Revisiting the past

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

I can see how nostalgia becomes a trap. Looking directly there seems to be only whats happening now and the rest are thoughts and concepts.

What is “nostalgia” in DE? More thoughts? You say that “nostalgia becomes a trap”, let’s explore it… It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"? If there are not “solid”/separate thoughts but just thinking, how can one thought be caused by another (without looking at their content)?

Is there a witness?

Haven't found it yet. Still looking. Agnostic about it.

If it can be found I haven't yet found it.

Is there a chance of one ever appearing? From where? From the “future”? If witnessing happens on its own, how would it be replaced with a witness that is doing it? Do you need to check 1000 times? Then keep on checking, don’t just say “haven’t found one yet”! Check until you are sure that there is or there isn’t. Don't leave it hanging in between.
“Agnostic” in DE translates to “doubtful thoughts”. Doubt could be useful - to check if thoughts are saying the “truth”, but doubtful thoughts are just that thoughts about doubt. THIS will continue to happen the same way with or without the doubt. Doubt (i.e. thoughts) only shows as resistance to the new ideas that are slowly replacing the old ones. Look right at it, see it for what it really is—another mechanism of protection. Just that. It is just a thought that arises and passes away. Keep looking at the obvious. The only way for doubt to drop is to keep checking what is actually here. Use the doubt in stead to check all old beliefs. Be agnostic to your old beliefs as well, don’t take them for granted :)))

It moves by itself....but "feels like" I can sometimes direct it with thoughts.

I don’t want to hear how it “feels like”. Check how it is really happening. Leave the “feels like” behind. These are just thoughts that we are not interested in

Except literally the sensation of seeing bright or dark lights.

Sensation of seeing? Is seeing coming from a sensation? OR do you mean the experience of seeing?

Just an idea, really. Thoughts imagining focusing on something is the same as awareness.

Very good observation!!!

This video might bring clarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Did you watch it???
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

What is “nostalgia” in DE? More thoughts? You say that “nostalgia becomes a trap”, let’s explore it… It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"? If there are not “solid”/separate thoughts but just thinking, how can one thought be caused by another (without looking at their content)?

Yes...just thinking...thoughts are not really separate, nor are they ordered according to any pattern. More like randomness interpreted by other thoughts as order. I remember this about thought as I'm typing it, but then forget it many times daily as I'm identifying as thoughts! That seems to be the sum of it.

Is there a chance of one ever appearing? From where? From the “future”? If witnessing happens on its own, how would it be replaced with a witness that is doing it? Do you need to check 1000 times? Then keep on checking, don’t just say “haven’t found one yet”! Check until you are sure that there is or there isn’t. Don't leave it hanging in between.

No chance of one from the future, or past.
I may misunderstand what the witness means. I'm think of it as a kind of manifestation of everything all at once, the screen upon which the movie happens. Not the same as the sense of self.
I also didn't necessarily mean that the witnesser was the doer...just maybe a sense of seeing what is happening to the personal self from a distance. I think I've looked for this 1000 times or more. I must be at the proverbial 10,000 hours of looking at this point ,yet things are the same as ever.

Sensation of seeing? Is seeing coming from a sensation? OR do you mean the experience of seeing?

I used the words interchangeably, meaning the sensation of light hitting the eyes and forming patterns, or the experience of seeing.

This video might bring clarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s
Did you watch it???

Oh yes I watched it. Very interesting. And I subscribed to the channel. I will watch it again and again. Radical non-duality with noone to do anything and nothing to do. And here is a bundle of thoughts that thinks it's a self watching.

Thank you
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Yes...just thinking...thoughts are not really separate, nor are they ordered according to any pattern. More like randomness interpreted by other thoughts as order. I remember this about thought as I'm typing it, but then forget it many times daily as I'm identifying as thoughts! That seems to be the sum of it.

Very good! :)

No chance of one from the future, or past.
I may misunderstand what the witness means. I'm think of it as a kind of manifestation of everything all at once, the screen upon which the movie happens. Not the same as the sense of self.
I also didn't necessarily mean that the witnesser was the doer...just maybe a sense of seeing what is happening to the personal self from a distance. I think I've looked for this 1000 times or more. I must be at the proverbial 10,000 hours of looking at this point ,yet things are the same as ever.

