Locustafiera requesting guide

[Locustafiera]

Apologies for the dump Hannah.

[Hannah B-T]

No need to apologise. I mean what is apologising to what? For what? Are 'you' choosing how this plays out? if it seems that way, we can look again at choice/control.

Whatever is helpful, that's fine, lay it out here, but do expect inspection and questioning of those thoughts. That's how it works in this arena.

So...

I look forward to the responses to the questions in my last post. ;)

Much love
xx

[Locustafiera]

--- When this story drops out again, what is the problem here? .... Outside the stories, is there a self there, ever?------

It cannot be seen with the eyes. The eyes are of the body. The eyes may look at the body. The body is not self. There is no sight of self. The eyes do not see. There is seeing.

The ears are of the body. The ears transmit sound waves. The self is not heard. The ears do not hear. There is hearing.

The tongue is of the body. The tongue detects flavour. There is no taste of self. The tongue does not taste. There is tasting.

The nose detects odour. The nose smells no self. The nose does not smell. There is smelling.

The body detects feelings. The body feels no self. The body does not feel. There is feeling.

Can thinking locate the self? The thoughts appear, disappear. Some are remembered, like sights, sounds are stored away. Some thoughts are held in memory as features of a reality map - the operating assumptions.

What sees? What hears? What tastes? What smells? What feels?
What thinks?
These things are not done. They are being. They are. IS.

No. No self there outside the stories.

But who or what is putting all these thoughts above together?

----What can have experience. What can possibly grasp it? ----

Nothing. Experience is all there is.

-----Can you find anything existing outside the present moment?----

No. Nothing exists outside the present moment. Yesterday is just memories. Here there is awareness of only one organism's experience yesterday. Tomorrow is fantasy.

[Hannah B-T]

yup...seeing smelling tasting touching hearing thinking....life...lifeing. :)

Some are remembered, like sights, sounds are stored away. Some thoughts are held in memory as features of a reality map - the operating assumptions.

Can you find this 'store' of memory and operating assumptions? What is that? Describe the direct experience of that for me.

Is there an Andrew in the memories? How is that seen now?

What about the memories of those big life decisions Andrew made?

What is the difference between a memory thought, a fantasy thought, a dream and watching a soap character on tv?

[Locustafiera]

---Can you find this store of memory....

No. I find things by looking, or touching if the eyes are closed, or listening if the thing I want to find is noisy and out of sight, or smelling if it's smelly. I assume the memory is encoded somehow in the brain, but I have no way of looking or feeling or listening or smelling in there.

In the memories there is an Andrew. Sometimes the mental image is of the body from a third person perspective - especially those from childhood. Memories of what happened today are sometimes third, sometimes first. Although, perhaps the first person memories are not memories of Andrew per se, but of events, of 'the seen (scene!)'.

Of big decisions, nothing, no memory of decisions themselves, but that's no surprise because he didn't make any, large OR small.
Although there is a memory of proposing to my darling wife (:-) which is in the first person, but again this could be interpreted as a memory of an event, or of looking, rather than of him.

Hold on, that means the third person memory of Andrew is thought definitely to be him, so the thought is that he IS the body. Why would this be? There it is again, there is thinking, a thought that the self existed. There's truly no self in the present! Therefore there never was! There is only self in the thoughts.

Ideas are talking to ideas! It explains so much. What confusion! A tower of Babel!

It starts to flow again. :-). :-)

[Hannah B-T]

I assume the memory is encoded somehow in the brain

Yup, that's the conceptual model...

but I have no way of looking or feeling or listening or smelling in there

in where?
What is the direct experience of 'brain'?

Hold on, that means the third person memory of Andrew is thought definitely to be him, so the thought is that he IS the body. Why would this be? There it is again, there is thinking, a thought that the self existed. There's truly no self in the present! Therefore there never was! There is only self in the thoughts.

Nice bit of looking there! Memory can be a real sticking point.
This then leads well onto the 3rd question...which hasn't been answered yet let me rephrase more specifically;)...

What is the difference between a memory thought of 'Andrew', a fantasy thought about 'Andrew, the night time dream character of 'Andrew'... and watching a soap character on tv?

Do any of these seem more 'real' than the others? Take a look at that.

[Hannah B-T]

Ideas are talking to ideas! It explains so much. What confusion! A tower of Babel!

Yes!
Or my favourite metaphor

'it's turtles all the way down'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Locustafiera]

This feels like the wrong answer, but here goes. The difference seems to be that when watching TV, the images are moving, but in memory they are stills. Moving images can happen in imagination, but in genuine fantasies they tend to be stills too I think. I have not yet fantasised and at the same time been able to notice the experience, so I just have memories of fantasies to work with right now, which are stills.

