somewhat dillulusioned ish, going through shadow

[jefe2060]

you're the best,
Jack.

I know you are but what am I?


;>)


If I’m the best, then you are a big sweetie.



This!


“THERE IS NO ROOM INSIDE SMELLING FOR ANYTHING ELSE TO BE HAPPENING BESIDES SMELLING.

I like this. makes sense.

Don’t forget this.





ME: "If there is a self, tell me where and what it is, now specifically."

I have no fuken clue here - not cussing at you, just frustrated at spirituality and words. I hear so much contradictory stuff:

Every teacher has a different way of expressing things. If you don’t understand what one of them is saying you won’t necessarily get it by trying to compare what they say with what someone else says. When you know who you are this will change. Till then, you have no way to compare anything with anything else except through thinking.

Thinking, as we know, cannot smell anything. It cannot have direct experience.


This, by the way, is why they suggest up front in LU to set aside other practices.



ME: "Follow up question, are you saying that if the senses WEREN'T mixed an confusing, that there WOULDN'T be a self? What about if a few of them were missing?"

haha good one, I guess blind people still believe in self probably? 



Would believing your socks are green or blue or yellow change the fact that they are red, if they are?




You are you whether you have all your senses, arms, legs, ears, fingers, or not. You are you no matter what you think, smell, taste, or hear. You are just you. Just like you were yesterday, a month, year, or decade ago.

Remember? Look back there and see.




ME: "Direct experience is just direct experience. There’s nothing to be unsure about if you understand what it is.
What do you think it is?"

What i’m seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting, thinking.

Close. No cigar, however.

The OBJECTS of the senses are not Direct Experience.

The sensing of them is.


thinking is where I get lost,

You don’t say!


;>)

what is it like to directly experience thought?

If you fart and smell it, and then the smell goes away, it’s the same as if a thought arises and you notice it, and it passes.

I’ve spent much time interacting with thought substance, thinking, putting attention in or on thoughts, watching the thinker as of today (didn’t find one ultimately), but I really don’t know what the right orientation to it is. I don’t think there is one. That’s thought. but it’s an open question for me now. 


The “right orientation” is that thought is thought, just like smell is smell, and that in thought, there is no room for anything other than thought to occur.

“watching the thinker as of today (didn’t find one ultimately)”

Look again. Look many times.

I’m actually quoting my understanding of you at you here. You’d said something like “the illusion of self is a mix of senses.” I guess i left out that illusion part.

FYI:


Illusion doesn’t mean there is nothing there. It means that what we perceive to be there isn’t what it seems to be. An oasis in the desert is light and imagination, not a pool of water and a palm tree.








ME" If there is a self, tell me where and what it is, now specifically."

I have no fuken clue here - not cussing at you, just frustrated at spirituality and words. I hear so much contradictory stuff:
“No I,”
“you don’t exist,”
"no self"
“no-separate self (now we’re adding in separete),”
but also “you are awareness,”
“what you really are,” (you??)
“you aren’t anything,”
“no distance between observer and observed,”
“I AM,”
and last, eckhart tolle’s “I can’t live with myself” — (“I” was real for “him,” but “myself” wasn’t

Again, stop listening to so many people.



Here's the question again:


If there is a self, tell me where and what it is, now specifically.


The way to answer this question IS NOT to do what you did: you brought the question into your thinking.

This is Colored Socks all over again.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK.

Where?

Seeing (is there a self there? in what is seen?)
Hearing (is there a self there? in what is heard?)
Tasting (is there a self there? in what is tasted?)
Touching (is there a self there? in what is touched?)
Smelling (is there a self there? in what is smelled?)
Thinking (is there a self there? in what is thought?)

Where in any of those places (steel balls) is there any room for a "self"?

How can I know your interpretation has anything to do with my truth,

By looking at “your” truth. Do they resonate? Which one resonates more? How? Where? Do you know when you are lying? That would help. We'll do an exercise about this



ME: "Follow up question, are you saying that if the senses WEREN'T mixed an confusing, that there WOULDN'T be a self?"

I don’t know.



THat’s why we are trying to get you to see them clearly.



ME: "What’s under the politeness?"