That all sounds like a story that has to be examined. The problem with metaphors is that sometimes we get lost in them. Is there anything like a “screen” in DE? What in DE suggests “something” that serves as a medium on which everything else appears? Is there a witness (be it medium or entity) OR witnessing (verb) happening “together” with everything else (all verbs)? Can a border delineating this witness or witnessing from everything else happening (all verbs as it is a flux not solid things) be found anywhere?

I used the words interchangeably, meaning the sensation of light hitting the eyes and forming patterns, or the experience of seeing

Really??! Is that how seeing happens in DE? Or that is a scientific story? Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?
What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?
Can seeing come from a sensation (feeling)?
Can seeing come from an image (of the eyes)?
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

And here is a bundle of thoughts that thinks it's a self watching.

Good! More thoughts being “caught” :)
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

That all sounds like a story that has to be examined. The problem with metaphors is that sometimes we get lost in them. Is there anything like a “screen” in DE? What in DE suggests “something” that serves as a medium on which everything else appears? Is there a witness (be it medium or entity) OR witnessing (verb) happening “together” with everything else (all verbs)? Can a border delineating this witness or witnessing from everything else happening (all verbs as it is a flux not solid things) be found anywhere?

The screen is also a metaphor, as in the allegory of the cave...Nothing directly experienced suggests such a cave, just stories about it. I am just realizing that I really held tightly to that one since I read it as an undergraduate. I accepted the authority of my professor to see it as a basic "truth" that those who live an unexamined life are staring at the wall of the cave and their reality becomes the firelight flickers, while the adventurous ones get free to leave the cave. So I took on lots of adventures, hitchiking around the world seeking meetings with remarkable men and women. Wow. So another myth shattered for me. That alone is worth the price of admission.
There is only the flow of what is, no separations or borders. The witnesser and witnessing are all just happening together.

Really??! Is that how seeing happens in DE? Or that is a scientific story? Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?

More like a windscreen but I have a big nose that gets in the view, and therefore creates an illusion like a stereogram.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?

Eyes are just more sensation-seeing,itching,burning,+thoughts labeling what is being seen.

A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Yes

Can seeing come from a sensation (feeling)?

Seeing is a diret experience, yet it seems to be onnected to the labeling and meaning making thoughts about as directly as anything.

Can seeing come from an image (of the eyes)?

This is Douglas Hrding territory, but no. Seems I'm playing the stereogram game where I try to focus on something in the middle distance without trying too hard, to "get" it.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

Mental image= thoughts, doeas,concepts. So, no.

Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

Again, no, but the mental image itself is often one of eyes. Eyes connecting to the sensation of seeing.

Thanks again.
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hey Peter

The screen is also a metaphor, as in the allegory of the cave...Nothing directly experienced suggests such a cave, just stories about it. I am just realizing that I really held tightly to that one since I read it as an undergraduate. I accepted the authority of my professor to see it as a basic "truth" that those who live an unexamined life are staring at the wall of the cave and their reality becomes the firelight flickers, while the adventurous ones get free to leave the cave. So I took on lots of adventures, hitchiking around the world seeking meetings with remarkable men and women. Wow. So another myth shattered for me. That alone is worth the price of admission.
There is only the flow of what is, no separations or borders. The witnesser and witnessing are all just happening together.

Awesome!!

Can seeing come from a sensation (feeling)?

Seeing is a direct experience, yet it seems to be connected to the labelling and meaning making thoughts about as directly as anything.

So is there a sensation of seeing? Just because there is a sensation labelled “eyes” coming along does that mean that seeing is coming from the sensation labelled “eyes”? Can you observe that relationship in DE? Can you really see where seeing is coming from? OR seeing is just "there", sensations (feeling), thinking … they are "there" inseparable?

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Is there anything else that you want to explore?

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

So is there a sensation of seeing? Just because there is a sensation labelled “eyes” coming along does that mean that seeing is coming from the sensation labelled “eyes”?

Another cause and effect question. Correlation doesnt equal causality, so there is no way of knowing. Is seeing coming from something else entirely and the labels make it seem like it's coming from the eyes? I need to look more at seeing.

Can you observe that relationship in DE?

It is interesting when the head moves. It is like VR goggles in that the perspective changes, yet there is only a sensation of here no matter what speed the scene changes.

Can you really see where seeing is coming from? OR seeing is just "there", sensations (feeling), thinking … they are "there" inseparable?

I can't see where it's coming from. Only here exists in direct experience. The rest is thoughts which have proven unreliable.
Seeing is just happening. Thoughts and labeling happen instantaneously making it seem like it's happening to a me, but that becomes more and more ephemeral as I look more. Something has definitely changed in perception here.

