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

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali ,

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?

No if I understand the question , now doesn't feel going from one timeline to other .

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No , if it is not associated with thoughts about events around it . but its also a thought at this moment or now.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

if the event is moving hands no , if the event is eating so it seems like a time frame , but its also a thought durbg the present moment.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It doesnt have pace it's always on .

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

no

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Always but its just a thought

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

it doesnt have start and end

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

never , I dont know ....

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

A thought

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Time is a thought ...

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?

memory is the thought. a memory thought is at the present moment about possible things that happened in the "past". so its the thought in the present moment about another thought and the thought of time.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Now - in present moment.

Bring to mind something that happened this morning.

Workout

What is actually present now?

a thought about workout

Is the past event present?

thought past event happening in 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?

yes mental images , thought appaaring in now . Yes memory is 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?

a memory thought have some kind of the link label claim that is the past thought ... But I cant see clear the link ....

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

another thought claimed that this happened ... I dont know ... Some kind of thought that this happened ...

Then, look at a thought about the future.

Going home after work

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Mental image , thought , also some present moment in the thought , its also a thought.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

In present moment now.

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

General thought comments what happens now (if you could say still technically a past event) , The future thought is thought now with other thought projecting future event. Technically its also a thought.

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

The thought has a link if you can say or label to thought of future event.

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?

They are happening in the present , any thought can rise only in present. The difference is the label thought ( of future event or past event)

If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

By the fought label of event future or past.

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 direct experience its just thoughts , it could be thoughts with other thought on top defining that it is future or past. Yes they can appear only in present moment- 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?

Only thoughts in present moment ..

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?

Its only mental images , 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”?

What is difference so some thoughts have sensations and some not ... But yes there is present sensations and present thoughts 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.

I am tired - thought appeared , looking - sensation in the body , the thought telling that its the comment of sensation.
So that shows compare two events thoughts and then thought overlapping with sequence.

Best Regards Rali :) thanks for your time ...

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)

Wonderful! Now let’s look at the “places” that need further looking:

a memory thought have some kind of the link label claim that is the past thought ... But I cant see clear the link ....

if the event is moving hands no , if the event is eating so it seems like a time frame , but its also a thought durbg the present moment.

Let’s make memory very clear... Take something simple to eat — a sandwich, fruit, anything. Before eating it, look carefully - there is the whole food in front of you. Take a bite. Now look again.
Is the whole food still here?
Or is there only the partly eaten food that is present now?
Take another bite. Again:
Is the earlier version of the food still here somewhere?
Can the whole sandwich and the half-eaten sandwich both be found at the same time?
Or is one only in memory?
Now finish it. Look at the empty plate with crumbs or wrapper.
Where is the food that was here before?
Can the past food be found anywhere now?
Or is there only: a mental image, a mental taste, a mental sensation, and a thought saying “I ate it”?

Now compare memory – mental images, tastes, sensations, sounds, smells - with the real thing. I hope you like chocolate, but replace it with whatever you have.
1. For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece chocolate… Imagine breaking it, the smell, putting it in your mouth, feel the sensations of it melting into your mouth, the taste, the texture, the aroma. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of chocolate as much as you can.
2. Then for the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of chocolate and see the difference. Experience the chocolate with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it.
3. Then for another minute or so describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?
After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:
1. Imaginary piece of chocolate
2. Real piece of chocolate
3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

Can the imagined chocolate actually be tasted? Can it melt in the mouth? Can it satisfy hunger? Can it stain the fingers?
Is the mental image the same thing as the chocolate?
Does the memory contain the actual past event? Or is memory only a present mental image / thought about something that is not here?
So when thought says: “this happened before”, what is actually present?
The past event? Or only a thought/image appearing now?
Is a thought-sensation the same as a sensation?