Good rule following boy from childhood + i’m tired of pissing you off and getting pissed off in turn. easier to lay down. Also socially conditioned to be polite and I value kindness /ethical behavior. 
I'm angry a lot deep down. maybe other stuff.

Yep. Figures. It shows.


I’m not pissed off. Haven’t been for quite some time. And, nothing you could ever do could piss me off. Me being pissed off or not ONLY has to do with my interpretations of your actions. Hasn't anyone ever gotten the wrong idea about your intentions?

Hard to imagine how "trying" to smell more or less would make a difference
have wondered about this, some people say “put attention in 5 senses, be with your body” and others are more strictly “do that for the purpose of seeing through illusion only”. any idea?

Stop listening to so many people.


ME: "In the physical universe, you cannot put something of equal size, shape, mass, density, etc, in the same precise space as another one at the same time. So when you try to put the “smelling” and “thinking” ball in the same place, they won't, can’t, will not cooperate. One displaces the other.”

youre totally right. You hit on a sore spot for me right now.

Sore? What? Why?




ME: "Do you have any choice about whether or not you have any perspective you have about anything?"

Love this question. I don’t know how I’d know, and don’t know how I got that^ perspective, so there’s something behind the scenes probably. What I do know is that when I read this, I immediately recognized the suffering in believing that I could manufacture a perspective or judging myself for having a “wrong” perspective. 


The answer here is just that “perspective” is just thinking. And you have examined thinking. You have no say over any thought that happens to arise.






What about the notions you have about you doing the “drills” the way you think “I want” you to do them? What constitutes doing them “right”, and / or how “I like” them to be done?
confused what you mean by this. I do have notions of course. Are you asking about control? or my notions?


Notions are notions. Where do "notions" fit in Direct Experience?




ME: "Come up with a set of thoughts to have, and then try to not have them. Try to have other ones instead."


lol this was funny. neither worked.

Right. Do it a million times and see if that changes.



ME: "What was that like? What happened?"

it didn’t happen. I brought a mental image of pink elephant into my mind, couldn’t make it go away, or didn’t know how, and it disappeared on its own. Then I tried to come up with other thoughts, and realized i didn’t know how to magically come up with the new content of those thoughts, so nothing came up. 


Right. Anybody you can find running the show then?




ME: "Try to not have them and then try to have them again.
What was that like? What happened?"

didn’t have any second thoughts in the last activity, so i’m just going to repeat the and see again.
This time i couldn’t even force the pink elephant picture into my mind. couldn’t generate any novel thoughts. so I'm not the thinker, or atlesat I'm a bad one LOL

Yep.


ME: "Try to predict what thought you are going to have next (about anything).
What was that like? What happened?"

didn’t have the foggiest idea where to start when I tried. it was like “oh this is blank”

Try again.




ME: "THERE IS NO ROOM INSIDE SMELLING FOR ANYTHING ELSE TO BE HAPPENING BESIDES SMELLING."

I like this. makes sense.
post note: **see commentary in smelling drill below on how indecisive I am though below, because in hindlight I'm laughing i wrote "i like this, makes sense" so quickly.**

Right. Just like with the 6 steel ball thing.

take 1
1. Y/N: No.
2. If “N”, are you saying that because that’s the answer you think I want to hear? Or is it just “N”?
1. it’s just no. I can’t prove it without thinking. But it’s just a smell, kinda indescribably smell shaped. nothing else in the smell than smell...no thinking required to get a whiff of something strong and recognize a whiff for whiff.

Yer darn tootin. A whiff is just a whiff.

1. Y/N: No.
2. If “N”, are you saying that because that’s the answer you think I want to hear? Or is it just “N”?
1. another way to answer this, smells are hard to “know” (because knowing is thought? i think this was part of the problem for me) but it’s really strong and fairly distinctive, and it can happen with or witohut tihnking.

Knowing is not thought.


LOOK:


What is it that knows you are thinking, smelling, or tasting?

take 5
1. Y/N: No.
2. If “N”, are you saying that because that’s the answer you think I want to hear? Or is it just “N”?
1. even more clear this time. i apologize if you didn’t want narrative, just realized you might have wanted just Y or N. i started with the assumption that there might be something in a smell another than smell, just to reality check it, and smelled, and was like ?%$@%. it’s hard to describe/words are above the experience, but there’s only smell in smell. smell is its own thing, or sensory experience is just what it is, dare I say.