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.
What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes?

Not a lot has changed. Sometimes I remember it's all impersonal and don't take it too seriously. Most often I'm in a state of forgetfulness and confusion. Perhaps I have uncovered an expectation that there would be a sense of clarity. In the story I've experienced clarity after a 10 day meditation retreat, and was hoping that was the natural state. But it is just another appearance.

What stays the same?

Everything is the same. Even the naggingsense of seeking, like an itch I cannot scratch. There is no resolution of the restless thoughts, even when I am seeing it as just that, more thoughts. Just arising and falling.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

It does seem like the thoughts and labelling are seen through. Just an endless stream of conditioned reactions/responses, based on an oft repeated story. And synonomyous with the appearance of a me. So how can that be me? It really can't.

Is seeking still going on?

There is stiii waiting for something like a dropping away to happen. Even though it is understood that there can't be anything to drop.

Seems like one of the main hallmarks of seeking is forgetfulness and confusion. Sometimes it seems like there is clarity, and other times, when I am most strongly identified as the self, like waking up, during fatigue, when under stress, etc, feels like total identification with the separate self.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Certainty, confusion, clarity and forgetfulness. Yes there is confusion, like why do I keep forgetting.

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Sometimes it seems clear, other times, like now, after waking from vivid dreams, it all seems like more of the stories. Also, when I read other stories of people "gating" it seems like they are having a certain appearance that is not evident to me. More stories I suppose.

Is there anything else that you want to explore?

Seems like I will keep looking for the self that hasn't been found til there is more certainty, or the process exhausts itself. And to anticipate your next questions, where is the process happening? In thoughts. In direct experience there is only the experience of sensations and thoughts labeling them. Everything just happening on its own, not belonging to me. The experience of a veil is probably more thoughts too...I will just keep looking.

Thanks
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Is seeing coming from something else entirely and the labels make it seem like it's coming from the eyes? I need to look more at seeing.

I think you answered this for yourself:

I can't see where it's coming from. Only here exists in direct experience. The rest is thoughts which have proven unreliable.
Seeing is just happening. Thoughts and labeling happen instantaneously making it seem like it's happening to a me, but that becomes more and more ephemeral as I look more. Something has definitely changed in perception here.

Great!!!

Not a lot has changed. Sometimes I remember it's all impersonal and don't take it too seriously. Most often I'm in a state of forgetfulness and confusion. Perhaps I have uncovered an expectation that there would be a sense of clarity. In the story I've experienced clarity after a 10 day meditation retreat, and was hoping that was the natural state. But it is just another appearance.

Yes there is confusion, like why do I keep forgetting.

“Not a lot has changed” but then you say “Something has definitely changed in perception here.” :). You are definitely “a glass half empty” kind of “guy” (thought patterns) :))). It seems you are still waiting for the fireworks and angels trumpeting. Stories might take years to be checked and discarded. It could a very quick or really slow process. It is not up to you – thoughts self-organise. Is this somehow in your control? Are YOU doing the forgetting and confusion, or there are just thoughts about confusion and forgetfulness? “Clarity” is a state, not an attribute of THIS. “Clarity” means that thoughts describe DE instead of creating stories. So LOOK then!
Noticing of DE happens and noticing of thought content happens. Do you control the noticing? Can you speed it up with some practices that you would do?
That is the “seeker’s” problem – he is never happy with what IS, it has to be improved somehow, non-stop bliss and happiness. He wants enlightenment and happily ever after NOW :)) To “improve” suggest that there is something wrong with THIS, like it can be different than what it IS. But can it be in a different way than it is now, perfect? Also that suggests there is a doer who makes things happen, does practices, etc. Can you find such doer, practitioner? What/who minds the existence of “forgetfulness” and “confusion”?
Faults and flaws in THIS can be found only in thoughts which, define THIS as “positive or negative”, to be desired or avoided. Surrendering is what is left when resistance to what is ends. Resistance and surrendering are the two sides of the coin. When you/thoughts understand that they cannot control the outcome of THIS in any way, that THIS will happen the way it happens, with or without your approval, surrendering happens. In that surrendering there is peace and happiness, which is ironic, because resistance has sought this for eternity :)))

Seems like I will keep looking for the self that hasn't been found till there is more certainty

"Seems like"? "Seem" is unclarity. "See" is clarity. Please SEE. Could the fact that you haven’t found one yet mean that there is simply no self and there are just doubtful thoughts that keep insisting that there might be one hiding in plain sight? Check!!!