Here is another example...I recently tried a new fruit for me which the locals call “sour soap”. If I give you a description – the fruit is fragrant, sweet and sour, fleshy, and soft – did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit tastes like?How can you know what I am talking about? The description of experience is no help when it comes to the sense of experiencing. We can talk about tasting the sour soap, but it’s all conceptual: ideas about ideas and not the experience that is happening right now.
In DE, the supposed cause is not sitting in the past while the effect is here now. When cause-and-effect is thought about, both appear together now as thought-content.
For example: “Because I skipped the workout, I feel guilty.”
Right now, where is the skipped workout? Where is the guilt-causing event?
The “skipped workout” appears as a present memory-thought. The “guilt” appears as present sensation + thought. And the word “because” is another present thought "linking" the two.
Look at cause and effect very carefully.
When thought says: “A caused B”, where is A now? Where is B now?
Is the cause actually present in the past and the effect present now?
Or do both “cause” and “effect” appear together now as thoughts/images, with another thought linking them?
Can the causal connection (link) itself be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled?
Or is “because” simply part of the story thought tells about two events?
This does not mean cause-and-effect is useless - it is a very useful functional model, a desktop icon. But in direct experience, can an actual causal link be found?

Also notice with time. The label ‘3pm’ can still get you to a meeting. ‘Ten minutes’ can still be useful when cooking. ‘Yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ are useful for communication and planning. Just like the desktop icon, the concept does not have to be the actuality in order to function. So the question is not: ‘Does time exist or not?’
Look instead… What is actually present in direct experience?
Can the concept function perfectly well without being mistaken for a separate thing that is literally flowing from past to future?

You don’t need to deny practical/icon on your desktop clock-time. Meetings happen. Flights happen. Food cooks. The pointer is subtler. Psychological time is where selfing breeds comparison, hope, regret, anticipation, becoming, “not there yet”. This is where selfing often appears. So next time suffering shows up, look immediately:
Without the story of past or future, what is actually wrong right now?
Do not answer quickly or philosophically! Look at the raw present experience.
What is actually here before thought brings in ‘before,’ ‘after,’ ‘should,’ ‘will,’ or ‘not yet’?

Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali ,

Let’s make memory very clear... Take something simple to eat — a sandwich, fruit, anything. Before eating it, look carefully - there is the whole food in front of you. Take a bite. Now look again.

I will take coffee , there is a full cup of coffee in front and I am taking a sip of coffee .

Is the full cup still here?
Or is there only the partly dranked coffee that is present now?

Partly dranked coffee.

Take another sip Again:
Is the earlier version of coffee still here somewhere?

no

Can the whole cup and the half-drank coffee both be found at the same time?

no

Or is one only in memory?

yes in memory

Now finish it. Look at the empty cup.

Where is the coffee that was here before?

in memory , thought come sin the stomach

Can the past food be found anywhere now?

no

Or is there only: a mental image, a mental taste, a mental sensation, and a thought saying “I drank it”?

Yes

Now compare memory – mental images, tastes, sensations, sounds, smells - with the real thing. I hope you like cookie, but replace it with whatever you have.

1. For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece cookie… Imagine breaking it, the smell, putting it in your mouth, feel the sensations of it melting into your mouth, the taste, the texture, the aroma. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of ccookie as much as you can.
2. Then for the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of cookie and see the difference. Experience the cookie with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it.
3. Then for another minute or so describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?

Imaginary piece of cookie - mental image , thoughts about eating cookie , looking at it seeing , imaginin eating - mental image + thoughts
Real piece of chocolate - sensation in mouth , smelling , sesation in fingers - sensation of taste ...

Can the imagined cookie actually be tasted? Can it melt in the mouth? Can it satisfy hunger? Can it stain the fingers?

no

Is the mental image the same thing as the chocolate?

no

Does the memory contain the actual past event? Or is memory only a present mental image / thought about something that is not here?

only mental image and and thought about something that is not there.

So when thought says: “this happened before”, what is actually present?
The past event? Or only a thought/image appearing now?

Only a thought an image

Is a thought-sensation the same as a sensation?