Thank goodness! By jove, I think he’s got it!


Let’s continue with HEARING

There are sounds, and the capacity to hear them: this is the sense of “Hearing”

We can separate the two into representatives of different domains: content, and context.

Please let me know if you understand this distinction, and describe it in your own words.


To do:


Take note of the fact that hearing is happening in your daily activities.

When you start your day, remind yourself that today is “Hearing” day.

Write “Hearing” at the top of your note pad or e-note. As you go through your day, list:

When you notice that you hear something, write down what it is that you heard.

Note, with each sound, that they are taking place within the sense of Hearing; the capacity to hear.

Note then, that there is Hearing, and there is what is heard.

Context, content. Sense, object of the (particular) sense.

While you may have thoughts about what is heard, or about hearing itself, note that whatever you may think or not think, sounds and hearing happen all on their own, in their own place.

Thinking isn't any more necessary for sounds to occur, than it is for them to be heard. The same goes for the other senses.


Please report daily. Copy / paste and use the form below.

List:


What was heard?

What sense did it occur in?

Which was the content/object, and which was the context/sense?

Is it clear that in this case, what was heard, and hearing itself, occurred independently of any other senses?



Go man go.

J

[jrwever]

Would believing your socks are green or blue or yellow change the fact that they are red, if they are?

No, if they were fundamentally red in some absolute way, believing would not change them. It might change your perception, but i'm speaking intellectually here.

If there is a self, tell me where and what it is, now specifically.
The way to answer this question IS NOT to do what you did: you brought the question into your thinking.
This is Colored Socks all over again.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK.
Where?
Seeing (is there a self there? in what is seen?)
Hearing (is there a self there? in what is heard?)
Tasting (is there a self there? in what is tasted?)
Touching (is there a self there? in what is touched?)
Smelling (is there a self there? in what is smelled?)

there’s obviously no self in the 5 main senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, physical sensations. Or at least, not one distingishuable from any other sights, smells, …. Same way that in seeing, there’s no “body” seperate from “not-body,” but we can very easily describe it that way with concepts because we know what a body is supposed to look *like*.
then there’s thought.
in thought there is only what’s thought. it’s “thought-experience,” but talking about it is kinda circular/impossible.

A self? No, or not an identifiable separate entity distinct from anything else in experience. no “special” thing atop anything else. when “I” comes up, it’s like ok, that’s recognizable and familiar, but is it really distinct from other thought content? not really. There’s kinda a sense of attachment to seeing it the old way. in hindsight those are all thoughts too ("familiar," "attachment," "sense of"), but like... it's thought all the way down, so how to talk about it seriously?

my note
i need some time to sit with this. a lot of your questions now feel dead to me or I want to crawl into a hole. the only alive question I have to go look for right now is “what/who is suffering”. the funny part is I don’t know lollllllllll.

 happy to discuss anything, if you want to push me to finish the rest immediately, probably quickest is just to text me “finish” and i’ll get it done quickly.

[jefe2060]

Hey buddy there's no need to finish anything quickly. Meanwhile you've gone directly to one of the most fundamental questions human beings on the path ask to get to truth. Brilliant.

The traditional ones are

"Who am I?"
"What am I?"

A koan kinda version is

"Before I was born, who am I?"

But none of these are within the scope of the LU project. Here it more than sufficient to be very clear that there is no such thing as a "self" in any of the conventional ways that 99.99999% of humanity thinks there is. This puts you in a very select group of extremely fortunate folks, because once "no-self" is seen, none of our existential suffering has anything to stick to. Or doesn't always go away completely, and thus requires further examination on a case by case basis. There's no need to worry about that right now. We take our time and complete thus stage of you, get quite clear, and celebrate, if that is what happens.

Go ahead and look at the question you posed. Tomorrow we can look at and start to ask some of the clarifying questions LU works with.

Much love

J

[jefe2060]

Sorry, two typos:


"IT doesn't always go..."

"...THIS stage of you...."

🌈

[jefe2060]

Jack:

Hey so I know I said to take your time and you should. Meanwhile there’s a couple of things you posted that I ought to respond to.