There is stiii waiting for something like a dropping away to happen. Even though it is understood that there can't be anything to drop

We’re coming back to expectations again. Who says that “dropping away” should happen? “Other people”? Have “they” done something for this to happen? “Dropping away” of stories happen if they are religiously checked for accuracy (DE). Some have more stories than others. With some it takes longer to be seen through. Stories are noticed as that, or not (at least not immediately). It is how it is. BUT does the presence of such stories prove or show in any way the existence of a self??? They talk about a self but no self could be found. You said that thoughts are not 100% true. Then why should they be correct about the self? “You” checked many times and you couldn’t find it so why do you (thought patterns) keep “believing” them??? Once it is seen there is no self it can’t be unseen. Thoughts say all kinds of funny stuff!
NB! It is important to make the distinction between thoughts about a self and the real existence of a self. So if when you check with the senses you can’t find one, then obviously there is no one. You don’t need to check 1000 times – one time is enough, it’s either there or not. Thoughts may continue to claim that there might be one, but that is what thoughts do – they talk BS.
That is why I keep asking:

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Please have a LOOK and tell me plain yes or no. If you find a self, please describe it.
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Is this somehow in your control? Are YOU doing the forgetting and confusion, or there are just thoughts about confusion and forgetfulness? “Clarity” is a state, not an attribute of THIS. “Clarity” means that thoughts describe DE instead of creating stories. So LOOK then!

Yes I see that clarity can be a story too. It is more like a sensation, a brain fog, that sometimes lifts. So it seems to be an experience. Then again the confusion is an experience too. And if experiences=thoughts, concepts and labels, then it makes more sense, it's part of what is. Memory palaces, as it were.

Do you control the noticing? Can you speed it up with some practices that you would do?

It has been seen that I can't control it, or speed it up, or slow it down. Practices seem to benefit the body-mind, in the story of me. So they just happen too. Like Breathing, exercising, sitting quietly, etc.

But can it be in a different way than it is now, perfect? Also that suggests there is a doer who makes things happen, does practices, etc. Can you find such doer, practitioner? What/who minds the existence of “forgetfulness” and “confusion”?

The only place such a doer exists so far is in the thought story. A person in ideas and concepts who wants to report having reached enlightment, or some other such milestone. Based on stories of efforts attainments and time. All more stories. So no, haven't found such a one as a practitioner. The story of me is what minds the forgetfulness and confusion.

"Seems like"? "Seem" is unclarity. "See" is clarity. Please SEE. Could the fact that you haven’t found one yet mean that there is simply no self and there are just doubtful thoughts that keep insisting that there might be one hiding in plain sight? Check!!!

Yes, that's the point! Unclarity is happening. Seeing clearly is what is desired. By no one....yet....seemingly keeps persisting. If giving up looking just happens on it's own after exhausting all other options, then the story keeps telling me to wait for that to happen.

Who says that “dropping away” should happen? “Other people”? Have “they” done something for this to happen?

It is in all the books and stories. Another belief that withers away. And a core one at that, since reading "The Three Pillars of Zen" mor than 40 years ago! How I loved that story and got oh so close, seemingly, after many nights of MUing.
Oh well, it was a fun story but now time to let go, even that a story. So the idea of doing something is also falling away...from nothing.

Does the presence of such stories prove or show in any way the existence of a self??? They talk about a self but no self could be found. You said that thoughts are not 100% true. Then why should they be correct about the self? “You” checked many times and you couldn’t find it so why do you (thought patterns) keep “believing” them???

Why does anyone believe anything? Conditioning, habits, resistance, sitting here eyes closed examining beliefs, and ruthlessly cutting them away, like meeting buddha in the road and killing him, if im using that metaphor correctly.
While not totally reliable, and as we can see they lead many persons to self destruction, thoughts are the only game in town. If a whole life goes by seemingly identified as the thinker of thoughts, and it is never even examined, as seems to be the case in the story of most lives...then what else could happen. So, thoughts about the self are not correct. I just believe them because believing is the default pattern. Believing happens!

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Please have a LOOK and tell me plain yes or no. If you find a self, please describe it.

LOOKING today! I will report back if it is found.
Thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Yes, that's the point! Unclarity is happening. Seeing clearly is what is desired. By no one....yet....seemingly keeps persisting. If giving up looking just happens on it's own after exhausting all other options, then the story keeps telling me to wait for that to happen.