NO

Here is another example...I recently tried a new fruit for me which the locals call “sour soap”. If I give you a description – the fruit is fragrant, sweet and sour, fleshy, and soft – did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit tastes like?

no

How can you know what I am talking about?

from past mental images and thoughts

For example: “Because I skipped the workout, I feel guilty.”
Right now, where is the skipped workout? Where is the guilt-causing event?

the skipped workout - mental image , thought , past / the guilt-causing event - present

Look at cause and effect very carefully.
When thought says: “A caused B”, where is A now? Where is B now?

A is a memory thought , B is present thought

Is the cause actually present in the past and the effect present now?
Or do both “cause” and “effect” appear together now as thoughts/images, with another thought linking them?

As i see it , its a thought / memory thought with the present thought guilt

Can the causal connection (link) itself be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled?

no

Or is “because” simply part of the story thought tells about two events?

Yes

But in direct experience, can an actual causal link be found?

No

Look instead… What is actually present in direct experience?
Can the concept function perfectly well without being mistaken for a separate thing that is literally flowing from past to future?

Yes , in direct expereince senastaions + thoughts

Without the story of past or future, what is actually wrong right now?

nothing

What is actually here before thought brings in ‘before,’ ‘after,’ ‘should,’ ‘will,’ or ‘not yet’?

nothing

Best Regards , Vytas :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)
Good. The remembered coffee is not the coffee. The imagined chocolate is not the tasted chocolate. A story about an unknown fruit is not the fruit. A memory is appearing now as thought (e.g. mental image), while the past event itself is not here. And with cause and effect, there is only: a memory-thought, a present sensation or thought, and another thought, “because of that, this happened”, but the actual link itself cannot be found in DE.
Now some small corrections.

A is a memory thought , B is present thought

As i see it , its a thought / memory thought with the present thought guilt

Let’s make this very direct... Forget the labels: “memory thought”, “future thought”, “present thought”. Those are descriptions.
In direct experience only, is there any actual difference between a thought about yesterday, a thought about tomorrow, and any other thought?
Not the content. Not what the thought is about. Not the label “past” or “future.” Just the thought itself.
Does a memory-thought feel or appear as a different kind of thought from any other thought?
Or is the only difference what the thought says (aka not reality)?
Look carefully.
If the labels and meaning are ignored, can “past thought,” “future thought,” and “ordinary thought” be distinguished at all?

Without the story of past or future, what is actually wrong right now?

Nothing.

What is actually here before thought brings in before, after, should, will, not yet?

Nothing.

Look again. Is there really nothing? Or are there: colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought - THIS?
“Nothing” is also a word. Do not replace the story with “nothing.” Look at what is actually present. For example, if worry about work appears:
Without the thought about later, what is here now? Is there a sensation? Sound? Colour? Perhaps another thought?
Does any of that itself say: “something is wrong”?
Or is “something is wrong” another thought added to what is present?
Please use one real example rather than answering generally.

Now let’s see where the illusion still feels sticky. What would you like to look at next?
Here are the usual places where “me” hides:
Others — family, boss, approval, conflict, being seen.
Space — here/there, inside/outside, body/world, distance.
Emotions — fear, guilt, shame, pride, hurt, irritation.
Responsibility — caring for your kids, work, decisions, consequences.
Awakening itself — “am I getting it?”, “will it last?”, “I need to go deeper.”
Pick the one that feels most charged, most personal, or most unclear. Not the one that is most interesting intellectually. The one that still feels like me. :)
Where is Vytas still hiding?
Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali :)

In direct experience only, is there any actual difference between a thought about yesterday, a thought about tomorrow, and any other thought?

No

Does a memory-thought feel or appear as a different kind of thought from any other thought?
Or is the only difference what the thought says (aka not reality)?

The thought content is the same thoughts

If the labels and meaning are ignored, can “past thought,” “future thought,” and “ordinary thought” be distinguished at all?

No

Look again. Is there really nothing? Or are there: colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought - THIS?

