Ready for guidance

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

So, looking again at 'your' direct experience, are you saying that an action, any action, just happens, followed immediately by a thought, completely unconnected, that takes the credit, saying 'I did that!'?

Yes

Good, you can clearly see that actions happen, and not because 'you' do them, or because 'you' think 'you' do them.

There is a doubt - or maybe it is just language? If "I" am not choosing, what is?? Could it be a me who isn't "me"?

It's fundamentally about whether in your direct experience you can find any 'I' doing or controlling anything 'you' do but yeah, it does seem as if choices are made at some level, without the need or involvement of any separate entity, perhaps as the fruition of an almost infinite permutation of conditions going back to the beginning of time, or something like that.

Okay, this speaks to what I was saying above - the how-does-choice-exist question.
It seems like it may be language tripping me up, making this seem more confusing.

I've sandwiched my attempted explanation of how 'we make' things happen between your first statement that there might still be a bit of doubt about some vestige of self still seeming to hang around and your second, just after, where you seem more convinced that it's more merely linguistic or semantic. It's virtually impossible to communicate without recourse to I/me/mine/you etc and so we continue even whilst discovering that they don't really exist. It's ironic, literally, and can be confusing, as your friend has explained to you. Also, discovering that there's no separate you-entity doesn't mean you won't still have the same personality and characteristics. 'You' are part of life living itself and the inevitable I-thoughts that arise somehow attach themselves to this feeling of aliveness, giving them such seductive power and potency. But, so long as you see them in direct experience for what they are, their power is cut off and their potency dwindles away.

Incidentally, I'm glad your friend is helping you. That's no problem at all, but please make sure that we don't cut across each other. It's important that me guiding you is strictly one-to-one until I've helped you right to the end of this process. I hope that's ok.

Okay, I can furiously think raise your arm raise your arm - but that doesn't mean I do it!
I can't find the moment of choice, or the chooser. It seems as if the physical act, and whatever immediately precedes it, which we call choice, is unrelated, in completely different circuitry than the "I" thinking about it.
Just rationally, it seems like if we had to rely on the conscious brain to direct every action, life in this body would be like directing a robot.

Great, you get all of that and, if you see that clearly, it doesn't seem as if you still retain the doubt you mentioned at the beginning of your last post. Is that right?

Ok, we've covered thoughts, indirectly, quite a bit already , but now specifically on thinking and thoughts:

Not from what you think, but from direct experience, please say:

Where do thoughts come from?

Are you in control of them?

Can you stop a thought from coming?

Can you stop it in the middle?

Do you know what the next thought will be?

Is "I" a different thought from the thought of say, a table?

Can thought think?

Sorry this is a bit long but it's going so well I didn't want to cut it short. I'm really enjoying this. How about you? How's it going or you so far?

Love, Pete

[Belinda]

Hi Pete

You wrote: Great, you get all of that and, if you see that clearly, it doesn't seem as if you still retain the doubt you mentioned at the beginning of your last post. Is that right?

Me: Well, it is weird... All of that is seen, AND "I" am still here (though believed less). So it changes nothing. Except it does! Felt is a tension...almost like a thought that the thinker must be taught, convinced. No that's not quite it.
Succinctly I guess the thinker still freaks out. I don't know how else to say it, describe it. But thinking of course doesn't need to stop, in order for this to be true. Right? The "I" doubts, is confused, because all of this happens around and underneath and surrounding her - it seems to undercut her power. There is a reflexive tension. (And I feel like I don't really know how to write about this.)

You also asked how this process is going for me. I am enjoying this - there is quite a lot of freedom, sometimes -and there's this tension.
I think a lot of it is how do I deal with all this thinking?? So it is good that your next questions deal with that!

You asked:

Where do thoughts come from?

Me: thoughts come from my head, my brain

Are you in control of them?

Me: no. I sometimes think I am. I sometimes think I should be. I sometimes wish I was. Those are all thoughts, too, obviously.

Can you stop a thought from coming?

Me: not on purpose, not consciously. ( maybe thinking about one subject, I am not thinking of others - like, I can't be thinking about two things at once- but that isn't ME stopping a thought.)

Can you stop it in the middle?

Me: no

Do you know what the next thought will be?

