Please guide me

[katiegmorrow]

Dear Paolo,

I'm phasing in and out of something--it's like being a space where the questions don't make any sense; it's sort of questionless. And then back to something which feels more ordinary--all me-ish, busy mind trying to make sense and failing utterly again and again. No experiencer found. But no sense of giving up the project either from that side of the fence.

I have also been noticing the power of thoughts to induce various reactions--this is pretty familiar and something I've worked with for some time. What is more scary is the vividness of feelings and responses in the absence of (any catchable) thought--a less personal response you could say. It's a bit hard to describe. Like prickles and ripples that move without any reason--the sort of bare bones feelingness of being alive, I guess.

Right now the thought comes--"I'm not a very good student. This is not a satisfactory response to Paolo." This thought--which I'm pretty sure in the past I would have pushed aside with impatience and some self-disgust-- now suddenly is making me smile. Kind of like, nice try...

as always with my thanks,

Katie

[Paulo]

Hi Katie,

Right now the thought comes--"I'm not a very good student. This is not a satisfactory response to Paolo."

And can you see that this thought, and it's accompanying feelings (no matter how vivid), is as illusory as your journey to the bottom of the ocean?

As you seem to like diving :-) - let's dive into direct experience (see Neil's article here, if you haven't read it already - http://www.liberationunleashed.com/Arti ... ience.html )

We will first look at THOUGHT –

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of the above in as much detail as you can.

How did the thought arrive? Was there a ‘you’ there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

Paulo.

[katiegmorrow]

Dear Paolo,

Actually I'm perfectly sure that 'i' don't think my thoughts--they arrive, no choice. Imaginations arise, no choice. No thinker...just thoughts. As to what responds to the thoughts when they arise, I am still looking--on the one hand the response is also a choiceless thought and on the other hand it feels alive. So the experiencer, the responder is more where I feel stuck.

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

That seems to me to be an interesting, but unanswerable question. Unanswerable because any answer could only be from speculation or inference. "I" don't exist in whatever arena there is from which thoughts seemingly arise.

I reported that particular thought because there was a freshness in the response to it--a kind of enjoyment which is new.

love, katie

[katiegmorrow]

Dear Paolo,

Just realised I didn't give you the information you asked for. So here is as much detail as I can muster.

And can you see that this thought, and it's accompanying feelings (no matter how vivid), is as illusory as your journey to the bottom of the ocean?

yes

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of the above in as much detail as you can.

How did the thought arrive? Was there a ‘you’ there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

first a few thoughts about the exercise came up, then a kind of assenting thought (okay, think of a car), then the image of a car arose, then more thoughts "about" the image, plus all around this various thoughts connected with keeping track, noticing, reporting back

No idea how any of that happened--ie there was no chooser deciding to do the exercise and no chooser coming up with the particular car, no chooser deciding to have various opinions, no choice in whether to notice, keep track etc

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

again--anything that can be said here is just another thought, there is no (I don't have) privileged behind-the-scenes access.

Is this what you wanted to know?

Katie

[Paulo]

Hi Katie, thanks for being so thorough in your looking - big gold star for you :-)

No idea how any of that happened--ie there was no chooser deciding to do the exercise and no chooser coming up with the particular car

Exactly right, thoughts are reactions to stimuli, in this case sensory stimuli (visual: words written on screen). Those thoughts arise without any seperate entity sitting there on a cloud and sorting through all possible cars, before making a decision to deliver a particular one to awareness.

As to what responds to the thoughts when they arise, I am still looking--on the one hand the response is also a choiceless thought and on the other hand it feels alive. So the experiencer, the responder is more where I feel stuck.

Look at the piece above in light of your experience with the 'car exercise', and what you've seen by doing the 'jump test' in regards to how thoughts can be mistaken for reality.

Consider, on the basis of your own experience, if thoughts not only arise in reaction to actual stimuli, but also OTHER thoughts, which are mistaken FOR stimuli?

What then is responding to thoughts as they arise?

Paulo.

[katiegmorrow]

Thanks for the gold star, Paolo! I will add it to my collection which I have asked be buried with me when I die.

I'm feeling a bit thick here--what do you mean by "actual stimuli"--are you making a distinction between sensory impressions and mental thoughts?

What is being stimulated? What has the power to stimulate?

thanks, katie

[Paulo]

Hi Katie,

No problem I'll clarify (might just me my phrasing!)- what I'm calling 'actual stimuli' are indeed 'sensory impressions' recieved through physical sense organs. These are different from mental thoughts, which can be mistaken for sensory impressions.

Let's directly link that to my question to make things a little clearer -

No thinker...just thoughts. As to what responds to the thoughts when they arise, I am still looking--on the one hand the response is also a choiceless thought and on the other hand it feels alive. So the experiencer, the responder is more where I feel stuck.

