Ready to kill anything false

[Hannah B-T]

Nice!
The 'visual images' thing laid on top is so cool to see isn't it...
cooking with gas :)

Let's go all the way with this whilst I'm sensing momentum here...

Take a wide view now and throughout the day in different situations of all sensations arising, with this pointer in mind:

Is there actually an 'inside/outside' to your direct experience? Anywhere?

Which is more accurate to your direct experience to say-

that the body is the perciever...or that the body is perceived as a label for certain sensations (called tactile and kinesthetic for instance)

[yoshi8]

Hi Hannah

I just typed out quite a long reply and think I covered quite a lot of realizations and then the tab closed by mistake and I lost it all. I am pretty gutted to say the least. I will not make this makes again and will type in word from now on. i will try and remember what I said and post again soon :(

[Hannah B-T]

Should have warned you about that...apologies..
No problem or rush. Maybe just sleep on it and see what emerges in the morning...might be even clearer...

xx

[yoshi8]

Note! - Ctrl+Shift+T re-opens tabs you closed previously..and my God it worked! The tab re opened and there was my post. lol I was so gutted and the so happy I did not have to start again. I did however burn the crap out of my dinner in the process. :)

Take a wide view now and throughout the day in different situations of all sensations arising, with this pointer in mind:

Is there actually an 'inside/outside' to your direct experience? Anywhere?

I found this more difficult at first simply because it was much harder to catch what was going on in different situations with all sensations and not have the image kick in senses work together to form an image. i.e. running hand down wall and seeing hand run wall and both these combine in mind as external objects interacting... so inside and out.

However I sat down in a chair and went through sensations individually and directly. Making sounds with my hands, teeth and voice. The sounds alone even when created by my body gives no indication of an external object creating it. There is awareness of listening directly... I don't even know if there is a sound really not in direct experience as there is only listening. I mean nothing in that direct experience points to there being an external sound outside my body or inside. I don't catch listening seeing a sound arrive as a external experience. Mentally I can say I created an external sound which was then is heard by my ears but that's not my direct experience of listening. I did the same with taste and smell with the same results. As on their own as a direct experience there is awareness of smell and taste arising. But even arising is of time... so there is awareness, this presence and within presence is taste, sound, small, touch occurring but none of these things directly give information about anything external to the sense directly on their own. They are not experienced independent of the the sense.

So it seem then that the mind is creating a reality based on combing these senses. Like having an advanced VR suit on that can relay touch, smell, vision and sound with the computer combing them to create what seems like an external world. If everyone has the same type of VR suit on connecting to the same computer they will experience the same perceived reality. However switch off the computer part (mind/image created/ program) and that external reality collapses.

( Sorry if I went off on last paragraph was just trying to grasp it)

Which is more accurate to your direct experience to say-

that the body is the perciever...or that the body is perceived as a label for certain sensations (called tactile and kinesthetic for instance)

I am finding this difficult to answer and I am not sure if I am not understanding the question or I am struggling with the phrase 'the body' as I don't want to make a wrong jump from single sense to body without being clear what I am saying is true.

To use my previous analogy I think I can say the body is a VR suit which from direct experience without the computer (mind) does not give me any indication alone if their is an external world to the suit or not. Does that make sense?

[Hannah B-T]

I was so gutted and the so happy I did not have to start again

What was this 'i' that felt these things?

The sounds alone even when created by my body gives no indication of an external object creating it

Why did you use 'external' here? Are the body sensations external? Internal?

Mentally I can say I created an external sound which was then is heard by my ears but that's not my direct experience of listening

yes, well spotted, this is all thought commentary.

But even arising is of time... so there is awareness, this presence and within presence is taste, sound, small, touch occurring but none of these things directly give information about anything external to the sense directly on their own. They are not experienced independent of the the sense.

So where does this leave 'internal' and 'external'?

So it seem then that the mind is creating a reality based on combing these senses. Like having an advanced VR suit on that can relay touch, smell, vision and sound with the computer combing them to create what seems like an external world. If everyone has the same type of VR suit on connecting to the same computer they will experience the same perceived reality. However switch off the computer part (mind/image created/ program) and that external reality collapses.

Afraid that his bit is going off into theorectical speculation even if based on what you found. But great you clocked this...you beat me to it ;)

( Sorry if I went off on last paragraph was just trying to grasp it)

No, it was seen way before that...this is the thoughts commentating on and trying to find 'meaning' in the direct experience which is actually blindingly simple and clean....there is no meaning in d.e. It just IS. Thoughts can't seem to cope well with that!