Me: no
Wow, that's true. I really think it could be/should be /is different- that whole "choose your attitude" thing, right? So, right- what about that? I DO sometimes say, to myself, let's think about x. Lets think about this person, subject, idea and read this book or article. Or, lets stop thinking and play a computer game. Or, get off the internet, Belinda, and pay attention to whats around you. I do things that direct attention to one place or another - but within that I can't control exactly where my mind goes. But- what about that intention? That counts for something...right? (Or, geesh, do I just THINK it does?)

Is "I" a different thought from the thought of say, a table?

Me: Oh. Huh. Well, yes- in the sense that the thought of "I" is invested with a lot more feelings than the thought of a table. When I think about "myself" there sometimes are a lot of feelings happening. Identification. The idea that I care more about myself than I care about a table. Seems like a whole lot of neurons fire around that - ME - and personal ness, self interest, just simple self preservation? I think about a two year old, looking in a mirror...
Taking that away - how? - I know there must be a "Belinda" that is just as unwieldy as carrying around a table - if not more.
I also know that the simple way there's a me and an I in my thoughts, it really is no different from a table. A symbol, a thing, a construct. A placeholder.

Can thought think?

Me: it seems like they are complicated. Like they can multiply. Like they have all these powers to bring out feelings & emotions and behaviors. But there can only be a thought stream of one thought at a time. (Even if there are complex body reactions, etc, those are not thoughts.) Only a thinker can think. A thought can't think. I know that's the answer - but I don't know how to directly experience that....

Belinda

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,
Just wanted to add that I feel like I'm answering at a level of thoughts - like I know the answer, know what it must be- but I don't feel satisfied that I'm really experiencing it! Therefore there's a tension, frustration, at sort of feeling like I'm going back and forth, but not piercing deeper. Not FEELING it.
( The biggest exception was when I saw no separation between seen/seeing/seer. That was real seeing, feeling. That knowing isn't right here, right now, but I know I could go back to it.)
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

Great, you get all of that and, if you see that clearly, it doesn't seem as if you still retain the doubt you mentioned at the beginning of your last post. Is that right?

Well, it is weird... All of that is seen, AND "I" am still here (though believed less). So it changes nothing. Except it does! Felt is a tension...almost like a thought that the thinker must be taught, convinced. No that's not quite it.

Yeah, this still needs a bit of clarification from you. If you can see no self anywhere in direct experience, what is the 'I' that is still here and what is the thinker that must be taught, convinced? If you can see a self in direct experience, please describe how it appears to you.

To recap, if it's absolutely clear that there's no self-entity anywhere to be found in direct experience, and it's equally clear that the contents of thoughts that refer to a separate self are unreal and therefore neither reliable nor believable, then that's it, the illusion of self has been seen through. It's irrevocable, job done. It seems clear to me that, wherever you've looked so far, you've seen that there's no self in direct experience. That being so, it must be your thoughts, or rather, their contents, that are proving to be problematic. Be sure to tell me know if that's not correct.

Look at the following and tell me what your reaction is:

'I' is just a thought - so it can't be a thinker, doer, witness or anything at all.

Ok, so thoughts an thinking.

I think a lot of it is how do I deal with all this thinking??

Clearly, if 'you' think thoughts are a problem, thinking about them won't help at all. The thing is, through the Gate or not, most of us are assailed by thoughts. The problem starts when 'you' believe that they're 'your' thoughts and then, as a consequence, pay close attention to what they're saying. Often, they tell you total bullshit. Always, they are not real.

Do you know what the next thought will be?

I DO sometimes say, to myself, let's think about x. Lets think about this person, subject, idea and read this book or article. Or, lets stop thinking and play a computer game. Or, get off the internet, Belinda, and pay attention to whats around you. I do things that direct attention to one place or another - but within that I can't control exactly where my mind goes. But- what about that intention? That counts for something...right? (Or, geesh, do I just THINK it does?)

But all these things that 'you' say to 'yourself', where do those thoughts originate? When you look in direct experience, do they just pop up or does something else happen? If so, what is that?

Can thought think?

There can only be a thought stream of one thought at a time. (Even if there are complex body reactions, etc, those are not thoughts.) Only a thinker can think. A thought can't think. I know that's the answer - but I don't know how to directly experience that....