“There’s obviously no self in the 5 main senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, physical sensations. Or at least, not one distingishuable from any other sights, smells, …. Same way that in seeing, there’s no “body” seperate from “not-body,” but we can very easily describe it that way with concepts because we know what a body is supposed to look *like*.
then there’s thought. in thought there is only what’s thought. it’s “thought-experience,” but talking about it is kinda circular/impossible.”


“A self? No, or not an identifiable separate entity distinct from anything else in experience. no “special” thing atop anything else. when “I” comes up, it’s like ok, that’s recognizable and familiar, but is it really distinct from other thought content? not really. There’s kinda a sense of attachment to seeing it the old way. in hindsight those are all thoughts too ("familiar," "attachment," "sense of"), but like... it's thought all the way down, so how to talk about it seriously?”

Good, so it seems you’ve skipped to / “cut to the chase” of all the sense categories we started to methodically go through (we did smell and started on Hearing), which we may or may not have to continue with. However, I was reviewing the "final" questions and I don't think we are there yet.

“This is all from a meditation on the nature of suffering:”

I think you are likely doing some good work with this but until you are clearer about the main thing we’re after here it’s something of a distraction. Your narrative - at least how you are describing it - is largely thinking about thinking. So let’s get clearer.

Please start on the “Hearing” exercise I gave you. Here it is again:


Hearing


There are sounds, and the capacity to hear them: this is the sense of “Hearing”

We can separate the two into representatives of different domains: content, and context.

Please let me know if you understand this distinction, and describe it in your own words.


To do:

Take note of the fact that hearing is happening in your daily activities.

When you start your day, remind yourself that today is “Hearing” day.

Write “Hearing” at the top of your note pad or e-note. As you go through your day, list:

When you notice that you hear something, write down what it is that you heard.

Note, with each sound, that they are taking place within the sense of Hearing; the capacity to hear.

Note then, that there is Hearing, and there is what is heard.

Context, content. Sense, object of the (particular) sense.

While you may have thoughts about what is heard, or about hearing itself, note that whatever you may think or not think, sounds and hearing happen all on their own, in their own place.

Thinking isn't any more necessary for sounds to occur, than it is for them to be heard. The same goes for the other senses.


Please report daily. Copy / paste and use the form below. PLEASE USE THE FORM FOR EACH EXAMPLE YOU GIVE, NOT JUST AS A HEADING FOR ALL YOUR EXAMPLES. Please always do this in the future as well. Each of your answers to anything should be specifically answering a written question for that example.

List:


What was heard?

What sense did it occur in?

Which was the content/object, and which was the context/sense?

Is it clear that in this case, what was heard, and hearing itself, occurred independently of any other senses?


Another question.

How do you experience free will? How do things that you do happen?


:>)
J

[jrwever]

OLD STUFF, SCROLL DOWN FOR NEW
Hearing
-What was heard?-What sense did it occur in?
-Which was the content/object, and which was the context/sense?
-Is it clear that in this case, what was heard, and hearing itself, occurred independently of any
other senses

-Microwave sound
-hearing
-micro wave sound was the content, hearing was the context
-it was clear yes, occured independently of any other senses.

street sounds
-hearing was the sense
-the sound was the object, in the context of hearing
-HERE it was sorta hard to seperate where thinking began and where hearing ended. unlike smell and thought, hearing and thought are more intertwined for me.

-Laughter
-it occurred in hearing
-the laughter was the object of hearing, and hearing was the context/sense
-yes it was pure hearing

-Music
-it occurred in hearing
-the music was the object, the hearing was the sense
-no other sense was needed, just hearing

-bathroom noises
-it occurred in hearing
-the noises were the object, the hearing was the sense/context
-no other sense was needed

Bus
-hearing
-the bus noise was the object, the hearing was the context
-no other sense was necessary

Voices of roommates
-hearing was the sense
-the voices we're the object(s), the hearing was the context
-no other sense was necessary

Street noises
-hearing was the sense
The noises were the object, hearing was the context/sense
-no other sense was necessary

Phone video
-hearing was the sense
-the phone noise was the object, hearing was the sense
-no other sense was necessary