Stick with reporting cleanly from d.e and this process will be a breeze...

I am finding this difficult to answer and I am not sure if I am not understanding the question or I am struggling with the phrase 'the body' as I don't want to make a wrong jump from single sense to body without being clear what I am saying is true.

Great, appreciate the honesty here. Exactly what i'm after, feedback on what's not clear.

Ok try these:

Look at your hand/arm. What really makes it 'your' arm? Or even 'an arm'?
look in the mirror and tell me what is seen in direct experience. Look deep into the eyes. Can you see a 'self' in there anywhere?
Are 'you' the body? Are you 'in' the body? What is the word 'body' pointing to in direct experience?

[yoshi8]

Ok thanks I will look at all this and try the exercises as suggested and report back what i find.

[yoshi8]

Hi

In this reply I have put some of my inner dialogue in italics in that may be useful but does not directly answer the final answer I have put.

What was this 'i' that felt these things?

Seeing the tab close by error, thought started the dialogue of the loss with vague images and internal dialogue. Feelings of loss arose seemingly instantly in the gut area, heavy and contracted feeling which was felt physically.
So the mind or thought dialogue stimulated the feeling and took ownership of it as an “I” thought…. “I feel”. Connecting the feeling in that area of the body with internal dialogue and the mental image of everything that happens in the body as “I”.

Thought arose in awareness, feeling arose in awareness, physical reaction happened in awareness.
How does thought know? How does thought know there is a feeling in the gut. Because it’s all happening in awareness which they arise in. Now this awareness does not know if gutted is happening in someone else as a feeling as it cannot be felt.

So “I” thought is clearly saying that anything that is felt within this awareness by the body is “I”. That the body is container of awareness or limited to it which I know is not true.

So only the gut felt in awareness. No “I” felt anything, no “I” thought felt anything.

Why did you use 'external' here? Are the body sensations external? Internal?

Habit!

Neither external or internal from direct experience. They just are happening with in awareness. Dare I say my awareness!

Ahh I just had a thought when I typed the last line. What if there is only one awareness and the seeming divide is simply the delusion of separation. The ‘I’ thought talking ownership of the body as a container of awareness.

So where does this leave 'internal' and 'external'?

It leaves it at the level of thought and not direct experience.

Look at your hand/arm. What really makes it 'your' arm? Or even 'an arm'?

The ‘I’ thought says it is my arm. Do I have direct experience of this? No. In regards to this question I think ‘pain’ is something I feel I need to examine. What I mean is if someone stabbed ‘my’ arm that direct experience as an extreme sensation might help me further understand if it is ‘my’ arm.

‘Arm’ as an image is conceptual only.

look in the mirror and tell me what is seen in direct experience. Look deep into the eyes. Can you see a 'self' in there anywhere?

Surprisingly empty! In fact if it was possible looking at the reflection of ‘my body’ in a mirror or ‘my body’ in a coffin would be pretty much the same. No self was seen.

Are 'you' the body? Are you 'in' the body? What is the word 'body' pointing to in direct experience?

The body as an object, a feeler in the world, a container of thoughts and awareness this is what has been taught and on it is this I am questioning if it’s true.

I feel like I can say the ‘body’ is not me but the ‘I’ thought says ok but it belongs to you. Direct experience does not point to me being ‘in’ the body unless ‘I’ is generated by the brain which I think it is being generated by the brain but that does not mean it’s real.

In direct experience the body is pointing to textures, colours, sounds and sensations all happening in awareness.

[Hannah B-T]

So only the gut felt in awareness. No “I” felt anything, no “I” thought felt anything.

Yes! Thoughts can't feel.
Can they 'do' anything except be thoughts?
For instance a common perception is that the 'i' thoughts control the body...

like
'i'm going to walk into the kitchen and get a sandwich'
How is that seen now?

Habit!

Oh yes :)
Just to make it clear, in no way are we looking to 'do' anything with these thoughts. That wouldn't even be possible. This is about just clearly seeing that what they are talking about, this 'i', cannot be verified in direct experience.

It leaves it at the level of thought and not direct experience.

Nice.
So where does this leave 'i'? ;)

The ‘I’ thought says it is my arm. Do I have direct experience of this? No

Well spotted.

In regards to this question I think ‘pain’ is something I feel I need to examine. What I mean is if someone stabbed ‘my’ arm that direct experience as an extreme sensation might help me further understand if it is ‘my’ arm.

I've got the perfect video for you to take a look at, it's very short....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk
Let me know what comes up about watching that.

Surprisingly empty! In fact if it was possible looking at the reflection of ‘my body’ in a mirror or ‘my body’ in a coffin would be pretty much the same. No self was seen.