So let’s be clear here! Are the story and whatever is outside of the story, listening to it, characters in a play? What is that which the story is telling to wait? A lone witness waiting for what? Is there anything listening to the story? What is it that is telling the story? What is it talking to and what is it that is listening? Is the “I” the listener or is it a thought? Where is the narrator? Are you the noticing of the story? Does the noticing need to wait? For what? Please look! All that is there is what “the story” is talking about! Is there actually a story or just random thoughts that other random thoughts make it seem like there is an order, a sequence? Do the thoughts have an actual number in the presumed sequence? LOOK don’t take things for granted!

So, thoughts about the self are not correct. I just believe them because believing is the default pattern. Believing happens!

Yes! Believing happens until it doesn’t :) Believing in a self equates to amount of old beliefs/thoughs still circulating. Instead of judging patterns (“confusion”) just check them when the opportunity presents (thoughts self-organising). Also it is important to understand that believing is an illusion. There is no believing whatsoever just thoughts. Believing presumes a believer and as such believer cannot be found, there is no believing either. Just thoughts about believing other thoughts. Just because there is pronoun in there – I or me – does not mean that there is a character – “Peter”, self. Similarly, just because there are words there does not mean there is a story.
Life continue to happen with the “story” but the story is seen as EMPTY. What is happening is in fact happening, and it continues to do so, but none of it is or needs to be associated with a self. Daily life is remarkably similar to what it was before, and rather than a new self arising out of the ashes of the old one, the illusion of self evaporates altogether, with nothing taking its place. First-person pronouns are still used to describe “ourselves”, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa Claus once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either. Many of the same preferences and tendencies are still there (unless properly explored by no one); however, there is no “sense of self” or “I” whatsoever. Thus, the use of the term “self” as a convention of speech is one thing, while erroneously believing that there actually is a self of some sort, is quite another. So what is the case here?
Doubt (thoughts) is the self-referent illusion that there is something about you, a doubting ability or mechanism, by which when you are exposed to the truth, rather than taking that in you can resist or deflect it. For example, take a moment to reflect on how many times you have checked there is no separate self; that is true, and yet were you simply able to take that in, or was it as if there was a part of you that was able to keep it at bay, by which it couldn’t sink in? It can feel as if you(thoughts) can somehow resist or deflect the truth, because you have some faculty of deflection or defiance that comes into play. It might also feel as though you’ve drawn a line in the sand between what is true and what is not (confirmation bias). In essence, you have developed a defence mechanism for those times (perhaps thousands of times per day) when life indicates you might be wrong about yourself and the world around you (you call it agnosticism).
Doubt falls away when you see through the illusion of the “self”, because there is no longer a self as a set of views to defend, thus the armour can be seen as pointless. Put another way, when the separate "self" is seen to be a concept, this layer of conceptualization cannot hold its ground either. However, looking at how we defend and deflect when it comes to inquiring into whether we are what we think we are is nevertheless valuable.
Seeing that there really is no “self” which directs and has our experience can be as simple as raising your right arm and looking for the “self” that made that happen. This is not a conceptual exercise, for example by reflecting on how there cannot be such a real self (because philosophy or teachings says so). Instead, we use looking to directly see, in simple, everyday experience, for the self that raised that arm. Similarly, when a thought naturally arises, we can look for the “self” that gave rise to that thought, instead of simply assuming that “it was me!”. We might suppose there is such a "self", but we will never actually find one! Because there never was a “self” in the first place, no longer believing that we have or are a separate “self” is not a destructive or negative experience: there is no ‘self’ that died, and there is no new ‘self’ that takes its place. Though this discovery is of a preliminary nature, it nevertheless constitutes a significant re-ordering of how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.

LOOKING today! I will report back if it is found.

Looking forward to read what is found ;)

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

So let’s be clear here! Are the story and whatever is outside of the story, listening to it, characters in a play?

That's not a bad analogy, characters who don't know they're characters. Who are so identified with the script that they have for all intents and purposes become the characters.

What is that which the story is telling to wait?

It's just what seems to be happening.

A lone witness waiting for what?

Just waiting happening. For death? (of the sense of separation) for no-one.

Is there anything listening to the story?

Just thoughts listening to more thoughts.

What is it that is telling the story?

The process of a life of identification with thoughts, just unravelling or unwinding?

What is it talking to and what is it that is listening?

