Nezinau

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)
Good. A few clarifications...

yes , sensation + guilt

Look carefully.
Is “guilt” something separate that is directly experienced?
Or is there a sensation, plus thoughts such as: “you should be working”/ “you’re not doing enough”/ “finish this and get back to work”,…and then thought gives the whole pattern the label “guilt”?
So basically sensation + thought

attention moves to the action.

We already looked for attention and could not find a separate thing moving around.
So when action starts, what is actually found?
Does something called attention move?
Or did the commentary simply shift — the thought-story changed from ‘guilt / I should be working’ to thoughts about the action?
Notice the difference...

urge thought - lets finish this inquiry and get back to work.

Did that thought create the action of continuing the inquiry?
Did it stop the inquiry?
Or did the thought appear, and continuing the inquiry also happened?
Can any link between the thought and the action actually be found?

Stay with one fresh example.
What appeared?
What happened next?
And was any causal link itself directly seen?

- action comes as it comes , I cant see is it move away from uncomfortable sensation but the actions switches the attention to action ... The moving away from uncomfortible sitaution is also a thought that comes after that.

Good. Technically you are correct. Technically all that we write here is a thought. "Looking" is a new way to describe "just THIS →" - it's a DE thought...
We don’t need to conclude that the action is caused by the uncomfortable sensation. But notice something subtler (a bypass). When “guilt” is present, is there a willingness to stay with the raw sensation?
Or does thought quickly produce: ‘do something’ /‘fix this’/ ‘go back to work’/ ‘stop looking’ and then activity starts?
We are not asking why the activity happens. We are checking whether the uncomfortable sensation is being fully “allowed”, or whether the system immediately conditionally shifts into doing, because of unchecked belief in an entity that needs protection from unpleasant sensations. Remember we are not changing DE here (it’s not possible), we are changing perceptions/ thought stories where all the suffering is (like "guilt"). And we are not changing them - they are self-organising and changing through "looking". Bypassing (it's all a thought, there is no me - no problem) does not allow to be seen that there is nothing wrong with "guilt" ;)
Can you stay with the sensation for 20–30 seconds without following the story and without acting on the urge?
What happens then?
Does fear, pressure, shame, restlessness, or some other sensation become clearer?
And if the "action" still happens, fine. The point is not to stop action (you can’t). The point is to see whether "action" is being used to avoid feeling.
Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali ...

I am travelling at the moment so my replies could take a little bit longer ... :)

Look carefully.

Is “guilt” something separate that is directly experienced?
Or is there a sensation, plus thoughts such as: “you should be working”/ “you’re not doing enough”/ “finish this and get back to work”,…and then thought gives the whole prattern the label “guilt”?
So basically sensation + thought

Yes sensation + thought + the label thought - guilt

We already looked for attention and could not find a separate thing moving around.
So when action starts, what is actually found?
Does something called attention move?
Or did the commentary simply shift — the thought-story changed from ‘guilt / I should be working’ to thoughts about the action?
Notice the difference...

when action starts - the thoughts commentate the action

urge thought - lets finish this inquiry and get back to work.
Did that thought create the action of continuing the inquiry?

No

Did it stop the inquiry?

no

Or did the thought appear, and continuing the inquiry also happened?

yes

Can any link between the thought and the action actually be found?

no

Stay with one fresh example.
What appeared?
What happened next?
And was any causal link itself directly seen?

Got up in the morning , the thought came up the urge to start working daily tasks , the thought came skip the workout , after some time just started doing workout , doing workout the thought rose good that the i haven't skipped the excercises.

The action was separate from the action and then the thought comes with the commentating.

When “guilt” is present, is there a willingness to stay with the raw sensation?
Or does thought quickly produce: ‘do something’ /‘fix this’/ ‘go back to work’/ ‘stop looking’ and then activity starts?

I dont klnow if I understood it correctly but I will try to say in my words. When guilt label appears , There is no willingness to stay with the guilt sensation and the thought proudes or actions to move away from the unpleasant sensation of guilt by doing something.

Can you stay with the sensation for 20–30 seconds without following the story and without acting on the urge?
What happens then?
Does fear, pressure, shame, restlessness, or some other sensation become clearer?

Yes I can stay with sensation when I am looking now , just a pure sensation ..... Senstaion becomes clear ....