Any feelings/sensations come up around this, any 'weirdness'/apparent problems coming up with looking/interacting with other people? let me know.

‘I’ thought says ok but it belongs to you.

Ok, so find me this 'you' that the body belongs to!

Direct experience does not point to me being ‘in’ the body unless ‘I’ is generated by the brain which I think it is being generated by the brain but that does not mean it’s real.

What is this 'i' you think is being generated by the brain?

You are so close here...just keep looking

xx

[Hannah B-T]

Andy?
Let me know what's going on...even if just..'still looking'

xx

[yoshi8]

Hi Hannah I sent you a PM yesterday just to let you know I would be reporting back today.

Hope you got it :)

[yoshi8]

Yes! Thoughts can't feel.
Can they 'do' anything except be thoughts?
For instance a common perception is that the 'i' thoughts control the body...

like
'i'm going to walk into the kitchen and get a sandwich'
How is that seen now?

It never really occurred to me but it seems like thoughts don’t control anything at all. Or at least “conscious thought”.

“I’m going to walk into the kitchen and get a sandwich” is just a suggestion or observation by thought. “Conscious” thought has no power to act or control that action. So what acts? When I look at this closely it becomes very hazy. Like I just can’t see a definite controller of the body.

If I get a itch and I just scratch it then that can happen without a conscious thought of “Scratch that itch.”
Now if I say “What type of soft drink should I choose, cola or pepsi?” It seems a lot of complex things are going on there. Memory, emotions, subconscious, reason etc.. then the body seems to choose.

So where does this leave 'i'? ;)

I was trying to look for an ‘experiencer’ today. Then it occurred that experience and awareness being the same thing. I was looking for the ‘I’ as being this awareness but it’s a thought that occurs in awareness. Then I thought is this observing awareness true ‘self’ not the ‘I thought’ which is fleeting but the awareness in which it occurs.
So I know this is speculation but false self “I thought” and true self is non personal “awareness”.

I've got the perfect video for you to take a look at, it's very short....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk
Let me know what comes up about watching that.

Yes that was the perfect video for this!

What came up was the arm and body is a non personal tool that belongs to no one. So the experience of intense pain is just that no matter if it happens to the ‘body’ or just arises as experience in the brain. It’s pain happening in awareness.

Which being me back to the ‘self’ and ‘experiencer’ and heart. If I see suffering in someone else then it does not seem non-personal. It seems very personal and very specific to them.

What is experiencing? And if awareness and experience are one and the same. Is awareness experiencing it’s self?

Any feelings/sensations come up around this, any 'weirdness'/apparent problems coming up with looking/interacting with other people? let me know.

I looked at this today and it was like I was looking at (un)conscious awareness. Walking through a crowd of people that it seemed that is what was being observed. The bodies seemed irrelevant like they just happened to be bodies in this awareness. There was no weirdness at all just looking.

What is this 'i' you think is being generated by the brain?

A story, a continuing narrative for the ‘I’ to take part in. To keep it alive and doing stuff. “I’ seems like an insurance policy being taken out by the brain to protect the DNA.

[Hannah B-T]

It never really occurred to me but it seems like thoughts don’t control anything at all

Remember what I said about 'seems'. Please don't bring me 'seems'! ;)
Find me something that concious thought controls over the next 24 hours and bring me that instead.
Try this...

Tap with two or three fingers on the leg. Tap, tap, tap. Then, hold the fingers poised ready to tap. Just waiting in the air for a command to tap.

Looking at the fingers in the air, it’s not quite known when they will tap. In fact, the thought “tap now” can quite happily show up and yet the fingers remain in the air.

Watch till the fingers tap.

What caused the finger to tap? Anything? See what can be discovered in experience rather than thought.

Or at least “conscious thought”.

As opposed to what other type of thought?
And if it's not 'concious' how is it percieved in direct experience?

When I look at this closely it becomes very hazy. Like I just can’t see a definite controller of the body

Well, can you find a controller of the body, or not? Keep looking until this is clear...

Now if I say “What type of soft drink should I choose, cola or pepsi?” It seems a lot of complex things are going on there. Memory, emotions, subconscious, reason etc.. then the body seems to choose.

I hoped we'd get to choice...
Sooo...from what you've been looking at so far....if the body doesn't have 'a controller', and 'i' thoughts don't control it...well i don't see a 'self' in there anywhere so far...
Tip- look for the exact 'choicepoint' within ANY apparent choice, and for a 'chooser'... tell me what you find out.