Appearances of a story, thoughts and ideas talking to appearances of a person, more thoughts and ideas.

Is the “I” the listener or is it a thought?

It si just a thought. Be the witness is one of the thoughts. It seems to give some relief from the narcissism of taking everything personally.

Where is the narrator?

The narrator is more thoughts. No voice from the burning bush, at least not for me. But lots of good stories about waiting for it.

Are you the noticing of the story?

Noticing the story is just what's happening lately.

Does the noticing need to wait?

Noticing happens on its own without waiting

For what?

For things to change. Or stay the same. Just waiting is.

Is there actually a story or just random thoughts that other random thoughts make it seem like there is an order, a sequence? Do the thoughts have an actual number in the presumed sequence? LOOK don’t take things for granted!

I actually can't see which is true about this. It seems that thoughts can come in a very specific order that makes sense, as when writing this sentence, planning what to eat for lunch, going to and from at work, etc, etc...They are not numbered but might as well be. Then there are very random thoughts that arise out of no where. Old memories, seemingly driggered by smells or sensations.

It does seem like the core beliefs that I used to defend and thin were true are seen through. But the self that believed them still seems real.

Love,
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
There is still some “subjectivity” showing up in your answers that needs to be explored. You are saying it’s just thoughts but somehow you are not convinced :)

So let’s be clear here! Are the story and whatever is outside of the story, listening to it, characters in a play?

That's not a bad analogy, characters who don't know they're characters. Who are so identified with the script that they have for all intents and purposes become the characters.

This was not an analogy but questions for LOOKING. The problem with analogies is that even if they nature is seen (it just looks like something else) it is still taken for truth. That is why at this point they should be avoided. Do these “characters” exist on any level or are they simply words/nouns in a sentence??? How can words “identify themselves with the script? Or is it just a sequencing of words/thoughts that creates the illusion of “characters”, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement? When frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost. (another analogy that shouldn’t be taken at face value!!)

Just waiting happening. For death? (of the sense of separation) for no-one.

What is “waiting” in DE? How is it happening? These are all thoughts. You need to make a clear cut in what is real and what is not by LOOKING!

Just thoughts listening to more thoughts.

Appearances of a story, thoughts and ideas talking to appearances of a person, more thoughts and ideas.

Can thoughts listen? Do they have ears? How are they doing this? Can they see as well? Can they talk? How can an “appearance”/word talk?
Can seeing think, hear…?

Remember no more “seems like”!!! We are not interested in thought content. That is the whole point of this inquiry.

The process of a life of identification with thoughts, just unravelling or unwinding?

Is Life an entity that can do stuff (e.g. “identify with thoughts)? In DE there is just thinking, no identification; the “identification” is a story. Nothing is outside of thinking that could do identification! Can you see that? If you can't then LOOK and tell me what you see with no "seems like" and "feels like" - just the senses!

For things to change. Or stay the same. Just waiting is.

Does the noticing care if things will change or not? It just “notices” (NB! Language). "waiting" is just more thinking.

Is there actually a story or just random thoughts that other random thoughts make it seem like there is an order, a sequence? Do the thoughts have an actual number in the presumed sequence? LOOK don’t take things for granted!

I actually can't see which is true about this. It seems that thoughts can come in a very specific order that makes sense, as when writing this sentence, planning what to eat for lunch, going to and from at work, etc, etc...They are not numbered but might as well be. Then there are very random thoughts that arise out of no where. Old memories, seemingly triggered by smells or sensations.

It makes sense to whom? To thoughts? Can thoughts think? Or there is just thinking? What is outside of thoughts that finds the sense in thoughts? Where is the judge that decides which thoughts are random and which make sense? All of this is conditioned/ empty thinking – the distinction between random and rational! It's all thoughts going round and round, finding meaning where there is none, trying to figure out things like they can :) Simply put, there is just thinking...
If there is only NOW/ whatever is happening (no thought content) when/where would that sequence unroll? Continuation exists only in thoughts. Please explore the “time” exercise again!!
Also what is a “memory” again? There is a belief that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened in the past. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought. Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it. Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

It does seem like the core beliefs that I used to defend and thin were true are seen through. But the self that believed them still seems real.

No wonder! Your answers show that there are still some core beliefs that are not explored, seen through. The doubting story persists, because there is not enough looking. So please LOOK! Put EVERY thought through a test and see if it's true.

You didn't share what you found with:

Please have a LOOK and tell me plain yes or no. If you find a self, please describe it.