Another video
-hearing was the sense
-the phone noise was the object, hearing was the context
-defintely no other sense required, in fact I was thinking and the sound cut through it

music
-hearing was the sense
-the music was the object, in the context of hearing
-no other senses required.

breath sounds
-hearing was the sense, very clear entirely audible component
-the sound was the object, in the context of hearing
-no other senses required at all. could still hear even when ignoring anything else.

street sounds
-hearing was the sense
-the sonud was the object of hearing sense
-no other sense was required. despite some wondering about how sound and thought are hard to separate, this time it was clear because the sound cut through active thinking

dog
-hearing was the sense
the barking was the object of the hearing sense
-no other sense was required, i’m starting to pick up on the distinct hearing signature, that’s only hearing and nothing else.


random stuff:
cool thing from today: i asked gemeni the ai to ask me questions to explore non-duality, and a key question was “When you direct your attention to a present physical sensation, such as the feeling of breath moving or the weight of your body, can you find an actual, experiential boundary where the sensation ends and the awareness of it begins?”
 and it was like oh my god clearly there’s no distinction, “my awareness of hand sight” and “hand” are inseperable in experience. so what does that say about me vs things? kinda cool and it felt really good for an hour or so. I imagine this is part of what youre trying to get across, but if not i’m happy to keep working. it didn’t cement as some huge shift. 

Second, some cool questions felt really alive and powerful today: “what is actually real” and “what does it mean to feel, or feel something, or feel good?” - it’s not quite the same as like “what is self"or "do you exist” but it felt on the same level of really looking at what’s real for me an a non-forced, authentic way. Those other questions feel like a chore often
END OF OLD STUFF, logged here




NEW STUFF:
Music listening drill, 5+ minutes from whatsapp
I listened to a couple songs and tried to pin down an experience of pure sound. It’s very much like sound doesn’t want to be pinned down and identified as any one thing. I just can’t do it. obviously i’ll get fragments of what can’t be anything other than hearing. I can hear and talk and watch videos.

But when I try to sit with hearing and pin down “this is hearing, and nothing else” it’s like trying to plug an cord into an outlet you can’t see: sometimes you get you get lucky and get fragments of identifiable hearing (get the cord in) but other times it’s fumbling and physical, felt disconnection despite the fact there are obviously sounds going on and hearing happening. when i then focus on those, same story.

it’s like i’m being gaslit, or gaslighting myself. the experience is like something doesn’t want me to nail down hearing, or i have hidden expectations of what sound should feel like, or etc.

this is a very recurring thing, and a big part of why i’ve been so hesitant with smelling. A similar example is breathe meditations - I just can’t do it lol. it becomes me totally manually, controlling breathing and feels really mentally uncomfortable. I can’t just let it be and observe peacefully.


Your last question:

How do you experience free will? How do things that you do happen?

let me get back to you on this for a better answer please (but also see my quick attempt below). I watched a really strong video on non-separation, self-refererence, and non-duality/subject object, and I think it’s kicking around my experience bucket. It made a lot of sense how we’re constantly looking “out,” coming back “in” to verify a subject and relationship to out object, and then ping back out to gather information on that object in relationship to “us." constantly pinging back and forth for no reason, with me as the most important thing.

a quick actual attempt on free will:
free will seems to be a composite of a few things. first, an assumption / arrogant attitude thought that "i can make things happen." second, an assumed center around which action happens. think about it like this: "action" and "Movement" only make sense when there are opposite words that define them. you can't have movement or "me moving hand" without coherent, stable, non-moving "me." finally, a feeling of distance / separation from what's happening. blocking myself from the intimacy/vulnerability of actually experiencing the apparent movement.

feelings are too fresh and it’s late at night for me to explore too much, but I think this will only continue to undermine my sense of control, because the thing i’ll be controlling and the me controlling it both sound silly. the idea kinda sounds ridiculous. 

I aplogozie for the lacksidasicalness, LU has felt kinda chore-y lately, and I much prefer the more spontaneous chat or youtube video when lightning strikes (right now. things may change). Happy to continue, just letting you know where i’m at.

[jefe2060]

Hey

Hey!

street sounds
-hearing was the sense
-the sound was the object, in the context of hearing
-HERE it was sorta hard to seperate where thinking began and where hearing ended. unlike smell and thought, hearing and thought are more intertwined for me.