Correct me , the sensations colour ,taste , smell and thoughts are always on. Without the sotry of past and future is actually wrong ? Yes nothing is also a word to describe that nothing is wrong :)

For example, if worry about work appears:
Without the thought about later, what is here now? Is there a sensation? Sound? Colour? Perhaps another thought?

Now is the colors , senstaions + thought + sound

Does any of that itself say: “something is wrong”?

No

Or is “something is wrong” another thought added to what is present?

Example.

I am sitting in the office making inquery and the thought comes you have to get back to your tasks because you will have to go out earlier with your family.

In direct experience its just colors , sounds , senations nad thought you have to do your work and thought you should skip this.

Now let’s see where the illusion still feels sticky. What would you like to look at next?
Rali being honest Vytas hides everywhere what you have listed :) When I am looking everything looks almost clear , but it forgets during day , like with attention ....

I would say the main ones emotions and awaking itself .....
1. Emotions — fear, guilt, shame, pride, hurt, irritation. - this is the core of the thoughts that still feels like me inside.
2. Awakening itself — “am I getting it?”, “will it last?”, “I need to go deeper.” - maybe the seeker , the one that still looks to change something , to find the right path ... to get back to the undersatnding , getting back to the blis ,, to the one that likes to tell others how to analyse and to do... The teacher... Before we met. if you can call I thought that I know a lot like spiritual knowledge I had staori and I can tell others what to do and not...

Best regards Vytas

[poppyseed]

Hey Vytas :)
Wonderful!

1. Emotions — fear, guilt, shame, pride, hurt, irritation. - this is the core of the thoughts that still feels like me inside.

I know you didn’t mention “others’ as problematic but if you say emotions are still a problem after seeing that “fear”/ “anger”/ “guilt” / “shame” are just labels/story layered over “innocent” sensations, it makes sense to look at the story and particularly of “others” a bit further. "Me" arises as a opponent to "others".

Take one recent situation where there was anger, hurt, guilt, shame, blame, or defensiveness with another person. Do not choose something too personal, so we can discuss it openly and honestly. Bring that situation to mind. Now look carefully.
What is actually present now?
A sensation? A mental image of the person? Thoughts about what they said or did? Thoughts about what “I” said or did?
Is the actual person here now? Or is there only a thought/image of them?
Can the mental image of that person judge you? Can it blame you? Can it hurt you?
Does the sensation itself say: “they hurt me”/ “they are wrong” /“I am guilty” /“I am not enough”?
Or are all of those added by thought?
Look at both sides… Where is the “me” in this story? Where is the “other”? Can either be found outside thought and mental image?

Let’s look even further at “other people” while they are actually "present". The next time you are talking with someone, pause for a moment and look carefully.
What is directly present? Colours and shapes? Sound of a voice? Sensations? Thoughts?
Now look at the label: “my wife”/ “my child” /“my co-worker” / “my friend”…
Is that label contained in the colours, sounds, or sensations?
In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. Seeing is like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a speech but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content? Are others outside of THIS? How is that KNOWN?
What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right? How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations - one of 'you' and one of 'other' - or just one/just feeling? Where is the border that marks where feeling/sensation ends and "other" begin?
Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?
Others in comparison to what? Is there still a belief that ͚you are in the body?
Can you find a self in other human bodies (aka colours) ? How do you KNOW it’s there?