Remember no "seems like"/"feels like"/ thoughts. I'm interested in plain sensory facts
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Do these “characters” exist on any level or are they simply words/nouns in a sentence???

The imaginary character thinks it exists, in thoughts, which are not seen to be false yet.

How can words “identify themselves with the script?

It is the "stickiness" of the thoughts. They are different than words in a book. They make up the illusion of me by being in a constant state of flow.

Or is it just a sequencing of words/thoughts that creates the illusion of “characters”, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement?

Yes, agreed, the thoughts that keep appearing create an illusion of movement and reality. But as in watching a movie, sometimes the heart races and the eyes w

What is “waiting” in DE? How is it happening?

You are right, waiting is just thoughts saying that waiting is happening. How can there be anyone waiting for anything if there is only this one eternal moment.

Can thoughts listen?

No

Do they have ears?

Also, no.

How are they doing this?

It is a story about listening happening.

Can they see as well?

These are rhetorical questions, but no.

Can they talk?

No

How can an “appearance”/word talk?

Just thoughts about thoughts about thoughts all appearing.

Can seeing think, hear…?

I'm afraid to say "feels like" any more because I will get in trouble :)

Nothing is outside of thinking that could do identification! Can you see that? If you can't then LOOK and tell me what you see with no "seems like" and "feels like" - just the senses!

:):)
If the thoughts give the sense of me, how do I get out of them?

Does the noticing care if things will change or not? It just “notices” (NB! Language). "waiting" is just more thinking.

Noticing that is happening.

It makes sense to whom? To thoughts? Can thoughts think? Or there is just thinking? What is outside of thoughts that finds the sense in thoughts? Where is the judge that decides which thoughts are random and which make sense?

There is only what is left. Like a checkmate.

If there is only NOW/ whatever is happening (no thought content) when/where would that sequence unroll?

Also a checkmate. Nowhere and everywhere??

What is memory exactly?

Thought sequences triggered by various sensations.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Also, just thoughts.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Seems to be always lurking in the thought matrix. This is also just a thought.

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

No difference I can see.

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

More story about differentiating kinds of thoughts.



Also, I haven't found a persistent, personal self yet. Maybe I never will. Looking is still happening and if it is for sure seen that it doesn't exist I will be sure.

I'm about to leave school so I will hit submit because I don't want to delay any more. Sorry for any omissions.

thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

The imaginary character thinks it exists, in thoughts, which are not seen to be false yet.

Can a thought think? Can a word think?

It is the "stickiness" of the thoughts. They are different than words in a book. They make up the illusion of me by being in a constant state of flow.

What do they stick to?

Yes, agreed, the thoughts that keep appearing create an illusion of movement and reality. But as in watching a movie, sometimes the heart races and the eyes w

If the thoughts give the sense of me, how do I get out of them?

Again, what is “watching the movie”, “gets excited”…? What wants to get out of thoughts? The noticing that doesn't care? We seemed to be going round in circles. At this point I can be pointing until I’m blue in the face with no success, if all you are giving me is old thoughts with no looking!!!

I'm afraid to say "feels like" any more because I will get in trouble :)

Good! Keep it on! I need straight forward answers with what is actually here!

These are rhetorical questions, but no.

Most of my questions are :)

What is memory exactly?

Thought sequences triggered by various sensations.

How are they “triggered” if cause and effect is also a story?

WHEN does the memory appear?

Seems to be always lurking in the thought matrix. This is also just a thought

.

They actually appear NOW

Also, I haven't found a persistent, personal self yet. Maybe I never will. Looking is still happening and if it is for sure seen that it doesn't exist I will be sure.

What is looking for a self? That sounds like a dog chasing its tail or an ouroboros



What discerns the "sense of self", distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?
If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?
When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?
And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?
Look again:
Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Can a thought think? Can a word think?

No, just thoughts happening.

What do they stick to?

Yes,thoughts are bundled with other thoughts, not sticking exactly bc nothing to stick to, i see that now at least.

Again, what is “watching the movie”, “gets excited”…? What wants to get out of thoughts? The noticing that doesn't care? We seemed to be going round in circles. At this point I can be pointing until I’m blue in the face with no success, if all you are giving me is old thoughts with no looking!!!

Thoughts all the way down. If only i could learn to look with the eye that is out of thoughts.

How are they “triggered” if cause and effect is also a story?

Um, believing that cause and effect is a story is also a story, so is triggering. I can see that thoughts of the past are happening in the now.