What I hear you saying here is -

1. that thougthts arise by themselves (this is in reaction to sensory impressions, i.e.: text on a computer screen).
2. that there is some 'thing' (an experiencer/responder) that responds to those thoughts, but is seperate from them (i.e. a seperate entity).

So, I'm asking you to draw upon your own experience to look at this closer -

1. In the car exercise you saw that thoughts simply arrive, without an 'I' directing them, in response to sensory impressions.
2. From the 'diving test', where you imagined diving to the bottom of the ocean, you saw through a reluctance to dive to the bottom of the ocean, that thoughts can be mistaken for 'actual stimuli'/'sensory impressions', and other thoughts arise in reaction to these.

So, let's tie those elements together into an 'action sequence' -

1. A bunch of words about thinking of a car, that some idiot called Paulo wrote, are read on screen.
2. Thoughts appeared in reaction to those sensory impressions, some about the exercise, a car, and a bunch of other stuff. All appeared without an 'I' there directing them.
3. Those thoughts that appeared were mistaken FOR sensory impressions (remember the 'jump test' and 'diving test' here) and other thoughts appeared in reaction to them. All appeared without an 'I' directing them - all automatic.

You correctly recognised that those thoughts responding to other thoughts appeared without anything choosing them, but somehow it felt as if there was some 'thing' there.

So, the next logical question is -

What then is responding to thoughts as they arise?

Paulo.

[katiegmorrow]

Whew! Ok, I think I get it--thanks for being so explicit about the logic.

I'm not convinced by the first half of your #3

Those thoughts that appeared were mistaken FOR sensory impressions

which seems to me could also be "Those thoughts that appeared are another sense impression" but I am not sure that it really matters--because either way, the second half holds.

other thoughts appeared in reaction to them. All appeared without an 'I' directing them - all automatic.

I

Big relaxation around this now. Yeah, of course, I don't will my response--it just happens (and then there is the thought "Now I have to do something about this.")

So I'm back to response happens (experience happens--same thing) -- no I in the background making it happen.

This now feels quite clear intellectually, and so to summarise, I guess I better cop to what I've seen so far (at least at this level):

No I behind thoughts.
No I behind feelings.
No I behind action.
No I behind responses (whether to thoughts or to sensory impressions) and those responses are just more thoughts or feelings or actions.

Yikes--there really is no ground to stand on. Unfortunately, at the moment, at some level something is still playing the I-game--so if I don't see it one place I somehow don't notice how I am pretending it is in another place. Or something like that. It's sort of like I keep assuming that the next thought (upcoming response) or the previous thought (past stimuli) is where the "I" resides so the alarming quality around the fact that I can never experience it is placated. (And yes, I do see that "the alarming quality" is another thought...endless...)

It's very interesting being in this space of "I see it but I don't believe it." And I am starting to notice the possibility that if "I" is truly just a thought than it can never be (because it is not capable of being) convinced. A thought doesn't think, as they say.

What then is responding to thoughts as they arise?

It just does itself and I don't know what it is responding--response is real but the responder isn't found.

[Paulo]

Whew indeed!!

response is real but the responder isn't found

Sure, just like - 'thoughts are real, but the content is not'.

Does there HAVE to be a responder? Is this just an expectation/assumption, where in reality there is only awareness of a response?

Take a good look and see if 'responder' is what's actually happening, or just awareness of response.

I keep assuming that the next thought (upcoming response) or the previous thought (past stimuli) is where the "I" resides so the alarming quality around the fact that I can never experience it is placated. (And yes, I do see that "the alarming quality" is another thought...endless...)

So stop assuming, start LOOKING. Thoughts are indeed an endless stream, but the big question here is -

Is there a thinker behind those thoughts, separate from them?

It's very interesting being in this space of "I see it but I don't believe it." And I am starting to notice the possibility that if "I" is truly just a thought than it can never be (because it is not capable of being) convinced. A thought doesn't think, as they say.

There's no convincing here, only looking at what is, only experiencing reality. A convincing argument is just another thought. This 'possibility' you speak of is just another thought too ... sooooo .....

Is there a thinker behind those thoughts, that exists separate from them?

Paulo.

[katiegmorrow]

Dear Paolo,

It looks like my post yesterday--very minimal in any case--somehow got lost. Something is relaxing around this now--looking, looking--intention to see the truth--

cheers, katie

[Paulo]

Thanks Katie,

Yes, sometimes the system has a little 'burp' and loses posts. Have another go at the questions in my previous post, and share what you've seen.

Paulo.

[katiegmorrow]

Dear Paolo,

I have to go away for a week and a half and have been busy preparing for the trip--sorry not to have posted because it means the process seems to lose a bit of energy--I will keep looking and very much hope you will be able to continue with me in 10 days or so,

thanks for your patience, Katie

[Paulo]

Thanks for the update katie, let me know if you wish to continue when you return,

Paulo.