So now back to emotions with regards to others – anger, fear, guilt or shame - and the appearance of “me” inside…
Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the sensation? Use the interaction with others to notice how the interactions with different people triggers different responses. Notice that "you" are not the person who suffers but "you" arises simultaneously with the struggle/resistance that generates the suffering. Every interaction with "others" can be an opportunity to notice that.
Go sit in a park or somewhere where there is a mixture of people and other living objects like birds trees- also non-'living' rocks water moving, wind etc. Then look at them as if there was a self in that image/colours (of rocks, wind)... Any difference of how these are experienced – like for example are plants, rocks, or animals any diiferent than humans? What͛'s the difference apart from the ideas about that? Does that prove anything?
Now, when an emotional reaction appears, check!
Does the voice/speech itself contain their history, personality, intentions, or opinion of you? Or are those supplied by thought?
What is actually being seen or heard?
What does thought add about “them”?
What does thought add about “me”?
For example: “They are angry with me.” / “They do not respect me.” / “They should understand.” / “I need their approval.”
Which part is directly experienced? Which part is interpretation? And most importantly where is the interpretation/the story happening - “here” or “over there”? Where are the colours, sounds, etc... happening - "here" or "there"? What is outside of just THIS?
And look closely:
Can the “other person” as you know them be found at all in direct experience?
Or is there present sensory input plus a very large thought-story about who they are?
Once the fairy tale has been seen through, staying with the raw sensations, is what changes the labels (e.g. anger, guilt...; pleasant/unpleasant), as you have seen already.
Use one real interaction and report exactly what was seen, heard, felt, and thought.

Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

Hey Rali :) ,

Take one recent situation where there was anger, hurt, guilt, shame, blame, or defensiveness with another person. Do not choose something too personal, so we can discuss it openly and honestly. Bring that situation to mind. Now look carefully.

The situation - I had a conflict with my friend regarding what he said about my wife and overall how he behaved...

What is actually present now? A sensation? A mental image of the person? Thoughts about what they said or did? Thoughts about what “I” said or did?

sensation , mental image of situation , thoughts what I said to other friends about it , Thoughts what he told , thoughts that it was already time to say that , Thoughts about the situation , thoughts if i have to see him.

Is the actual person here now? Or is there only a thought/image of them?

No actual person is not here, only thought and image of the situation.

Can the mental image of that person judge you? Can it blame you? Can it hurt you?

no

Does the sensation itself say: “they hurt me”/ “they are wrong” /“I am guilty” /“I am not enough”?
Or are all of those added by thought?

all are added by thoughts

Look at both sides… Where is the “me” in this story? Where is the “other”? Can either be found outside thought and mental image?

no none can be found outside the thought and mental image.

Let’s look even further at “other people” while they are actually "present". The next time you are talking with someone, pause for a moment and look carefully.

What is directly present? Colours and shapes? Sound of a voice? Sensations? Thoughts?

Could be found - colours and shapes , sound of voice , sensations , thoughts

Now look at the label: “my wife”/ “my child” /“my co-worker” / “my friend”…
Is that label contained in the colours, sounds, or sensations?

No

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a speech but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?

Yes

Also, is there space where these others exist?

As a thought yes , as the thought me and others , thoughts i see . The thought that has I , me

Code: Select all

What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

No there is no difference, only sensations , seeing , hearing and thoughts .

Are others outside of THIS?

I dont know - only by thought

How is that KNOWN?

By thought

What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right?

Colours , with different thoughts and sensations .

How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

label - thought

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations - one of 'you' and one of 'other' - or just one/just feeling?

Just feeling sensation

Where is the border that marks where feeling/sensation ends and "other" begin?

A thought , there are brders.

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?

no , only thoughts about them , no in direct experience ..

Others in comparison to what?

To the thought me

Is there still a belief that ͚you are in the body?

Belief is also a label thought, i feel sensations and the thought its hapepning in my body

Can you find a self in other human bodies (aka colours) ? How do you KNOW it’s there?

Its the label person - thought , I know it by thought and sound , seeing , hearing ...

So now back to emotions with regards to others – anger, fear, guilt or shame - and the appearance of “me” inside…Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the sensation?

yes

Then look at them as if there was a self in that image/colours (of rocks, wind)... Any difference of how these are experienced – like for example are plants, rocks, or animals any different than humans? What͛'s the difference apart from the ideas about that? Does that prove anything?

Any difference of how these are experienced – like for example are plants, rocks, or animals any diiferent than humans?

Still its hard to see , that the rock could be seen as self , animals yes no difference then humas .,

What͛'s the difference apart from the ideas about that?