You're right, a thought can't think. But, just as you saw that there's no seer, hearer etc., there's no thinker, only thinking. Just look in direct experience. You don't have to know how to directly experience that, being aware isn't something you learn how to do, it's what you are. It's just simply being aware of what's happening in this very moment. Can you see a thinker? Can you see a thought thinking?

I'd just like to look at one other area to see if a self can be found there, the body:

Does the body experience sensations and thought?
or
Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

We're really down to the nitty-gritty now Belinda, so don't worry, it's going well.

Lots of love, Pete

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

We sort of crossed! No matter, just respond to my post when you're ready and I'll reply to everything next time around.

Pete x

[Belinda]

Hi Pete,

If you can see no self anywhere in direct experience, what is the 'I' that is still here and what is the thinker that must be taught, convinced? If you can see a self in direct experience, please describe how it appears to you.

"The Self" is an idea, is thoughts. A thought, again and again and again, attaches "me" and "I" to experience. "Self" is a cherished idea, there seems to be a lot of attachment to it. (In thinking!!!) The "I" and "the thinker" are thoughts.
It is sort of strange not to fight the thoughts - and it is a challenge to really experience them as thoughts - but I feel like trusting truth is getting easier.
Its like it is simpler than my thinking is used to.

It seems clear to me that, wherever you've looked so far, you've seen that there's no self in direct experience. That being so, it must be your thoughts, or rather, their contents, that are.

That's correct. It is now clear that it has been the mind worrying, etc. And this is because it so new, seeing that the mind stream isn't me, that there is no me. Been feeling very "attached." Today I went back down into it, and am feeling how much it is simple FEELING.
Direct experience is so simple - the pencil is seen, therefore there is no "me" separate from the pencil. The music on the radio is heard; there is only the sound/hearing/hearer.
Thoughts are labels -sometimes helpful - like, those are flutes, oboes, trumpets, probably a mid century composer. But the root of it, the truth, is sound and hearer and hearing are not separate.
RIGHT NOW. Like a baby, wide open.
It is so very simple, but simple does not mean easy!

Look at the following and tell me what your reaction is:

'I' is just a thought - so it can't be a thinker, doer, witness or anything at all.

First reaction is like, blank. Then, its like I have to talk to myself about it. (Talk myself into it? Think myself into it?) I wrote this: Thinking happens. Doing, actions, happen. Witnessing happens. I is just a thought - it can't do anything. I -thoughts happen too. Anything that happens - is never done by the thought of "me." Those thoughts just take credit for what happens, and provide the continuity of "self."
So, it is possible for this to be known, finally, as true, and not questioned.
It is like, I can finally rest when I know this. Thoughts are so full of worry, that I have to DO something. When I can know that they aren't really IT at all - not only are they not me, they create the whole idea of a me - then, I can see there is real freedom.
It doesn't have to be 100% of the time - that will happen when it happens. For right now, its like I'm just getting the experience - like practice - of seeing outside my thoughts. TRUSTING that the feeling-level, that is always there, is IT. Relaxing into it, instead of "doing" which is what my thought-content is about. Kind of like, I don't have to do anything!


Okay, I'll go to the following questions in my next post.

Thanks!
Belinda

[Belinda]

Okay, thoughts and thinking

But all these things that 'you' say to 'yourself', where do those thoughts originate? When you look in direct experience, do they just pop up or does something else happen? If so, what is that?

Yes, they do just pop up - seemingly in reaction (or some other kind of connection) to a previous thought, or to what is felt or sensed... or just spontaneously, apropos of nothing, too.
It is a relief to pay them less attention.

You're right, a thought can't think. But, just as you saw that there's no seer, hearer etc., there's no thinker, only thinking. Just look in direct experience. You don't have to know how to directly experience that, being aware isn't something you learn how to do, it's what you are. It's just simply being aware of what's happening in this very moment. Can you see a thinker? Can you see a thought thinking?

There's no thinker, only thinking. OH, so its just another thought, that there is a thinker. That "I" am a thinker. Its all thinking???!!!
I'll answer your questions about the body next.
Belinda

[Belinda]

Does the body experience sensations and thought?
or
Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinaesthetic)?