What is looking for a self? That sounds like a dog chasing its tail or an ouroboros.

When would a dog stop chasing it's tail? When it gets tired. Ouroboros must also stop swallowing it's own tail when it gets into a tight knot!

What discerns the "sense of self", distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?

It is just a story happening in the now.

If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?

There is no noticer, there is only what's happening, plus thoughts about a noticer which don't mean anything.

When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?

Even calling it awareness seems like too much.

And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

I Identified and continue to identify as a self, Peter. It's like a broken record, I know. The riddle of the Sphinx.

Look again:

Does the sense of self have a location?

No location, just here and now, wherever that is.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

Also no, just thoughts about a body floating in space.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

There is a story about listening in silence to hear the still small voice within, but it never comes.

If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

Answer is no, but hopeful that one day it might?.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

Just thoughts.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

So far,nothing except identification with thoughts, ideas, concepts about a me combined with sensations.

What is found?

Also nothing yet, just this inquiry at the moment.

Thank you
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
I feel like you are not looking but guessing, writing what you think is the right answer. It's either this or there are expectations of some kind that come in the way of seeing the simplicity of it all. At this point, the inquiry becomes very hard as there are expectations that something has to happen to show that the illusion is seen – like a huge boom or fireworks, or whatever story plays in your head. I can repeat 100 times “LOOK!”, but if no looking happens and these expectations are circling around, very little can be achieved. You have to be burning with desire to see the truth for yourself, not doubt the questions and give me “reasoning” behind it. If your answers say one thing but there is still doubt that means that there is no actual looking. I think I pointed from so many sides that at this point I suspect that there hasn’t been any honest looking.
How can these two answers come one after each other – the one is showing absolutely no clarity and the others show very good one. Guess which is which:

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

Just thoughts.

I Identified and continue to identify as a self, Peter. It's like a broken record, I know. The riddle of the Sphinx.

You acknowledge that it is “Thoughts all the way down“ and "thoughts are fiction", but then you cite one of the oldest thoughts as a reality :)))) What is this indescribable “I” that has this abilitiy – to identify with thoughts? What is outside of thoughts and does that? LOOK, don't just answer! It’s not a riddle – it’s just nonsense/stubbornness/confirmation bias - repeating the same old line without testing it first for validity. How can you say if you really see that there is nothing there, that there is. It just shows that a lot of the old beliefs are still there because they haven't been checked/looked at. I keep bringing focus on these beliefs and you answer with what you think I want to hear but you don't look to actually see. And we can go on forever like this. The illusion will persist if it is not seen as an illusion. And even after it is seen it will still be there but it will be known that is an illusion. It won't disappear. The mirage of an oasis does not disapear after it is seen as the dessert, but you know very well that you won't be getting water. So I suggest to check if you are serious about the inquiry or you are here just to entertain your thoughts - have a philosophical debate about life, the universe and everything else.

When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?

Even calling it awareness seems like too much.

This is one of the question that is been answered from knowledge and not looking. Is there anything else, but thoughts, that sees/identifies with the “sense of me” and it is “not me”? Please describe it. You say calling it “awareness” is too much, what else can you call it? Is it indesribable like the "self"? Is it then just an abstraction? Just because that the thoughts are known does that mean there is a knower of any kind? Are there “unknown” thoughts? Do you see how ridiculous language is? There are only known thinking, seeing, hearing,… and this is an attribute/quality of thinking, seeing, hearing,…, not an entity of any kind. Knowing and thinking are one – inseparable. They can’t be separated in any way, only thought can separate them but that does not bring them into existence as well -it is just meaningless words (excuse the pun)
It sounds so scary – you not existing in any way. But be brave and LOOK! Does it seem as though there is something of a partition to experience, by which there is a “me” portion and a “not me” portion? Does it feel as though you take a subtle step back from experience, into your portion? Does there seem to be both an inner and an outer aspect to experience? Does it feel like you are awareness, consciousness, one with everything, or presence? Is there a subtle sense of comfort, stability or reliability in affirming your existence? Now, close your eyes and allow all thoughts and images to again fade. What happens to the sense of “I” or “me”? What happens to the sense of there being an inner and outer aspect to experience?

What discerns the "sense of self", distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?
If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?
When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?
And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

These questions are very deep and you just skimmed over them with knowledge (not looking). Please LOOK with them again, give them a proper chance! I hope I see some serious looking!
Love
Rali