I was trying to look for an ‘experiencer’ today. Then it occurred that experience and awareness being the same thing. I was looking for the ‘I’ as being this awareness but it’s a thought that occurs in awareness. Then I thought is this observing awareness true ‘self’ not the ‘I thought’ which is fleeting but the awareness in which it occurs.
So I know this is speculation but false self “I thought” and true self is non personal “awareness”.

Not interested in speculation...
do you find a personal, separate observer or experiencer in direct experiencing before conceptualisation?
Really...it's literally mind bogglingly simple...

It’s pain happening in awareness.

one way of putting in. In this forum it's often put is such ways as 'pain is hapenning'...'pleasure is hapenning' 'life is lifeing'..which seem to point to the the same thing.

Which being me back to the ‘self’ and ‘experiencer’ and heart. If I see suffering in someone else then it does not seem non-personal. It seems very personal and very specific to them.

or it seems personal and specific to 'you'? Are you having 'their experience'? how could you possibly verify any of this? Stick to what can be investigated and verified quite simply again and again- the direct experience hapenning right now. Is ANY of that 'personal'? like this:

What is the direct experience of 'heart'?
Is that direct experience in any way 'personal'?

There was no weirdness at all just looking.

ok, keep me posted if that changes.

A story, a continuing narrative for the ‘I’ to take part in. To keep it alive and doing stuff. “I’ seems like an insurance policy being taken out by the brain to protect the DNA.

This IS the narrative! Can this be seen?! Like a mobius strip...
the i is a story for the i to take part in...being taken out by the brain (another 'i') to protect the dna (another i)...and round and round the wheel goes...
step off the wheel and just take a look... do any of these 'i's actually exist?

what's the difference between 'i' and 'batman'?

[yoshi8]

Find me something that concious thought controls over the next 24 hours and bring me that instead.
Try this...

What caused the finger to tap? Anything? See what can be discovered in experience rather than thought.

Looking nothing can be found that conscious thought controls directly. It is like this back seat driver that just suggests.

The finger tap I tried and actually tried something very similar yesterday as I was trying to see if thought controls the body. I can’t catch what is making the fingers tap when they do or it’s at a level that can’t be directly seen. I saw this today that when I get into the car to drive then it just happens. When I was learning to drive the body had to learn to coordinate everything then it became a known pattern. I guess what is known as procedural memory in which your unconsciously accessing previous experiences.

As opposed to what other type of thought?
And if it's not 'concious' how is it percieved in direct experience

?

Well I guess I meant the unconscious level that which cannot be perceived directly. Like when I drive a car it’s not done at a conscious level anymore, things that are remembered are automatically translated into actions.
Again I know this is conceptual in regards to direct experience.

Well, can you find a controller of the body, or not? Keep looking until this is clear...

No in direct experience I cannot find a controller of the body just a back seat driver as mentioned.

I hoped we'd get to choice...
Sooo...from what you've been looking at so far....if the body doesn't have 'a controller', and 'i' thoughts don't control it...well i don't see a 'self' in there anywhere so far...
Tip- look for the exact 'choicepoint' within ANY apparent choice, and for a 'chooser'... tell me what you find out.

I looked to see if I could see a chooser in direct experience. I can see how the ‘chooser’ is a big thing to people in regards to ‘self’, the choices “I” make.

What I saw when I was in the supermarket apparently making choices is that when a choice was being made a desire arose as feeling and then that was the ’choicepoint’ in direct experience. Yes I could say memory, price etc.. where involved but feeling was where the choice was made. Even if the thought is “Well that one is half price” (logic) that is still not making the choice directly. Same as the tap fingers example as a thought.

do you find a personal, separate observer or experiencer in direct experiencing before conceptualisation?
Really...it's literally mind bogglingly simple...

In direct experience no. The experincer only appears after conceptualization.
I guess this all leads to the area of agreement between the senses and the reality effect it creates of a ‘self’ an ‘experincer’ the bit that puts all this stuff together to create this seeming reality.

one way of putting in. In this forum it's often put is such ways as 'pain is hapenning'...'pleasure is hapenning' 'life is lifeing'..which seem to point to the the same thing.

It points to its not happening to anyone, it’s just happening.

What is the direct experience of 'heart'?
Is that direct experience in any way 'personal'

If I say the heart as a mental structure is the centre of emotions. When an experience happens which is heart felt i.e. a death of someone, happiness for someone getting married etc.. then these strong emotions arise. They are there in awareness, the direct experience is pain is painful, happiness is happy. That is the direct experience.
Is it personal? As a direct experience no at the conceptual level then yes.