Sorry for delay just was travelling all day yesterday :) Sorry --> laughing ,, guilt for delay appeared , apology appeared in sorry ,,,

:)

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)
No problem about the delay. And actually, that is very useful:

Sorry for delay just was travelling all day yesterday :) Sorry --> laughing ,, guilt for delay appeared , apology appeared in sorry ,,,

“Sorry” appeared. Then you noticed guilt around the delay. Then apology appeared.
Look at that exact event.
Before the word “sorry” was written, what was present?
Was there a sensation?
Was there a thought such as: “I replied late” / “Rali may think I am not taking this seriously” / “I should apologise”
Did you choose those thoughts?
Did you choose the apology?
Now stay with the sensation that was labelled guilt.
If you do not write “sorry” and do not try to fix anything for a few moments, what happens?
Does the sensation itself ask for an apology? Does it say you have done something wrong?
Or is that all in thought?
Then look at the apology itself.
Was “sorry” needed because something practical needed repairing?
Or was it an attempt to remove the uncomfortable feeling?
Do not answer from logic. Look at this specific example. There is nothing wrong with apologising. We are only checking what is actually happening: sensation, thought, urge, action, more thought.

When anger, fear, blame, guilt, shame, or defensiveness appears, treat it as an invitation to look.
Do not analyse the story first. Do not ask why. Do not try to get rid of the feeling. Pause and find the raw sensation.
Where is it felt?
What is its texture?
Is it moving, tight, hot, heavy, vibrating?
Does the sensation itself say ‘anger’, ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘blame’?
Or are those labels and stories added by thought?
Stay with the sensation long enough to see what is actually there before the story takes over.

Do not use this to suppress action. If something practical needs to be said, corrected, or done, that can still happen. The looking is only to separate the raw present experience from the story wrapped around it.

Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali ,

Before the word “sorry” was written, what was present?
Was there a sensation?
Was there a thought such as: “I replied late” / “Rali may think I am not taking this seriously” / “I should apologise”
Did you choose those thoughts?
Did you choose the apology?

I cant say know at exact moment. But sensation appears , yes there was a thought i am not enough serious about it. I should apologise. I didn't choose thoughts , i didnt choose the apology…

Now stay with the sensation that was labelled guilt.
If you do not write “sorry” and do not try to fix anything for a few moments, what happens?
Does the sensation itself ask for an apology? Does it say you have done something wrong?
Or is that all in thought?

Senstaion is just the sensation , all that is thought.

Then look at the apology itself.
Was “sorry” needed because something practical needed repairing?
Or was it an attempt to remove the uncomfortable feeling?

It was to remove the uncomfortable feeling.

When anger, fear, blame, guilt, shame, or defensiveness appears, treat it as an invitation to look.
Do not analyse the story first. Do not ask why. Do not try to get rid of the feeling. Pause and find the raw sensation.

Where is it felt?

raw sensation in "legs"

What is its texture?

Tingeling

Is it moving, tight, hot, heavy, vibrating?

Tingeling , tight , moving

Does the sensation itself say ‘anger’, ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘blame’?

no

Or are those labels and stories added by thought?

ITs already added by thought

Best regards , Rali :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)
I think we have looked enough at seeing, thinking, attention, doing and choosing for now.
Let’s look at something slightly different: memory and time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought. Memory thoughts are also thoughts about a future that may or may not happen based on past experiences. A future thought is a thought that projects an idea about a future based on past memory.
Sit quietly somewhere, just let a memory be there, and look at it. Please don’t go to thought explanations, but what actually is.
What is memory exactly? What is the memory ‘made of’? Does memory contain the past?
WHEN does the memory appear?
Bring to mind something that happened this morning.
What is actually present now?
Is the past event present?
Or are there mental images, words, and perhaps sensations appearing now? Is “memory” a label for a present thought claiming to be about the past?
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?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the DE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?

In actual experience:-
Where is last week?
Where is yesterday?
Where is this morning?
Where is five minutes ago?
Where is one minute ago? 30s ago?
Where is last night?
Where is midnight?
Where is tomorrow morning?
Where is next week?
Where is next month?
Can you find any of these? Or only ‘memory’ thoughts about these appearing now?

Think of what you had for breakfast yesterday.
What is actually present now?
Is yesterday present?
Is the breakfast present?
Or are there only a mental image, sensations, and thoughts about breakfast?

Now remember the mistake you made at work.
Is the mistake happening now?
What is actually present when it is remembered?
Is there a past event here?
Or are there present sensations and present thoughts about something labelled “past”?

So when you say:

first sensation, then thought.

Look carefully at this too.
How is “first” and “then” known?
Is the order itself directly experienced?
Or does memory compare two events and then thought says: “this happened first, that happened after”?
Take your time with this.
Please do not answer from what sounds logical.
Use one or two real examples and report only what is directly found.

Love
Rali