some theory, and maybe it will let you relax some conceptions.
Then go through the dialogue again and really let thoughts go and focus on what is here.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408 ... -the-world (links to kindle on amazon too).
I didn't watch this - looks new and probably good https://www.essentiafoundation.org/anal ... sm-course/

[Ronaldo]

https://www.johnhuntpublishing.com/iff- ... a-of-world