I feel I need to gain further clarity on this or look at this in more detail as I think this is my real sticking point.

This IS the narrative! Can this be seen?! Like a mobius strip...
the i is a story for the i to take part in...being taken out by the brain (another 'i') to protect the dna (another i)...and round and round the wheel goes...
step off the wheel and just take a look... do any of these 'i's actually exist?

what's the difference between 'i' and 'batman'?

Yes I see the subtlety of this how the ‘I’ plays the game of being separate from the narrative.

A chair is a concept and defined by it’s use. So if I turn it upside down and go down a snowy hill on it than it’s a sledge or can be seen as a chair being used as a sledge. I am equating this to these ‘I’s. They exist as concepts. And as I mentioned earlier the agreement between the senses give ‘weight’ to the reality of an ‘I’. It’s reality is it’s use, it’s frequency and support.

However in direct experience the ‘I’ has moved to the back seat of the car, a concept like batman but a very strong one.

xx

[Hannah B-T]

Looking nothing can be found that conscious thought controls directly. It is like this back seat driver that just suggests.

Nice. Keep checking this, because this story can be incessant...'i am doing' 'i did this' 'i should have done' 'why didn't i'...
huh?! :)

But the metaphor of 'back seat driver' inherently implies a 'front seat driver'...what's the front seat driver then?

Well I guess I meant the unconscious level that which cannot be perceived directly. Like when I drive a car it’s not done at a conscious level anymore, things that are remembered are automatically translated into actions.
Again I know this is conceptual in regards to direct experience.

Yes.
Do you directly experience an 'unconcious'? What or how is that experienced?

Let's look at memory as this is related.

When do thoughts about the past (memory) occur?
When do thoughts about the future (fantasy) occur?
Give me a response to this statement
'Nothing exists outside the present moment'.
can you find anything that does?

No in direct experience I cannot find a controller of the body just a back seat driver as mentioned.

Great! Isn't it a relief to feel confident to just let the body look after itself. which is what it's always been doing anyway...

What I saw when I was in the supermarket apparently making choices is that when a choice was being made a desire arose as feeling and then that was the ’choicepoint’ in direct experience. Yes I could say memory, price etc.. where involved but feeling was where the choice was made.

I want you to be really exact with me what you mean by 'feeling' here, as it's not clear.
A particular body sensation?
Did this feeling make/cause the choice, or is it more likely it just arose around the choice being made?

In direct experience no. The experincer only appears after conceptualization.

Let's be clear with simple language here. I would say this as :
there is no experiencer of life. there are just thoughts after the experience occurs talking about an 'i' that experiences, which when looked for cannot be found.
Would you agree with this statement?

It points to its not happening to anyone, it’s just happening.

So can you find ANY experience that is happening to a self, rather than just happening?

If I say the heart as a mental structure is the centre of emotions.

This makes no sense at all to me.
Most people describe the heart as a physical place in the body made of sensations...
but you describe a 'mental structure'...
i can't find any 'mental structures' when i look. Just thoughts, arising and passing away...
Where is this structure? How does it contain or act as the 'centre of emotions'?

then these strong emotions arise. They are there in awareness, the direct experience is pain is painful, happiness is happy. That is the direct experience.

no, 'happiness', 'anger' even 'pain' (probably most difficult to see this) are the thought labels for the direct experience. Which when i look BEFORE the labelling- is made of physical sensation. Could you check this in your experience for me?

Please try this for me. When an emotion arises, try to track right back to the raw sensations and describe them.
For instance...
anxiety- 'contraction in the solar plexus area and in the throat area'...then thoughts may arise 'i am angry with x for doing y to me'..
Then look at- is it possible very similar sensations re being labelled as very different emotions?
What is this 'i' these labels refer to? Can it be found?
We can go into as much detail as needed with this area, as this is a common sticking point...

A chair is a concept and defined by it’s use. So if I turn it upside down and go down a snowy hill on it than it’s a sledge or can be seen as a chair being used as a sledge. I am equating this to these ‘I’s. They exist as concepts. And as I mentioned earlier the agreement between the senses give ‘weight’ to the reality of an ‘I’. It’s reality is it’s use, it’s frequency and support.

yes, but the word 'chair' points to something that can be experienced directly through the senses, whether in that moment it is called 'chair' 'sledge' 'firewood'...
what about 'i'...in whatever form it presents itself...does it ever point to something like chair?

Phew, covered alot today!
xx

[yoshi8]

Hi Hannah,

Thanks for your time on all this and yes alot has been covered! I am still going through all this and will report back on what I find.

xx