Can your ears think?

If you were standing in a group of several people making no noise at all and your thoughts seemed loud to you in some internally audible way, if you were repeating a mantra to yourself mentally, silently to anyone outside your head, or even if you had tinnitus, would any of the others near you have any clue that you were “hearing” with your thinking unless you told them?

“street sounds
-hearing was the sense
-the sound was the object of hearing sense
-no other sense was required.
despite some wondering about how sound and thought are hard to separate,

In other words (?) you are providing an example of the fact that while “wondering” (Thinking, correct?) about anything, whether it is about “sound and thought” (we are agreed that we don't think with our ears, yes? …and that “sound” which is only heard internally (because others could also hear it if it was *actually* audible) in the form of thought is just thought…?

In OTHER other words, you can't hear or make sound with thinking…right?

“this time it was clear because the sound cut through active thinking”

If your attention is mostly on sound you will notice it. If it is mostly on thinking you will tend to notice that.

Just because you have your attention on both doesn't mean they are “intertwined” any more than dogs are intertwined with cantaloupes. It means you're awareness of various sense data “holds” all of it.

Capeesh?

dog
-hearing was the sense
the barking was the object of the hearing sense
-no other sense was required, i’m starting to pick up on the distinct hearing signature, that’s only hearing and nothing else.

If I yell your name in your ear, do your eyes, nose, thoughts, or body sensations hear it?



Backing up a bit:

“There’s obviously no self in the 5 main senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, physical sensations…then there’s thought. in thought there is only what’s thought.”

“A self? No, or not an identifiable separate entity distinct from anything else in experience. no “special” thing atop anything else.”

So...there is no self?

...when “I” comes up, it’s like ok, that’s recognizable and familiar, but is it really distinct from other thought content? not really.

So you are saying here that “.... ‘I’ comes up…” where? In thinking?

“There’s kinda a sense of attachment to seeing it the old way. in hindsight those are all thoughts too ("familiar," "attachment," "sense of"), but like... it's thought all the way down, so how to talk about it seriously?”

Just talk about it accurately.

So, a “sense of attachment” is what, specifically?

What is “the old way”?

“it’s “thought-experience,” but talking about it is kinda circular/impossible.”

What does that mean? What is “thought-experience”? Why is talking about whatever it is you are referring to here “circular/impossible”? What ARE you talking about?


:>) J

[jrwever]

Can your ears think?
If you were standing in a group of several people making no noise at all and your thoughts seemed loud to you in some internally audible way, if you were repeating a mantra to yourself mentally, silently to anyone outside your head, or even if you had tinnitus, would any of the others near you have any clue that you were “hearing” with your thinking unless you told them?

Definitely not, and I like this way of thinking about it

In OTHER other words, you can't hear or make sound with thinking…right?

No. But I also don't really want to speculate on the experience of others to justify my experience? Like part of this is I've been told there's a self, and I'm supposed to not believe that and actually look. Like how do you know you have ears?

your attention is mostly on sound you will notice it. If it is mostly on thinking you will tend to notice that.
Just because you have your attention on both doesn't mean they are “intertwined” any more than dogs are intertwined with cantaloupes. It means you're awareness of various sense data “holds” all of it.
Capeesh?

capeesh, but I'm curious if you've ever had experience with the overlap, it's definitely tricky to navigate in real time, but I'll admit you're making it more clear, so thank you

If I yell your name in your ear, do your eyes, nose, thoughts, or body sensations hear it?

No

So...there is no self?

At this point the word self has lost all meaning for me. However! What I can say is there's still experience of like "me" existing and navigating suffering and different feelings and making decisions. Is it cool to work in terms of I, me, and Jack?

So you are saying here that “.... ‘I’ comes up…” where? In thinking?

Thinking I'm pretty sure. It's like internal monologue. those sounds and images that no one else can see, so must be thinking.

Just talk about it accurately.
So, a “sense of attachment” is what, specifically?
What is “the old way”?

Sense of attachment is thought.
The old way, hard to remember, but I think it was seeing that there was a real identity in thought, or somewhere, instead of thought alone being in thought.