Okay. First thought is, of course the body experiences. Then, oh, sensations happen, just like sound/hearing/hearer happens. just like it "makes no sense" that there isn't a separate hearer... then it must be equally true and "make no sense" that there isn't a feeler.
But, the body exists, right? That's the thought, anyway. I do have a body! Well, I always thought "I" existed, too, and that's starting to be shaky... And, I'm also seeing (or at least thinking) that it doesn't _take it away_ just because you take off the layer of label/belief. Trippy, though!
I'll keep working on this...

Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

Bit late today, busy day.

"The Self" is an idea, is thoughts. A thought, again and again and again, attaches "me" and "I" to experience. "Self" is a cherished idea, there seems to be a lot of attachment to it. (In thinking!!!) The "I" and "the thinker" are thoughts.

Good, you've very clearly 'got' that now. It was a bit of a sticking point but from this, and all the other things you say, you are aware of the potential difficulties around thoughts and how, if they're given attention and credence, they take over and act as a filter on reality. You're now able to see that they're just impotent little message packets, hoping to be taken seriously. A bit like the Wizard of Oz, once he's seen for what he really is.

Direct experience is so simple - the pencil is seen, therefore there is no "me" separate from the pencil. The music on the radio is heard; there is only the sound/hearing/hearer.

Yes, you can see in direct experience that, really, there's just this; a seamless whole, now, with no separations or barriers.

Look at the following and tell me what your reaction is:
'I' is just a thought - so it can't be a thinker, doer, witness or anything at all.

Thinking happens. Doing, actions, happen. Witnessing happens. I is just a thought - it can't do anything. I -thoughts happen too. Anything that happens - is never done by the thought of "me." Those thoughts just take credit for what happens, and provide the continuity of "self." So, it is possible for this to be known, finally, as true, and not questioned.
It is like, I can finally rest when I know this. Thoughts are so full of worry, that I have to DO something. When I can know that they aren't really IT at all - not only are they not me, they create the whole idea of a me - then, I can see there is real freedom.
It doesn't have to be 100% of the time - that will happen when it happens. For right now, its like I'm just getting the experience - like practice - of seeing outside my thoughts. TRUSTING that the feeling-level, that is always there, is IT. Relaxing into it, instead of "doing" which is what my thought-content is about. Kind of like, I don't have to do anything!

All brilliant, which is why I've quoted the whole chunk. Just great Belinda.

There's no thinker, only thinking. OH, so its just another thought, that there is a thinker. That "I" am a thinker. Its all thinking???!!!

Yep, that's right.

. just like it "makes no sense" that there isn't a separate hearer... then it must be equally true and "make no sense" that there isn't a feeler.

As you've seen over and over, stuff happens, life lives itself : no doer, no controller, no thinker, no decider, no seer, no feeler. And it's all just perfect as it is in this moment.

But, the body exists, right? That's the thought, anyway. I do have a body!

We use the word body as a label, a concept, a thought, and that's fine and it has it's uses. But look in direct experience.
What is experienced? Various, ever-changing sensations, but can you find 'a body' anywhere there or, for that matter, an 'inside', where 'you' are, and an 'outside' where everything else that isn't 'you' exists? Let me know what that's like if you can.

We've covered a lot of ground since we started and I'll soon ask you some sweep-up questions to see whether there's anything we need to go back and look at again. But, before I do that, is there anything you want to mention?

Love, Pete

[Belinda]

Hi,
You wrote: What is experienced? Various, ever-changing sensations, but can you find 'a body' anywhere there or, for that matter, an 'inside', where 'you' are, and an 'outside' where everything else that isn't 'you' exists? Let me know what that's like if you can.

Me: So. My first thought was to use my eyes. Surely they can see that my body is here, and the rest of the world is out there. But no! I've already seen that there is no actual barrier between my body and what is seen.
So, touch. My skin keeps me separate. Um, no... touch does not reliably convince separateness. Not anymore anyway. The "normal" is starting to be seen differently. It all _seems_ normal, but normal doesn't seem so normal anymore. That sentence doesn't make sense, except that it does.
Basically, it is starting to seem as if the senses aren't reliable sources of truth. Because the senses are so quickly translated into BELIEFS!