No difference

Does that prove anything?

no , proving its also just a thought

Does the voice/speech itself contain their history, personality, intentions, or opinion of you? Or are those supplied by thought?

This is supplied by thoughts.

What is actually being seen or heard?

seen text , message

What does thought add about “them”?

The message implies the label problem with future event that should have some bad outcome - thought

What does thought add about “me”?

They should aunderstand, they are angry on me.

Which part is directly experienced? Which part is interpretation?

All is interpretation , thought

And most importantly where is the interpretation/the story happening - “here” or “over there”?

not here or over there

Where are the colours, sounds, etc... happening - "here" or "there"? What is outside of just THIS?

There is no here or there. its just happening .

And look closely:
Can the “other person” as you know them be found at all in direct experience?

no

Or is there present sensory input plus a very large thought-story about who they are?

sensory input + a thought

Use one real interaction and report exactly what was seen, heard, felt, and thought.
I am sitting in the office , seeing happens , hearing other people talking , hearing voices, the mind tells a story of memory thought of the person who is talking with other person. But just the seeing and the hearing happens.

Big thanks Vytas :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Vytas :)
One important clarification…

Can you find a self in other human bodies (aka colours) ? How do you KNOW it’s there?

Its the label person - thought , I know it by thought and sound , seeing , hearing ...

A thought appearing is direct experience. But the CONTENT of the thought is not. For example:
You see colours. You hear sounds. Then thought says: “person”/“my wife”/“my co-worker”/“there is someone in that body” The thought itself is present. But does what the thought says become directly experienced just because the thought says it?
So look at another person who is actually in front of you.
Can you find a self inside those colours and shapes?
Can you hear a self inside the sound of the voice?
How is it KNOWN that there is a separate “someone” inside that body?
Is that actually seen? Actually heard? Actually felt?
Or is there seeing, hearing, and then thought appearing in DE
Be very careful here: seeing is DE, hearing is DE, thought is DE, but what thought is ABOUT is not DE.
So when you say: “I know it by thought and sound, seeing, hearing…” Look again.
Do seeing and hearing themselves tell you there is a separate self there?
Or does thought interpret the seeing and hearing and then say there is?
Where is the KNOWER of thoughts?
Another way to check this… Take the thought: “There is a person there.” Now replace the words with: “bla bla bla.”
In direct experience, what is the difference between the two thoughts?
Both are simply thoughts appearing.
So how is it known that one thought is “true” or refers to something real, while the other does not?
Is that difference found in seeing? In hearing? In sensation? Or only in another thought that gives meaning to the words?
Thoughts say a lot of BS as we’ve seen already, so for the purpose of that inquiry you might as well replace them with “bla, bla, bla” Would then be known that there is a self in a “human body” (which is a label for sensations and colours by the way, and sensations and colours are not containers :) )?

Look at another person in front of you. There are colours and sounds. Then thought says: / “person” / “wife”/ “co-worker” / “there is someone in there”/. But if the thought-content were replaced with “bla bla bla,” would the colours or sounds change?
So where exactly is the meaning? And how is it known? Is meaning directly experienced?
Or is meaning another thought added to thought?

And most importantly where is the interpretation/the story happening - “here” or “over there”?

not here or over there

When I asked whether the interpretation/story is happening “here” or “over there,” I did not mean a physical location. What I meant by “here” is “your” conditioning — the learned way sounds, words, facial expressions, etc. are interpreted and given meaning. For example, a sound is heard. Then thought may interpret: “they are angry”/ “they like me”/ …
Is that meaning contained in the sound itself?
Or is the meaning added through conditioning, memory, language, expectation, and previous experience?

Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “Vytas's world,” the totality of his experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it - Vytas's bubble of "reality".
Even in ordinary life, the same words can mean different things to different “people” or different things in different situations.
Could two people hear the same words and understand them differently? If yes, then is the meaning really “in” the sound?
Or is there sound, and then interpretation?
Look at one real conversation:
What was actually heard?
What meaning was added?
And most importantly, was the interpretation contained in what was heard, or was it supplied by conditioning?
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hey Vytas

I forgot to mention that I'll be on a yoga retreat until Sunday. I'm not sure what the Wi-Fi or reception will be like, but I'll check in whenever I can.

So if my replies are a bit slower than usual, don't wait on me. 😊

Love
Rali

[Vytas2222]

hey Rali ,

Before I begin with inquiry your suggestion looking at me and them was very correct :) I know its just thoughts just wanted to share ...

A thought appearing is direct experience. But the CONTENT of the thought is not. For example:
You see colours. You hear sounds. Then thought says: “person”/“my wife”/“my co-worker”/“there is someone in that body” The thought itself is present. But does what the thought says become directly experienced just because the thought says it?

No

So look at another person who is actually in front of you.

Can you find a self inside those colours and shapes?

no

Can you hear a self inside the sound of the voice?

no

How is it KNOWN that there is a separate “someone” inside that body?

by thought

Is that actually seen? Actually heard? Actually felt?

no

Or is there seeing, hearing, and then thought appearing in DE

yes

Be very careful here: seeing is DE, hearing is DE, thought is DE, but what thought is ABOUT is not DE.
So when you say: “I know it by thought and sound, seeing, hearing…” Look again.

Do seeing and hearing themselves tell you there is a separate self there?

no

Or does thought interpret the seeing and hearing and then say there is?

yes

Where is the KNOWER of thoughts?

Can't understand the question - the knower is also a thought

Another way to check this… Take the thought: “There is a person there.” Now replace the words with: “bla bla bla.”
In direct experience, what is the difference between the two thoughts?

No difference

So how is it known that one thought is “true” or refers to something real, while the other does not?

Its also a thought

Is that difference found in seeing? In hearing? In sensation? Or only in another thought that gives meaning to the words?

another thought that gives meaning

Thoughts say a lot of BS as we’ve seen already, so for the purpose of that inquiry you might as well replace them with “bla, bla, bla” Would then be known that there is a self in a “human body” (which is a label for sensations and colours by the way, and sensations and colours are not containers :) )?

no

Look at another person in front of you. There are colours and sounds. Then thought says: / “person” / “wife”/ “co-worker” / “there is someone in there”/. But if the thought-content were replaced with “bla bla bla,” would the colours or sounds change?

no they wont change

So where exactly is the meaning? And how is it known? Is meaning directly experienced?
Or is meaning another thought added to thought?

meaning is another thought

When I asked whether the interpretation/story is happening “here” or “over there,” I did not mean a physical location. What I meant by “here” is “your” conditioning — the learned way sounds, words, facial expressions, etc. are interpreted and given meaning. For example, a sound is heard. Then thought may interpret: “they are angry”/ “they like me”/ …
Is that meaning contained in the sound itself?

no

Or is the meaning added through conditioning, memory, language, expectation, and previous experience?

yes the meaning added thought

Could two people hear the same words and understand them differently? If yes, then is the meaning really “in” the sound?

yes two people can hear same words differently , no the meaning is added by the thoughts

Or is there sound, and then interpretation?

- yes

Look at one real conversation:
What was actually heard?
What meaning was added?
And most importantly, was the interpretation contained in what was heard, or was it supplied by conditioning?

I was talking with my wife , actlualy heard sound - label words that she will pick me up in 10 minutes .. The meaning was added that I have to hurry up , that she will be soon ...

Sorry for my english i can't understand this correctly I will answer how I understand - and most importantly, was the interpretation contained in what was heard, or was it supplied by conditioning?

Interpretation comes after that , but supplied wife said ten minutes , she is in a hurry i have to hurry ,,, So the thoughts of interpretation what was said ...

Have a good retreat .... Rali , maybe. I will wait till Sunday ......

Thank you very much and have a great time during the retreat...

Vytas