What does that mean? What is “thought-experience”? Why is talking about whatever it is you are referring to here “circular/impossible”? What ARE you talking about?

Thought experience was like a imaginary mind scape made of thinking.

With the circular/impossible thing: in thought it's thought all the way down. Any talking about it is just purely thinking about thinking, there's no "words" or accurate words in thought. Just like in hearing there isn't "car sound," it's just sound and interpretation into car sound. To talk about any of this I have to simplify the experience.
By circular I mean- when we're talking about how thought is thought all the way down, that's like thought about thought about thought about thought

Jack
I get the feeling I'm resistant to agreeing to this for some reason. The actually seeing what's true and communicating it with you. Thoughts?

[jefe2060]

And....

I'm pretty sure all this needs to be said too:

I listened to a couple songs and tried to pin down an experience of pure sound. It’s very much like sound doesn’t want to be pinned down and identified as any one thing. I just can’t do it. obviously i’ll get fragments of what can’t be anything other than hearing. I can hear and talk and watch videos.

But when I try to sit with hearing and pin down “this is hearing, and nothing else” it’s like trying to plug an cord into an outlet you can’t see: sometimes you get you get lucky and get fragments of identifiable hearing (get the cord in) but other times it’s fumbling and physical, felt disconnection despite the fact there are obviously sounds going on and hearing happening. when i then focus on those, same story.

it’s like i’m being gaslit, or gaslighting myself. the experience is like something doesn’t want me to nail down hearing, or i have hidden expectations of what sound should feel like, or etc.

this is a very recurring thing, and a big part of why i’ve been so hesitant with smelling. A similar example is breathe meditations - I just can’t do it lol. it becomes me totally manually, controlling breathing and feels really mentally uncomfortable. I can’t just let it be and observe peacefully.

This is all completely unnecessary.
There's no need for you to do anything about “pure sound”. You do not need to achieve any “pure sound” experiences.

Do you hear anything?

That's enough.

Does sound smell or taste like anything?

Do sounds and hearing preclude or require any of the other senses in order to happen (or not)?

Ask any hearing impaired person.


There is nothing exotic or special about any of this. All the rest is thinking.

You are to thinking (and all your other senses) as a fish is to water.

You live in it. It's ubiquitous. So you never notice it.

You have lived your whole life deriving and reifying your identity in relationship with all the data you are swimming around in, and the primary organizing principles of your mind, most of which you are unaware of.

The way out of this “matrix” (because a very large percentage of what it appears to be has been designed by other human beings who are as asleep as all of us have been according to the underlying mix of civilizations’ social agreements about reality) is to notice the functioning of the senses (especially thinking and the way the body “feels” in apparently direct correlation to what is thought about it) and that they function independently of any meaning about anything.

Gaslighting

?!?!?!?!


It's a thought.

Yes, of course it's a “thing” in the same way that all the other concepts that we think are primary are “things”. This is how people function at the “relative” level of existence. The entire universe also “functions” in all kinds of different ways that we can pinpoint, from quantum to macro. Actually I’m pretty sure that modern science has seen that things all exist in both states simultaneously: as particles and as waves.

But thought has no independent existence of it’s own, any more than clouds do from an atmosphere that contains moisture and has varying temperatures.

Nor do you. You are processes occurring in processes inside of processes with no apparent beginning or end. You are a wave in an ocean, a drop in a bucket, a star in an infinite universe of stars that are all floating around in an infinite soup of all the elements and forces that stars are comprised of.

“Your” thoughts are just like that too.

If you are not conditioned to respond to the world the way you do, then stop.



How’s that working out for you?


;>)

this is a very recurring thing, and a big part of why i’ve been so hesitant with smelling. A similar example is breathe meditations - I just can’t do it lol. it becomes me totally manually, controlling breathing and feels really mentally uncomfortable. I can’t just let it be and observe peacefully.

Really you should leave this kind of thing out of our conversation. I have no idea what the parameters of this practice are, nor the goals or instructions. You have a lot of input about your process coming from a lot of different sources. It’s none of my business but if I had to comment on it I would say that it’s more than is helpful to you.

The only relevant piece of it for us is the “me” part and the “controlling” part.

Where is the “me” you are referring to in direct experience?

Who controls anything? How does it work?

:>)