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

Me: So. My first thought was to use my eyes. Surely they can see that my body is here, and the rest of the world is out there. But no! I've already seen that there is no actual barrier between my body and what is seen.
So, touch. My skin keeps me separate. Um, no... touch does not reliably convince separateness. Not anymore anyway. The "normal" is starting to be seen differently. It all _seems_ normal, but normal doesn't seem so normal anymore. That sentence doesn't make sense, except that it does.

So, you can see that in direct experience there's no self to be found either in or as the body.

Basically, it is starting to seem as if the senses aren't reliable sources of truth. Because the senses are so quickly translated into BELIEFS!

But isn't there just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. They are experience, which is truth. Surely it's only when persistent thoughts are taken as the truth instead, rather than seen for what they are, that beliefs arise isn't it?

I'll wait to see if you've any other points you want to look at before I send you the sweep-up questions I mentioned.

P x

[Belinda]

Hello Pete,

Basically, it is starting to seem as if the senses aren't reliable sources of truth. Because the senses are so quickly translated into BELIEFS!

But isn't there just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. They are experience, which is truth. Surely it's only when persistent thoughts are taken as the truth instead, rather than seen for what they are, that beliefs arise isn't it?

Yes. That is how beliefs arise. I've been experiencing how thought-content is about doing, making something happen, and that really it is all thoughts whenever things seem complicated.
Now it seems much more simple, the connection in experience to everything around me. (Waking up this morning, knowing the sounds, vision, tactile sensations are not "out there" - very basic and relaxed. Nothing needs to be done.)


Thanks for making the space for me to see if there are other points to look at before moving on. I'll be looking today, and will post what I see.

(Total side note: Funny how much the English language uses the metaphor of "seeing" for experiencing/understanding. I guess other ways of speaking are possible ... but interesting how that is built in.)

Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

(Total side note: Funny how much the English language uses the metaphor of "seeing" for experiencing/understanding. I guess other ways of speaking are possible ... but interesting how that is built in.)

Yes, it's weird that. When we say, 'I see' ( possibly with an exclamation mark) we nearly always mean that we understand or get it rather than actually see it. When guiding I often have to be careful to be clear which 'see' I mean or it can get a bit tricky...

I've decided (well, you know what I mean) to postpone the sweep- up questions while you're looking to see if there's anything you'd like to revisit. Instead, I thought I'd just chuck in the following questions which shouldn't take long as they're quite simple and are really just so that you can look at what we've been investigating from a different perspective.

As always, from direct experience:

With "you" revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks

What does?

What is aware?

Lots of love, Pete

[Belinda]

Hello Pete,

With "you" revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks

What does?

What is aware?

Experience. Its all experience. Nothing else.
Even the mind... just lets go.

So this is really just understanding. Huh. I guess this is the point where I see expectations and throw them out. (That seeing would be any kind of Big Thing.) I don't feel any change except a very gentle, Ah, okay. When I look, I see. That's all.
Mind has input - something like, "Oh, really? This is it?" Mind is very very limited/limiting. Its true that I've been feeling it all along, but have gotten caught up in thought content.
I also didn't expect such simplicity.

There's more personal things I could say, and I may write them later.

So I guess I'm ready for the "sweeping up", whatever that is.

Love,
Belinda

[moondog]

Hi Belinda,

Experience. Its all experience. Nothing else.
Even the mind... just lets go.

Exactly. You got it.

I guess this is the point where I see expectations and throw them out. (That seeing would be any kind of Big Thing.) I don't feel any change except a very gentle, Ah, okay. When I look, I see. That's all.

No expectations ever come close, and now you don't need them. It's gentle, and kind, and beautiful.

I also didn't expect such simplicity

That's what's so wonderful, isn't it.

The sweep-up questions are no big deal. They're just to look back over everything you've looked at, just to see if there's anything we need to look at again. Here they are:

In direct experience:

Have you been able to find, a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’?

Or a self that is the doer, or can control what happens?

Or a self that ‘makes’ decisions?

Or a self who ‘does the thinking’?

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by this ‘self’?

Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’

Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

Are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of separate self?

It's a bit if a long list of questions but the answers can be brief unless, as I said, there is something you want to examine some more, although It doesn't look to me as if there will be much, if anything.

Love, Pete