Talking of turtles, what seems to be happening here is that I work through an answer to one of your questions, have a moment of clarity, then, as you said, a new story starts to write itself. I noticed a similar effect after the two minds experience. As soon as some clarity came, a new fantasy started about how sage I was, and when that was noticed, yet another more subtle egotistical fantasy would emerge. It's horrible. How can it be stopped? Damn turtles.

[Locustafiera]

And do any of the images seem more real than the others. I'm looking at this....

[Hannah B-T]

Talking of turtles, what seems to be happening here is that I work through an answer to one of your questions, have a moment of clarity, then, as you said, a new story starts to write itself

Yup. That's what thoughts do, they tell stories. So what? They aren't likely to stop doing that anytime soon. Is that a problem?

As soon as some clarity came, a new fantasy started about how sage I was, and when that was noticed, yet another more subtle egotistical fantasy would emerge. It's horrible

I don't think what you are describing is 'horrible'. I think it's very cool indeed, that this is being 'clocked' and undermined as it emerges.

How can it be stopped? Damn turtles.

LOL! What would or could stop it? Can a thought stop a thought?

Seems like there might be an expectation here that these 'i' thoughts will alter or stop? I need that to be looked at with 100% honesty and laid out again at this point.

[Hannah B-T]

This feels like the wrong answer, but here goes

There are no right or wrong answers, but listen to this feeling. It's may be a barometer announcing... 'the following response is coming out of conceptual analysis rather than an attempt to report the direct experience'...

Let me rephrase again in case it helps:

Is there any qualitative difference in the actual experience of the image-based thoughts i mentioned, that could prove that any of them are more 'real' than the others?

[Locustafiera]

OK, the first time, it was OK that the stories came, they were clocked but the feeling was 'so what, life life-ing'.

This time it seemed the stories were more quickly noticed, far more quickly to be honest, after a few seconds, and the response was a mixture of amusement and annoyance. But that complete recognition/acceptance that meant it didn't hurt - that has gone.

[Locustafiera]

My posts are getting out if synch with yours - and I hit reply too early just then. Will clean up with the next one....

[Locustafiera]

Is there a difference in the quality of the various images;

Finding it hard to look at this. The images I think I see are like ghosts or shadows - they seem to be there but if I try to chase them down and work out the quality of them there is nothing there, or maybe just an echo. When, if, there are mental images, the mind is absorbed in them and there's no objectivity with which to assess them. If I'm trying to look, there are no images to inspect. Is this the point?
This is interesting - again the feeling arises 'there's something wrong here, some contradiction that, if unravelled, reveals something'.
When absorbed in TV, or real life images, there are no mental images. If absorbed in thought, the images in the real world don't register, even if the eyes are open. When looking for the mental images .... but what's looking for the mental images? Of course, nothing is looking, there's a thought about looking. You keep getting me to try and look, but I can't find anything, and I eventually realise that there's no me to do the looking. Or rather, a realisation arises that there is no me to do the looking. Illusions can't do anything except be illusions. But it feels like there is more to uncover....

It's the organism that needs to awaken isn't it? The I belief, what's left of it, can relax, it's not needed. It seems there just needs to be awareness of experience and, reasoning.


OK. Now to address the question, is there an expectation that the 'I' thoughts will alter or stop.
Well.....no and yes. Let's say there was once a belief in God but it went. i can still think about God.
But, the thinking of God, in relation to Me, changes when I stop believing. I start to think of God as 'that theory or idea' rather than 'the Lord'. So the 'I' thoughts should change somehow too, in relation to ...err...everything? Whereas now the thought might occur 'people think I am a prat' and it results in embarrassment, or the thought might occur 'I am one smart cookie' and the result is hubris, when there is no belief in self anymore, perhaps these thoughts won't arise, or will be replaced by 'that didn't work' and 'that was some clear thinking', or perhaps they will result only in some amusement.
Feel a bit confused about that though.

[Hannah B-T]

You are thinking i'm asking the thoughts a conceptual riddle. I'm not. There is just a giving hopefully of angles and openings to look for a self.

Of course, nothing is looking, there's a thought about looking

yes.

You keep getting me to try and look, but I can't find anything, and I eventually realise that there's no me to do the looking. Or rather, a realisation arises that there is no me to do the looking. Illusions can't do anything except be illusions

YES! Righty ho then...
So is it clear 'i' is an illusion?

But it feels like there is more to uncover....

Life doesn't stop unfolding...
But is there still 'seeking'? For what exactly?

It's the organism that needs to awaken isn't it?

Huh? What is this 'organism' here that can awaken? Let alone needs to?

It seems there just needs to be awareness of experience and, reasoning.

When is there NOT awareness of experience?

By 'reasoning' do you mean 'conceptual analysis'- that's a good question- is that needed to SEE there is no self?

OK. Now to address the question, is there an expectation that the 'I' thoughts will alter or stop.
Well.....no and yes.

Well...which is it?
Sorry, i really couldn't tell the answer from that big paragraph of story that followed about what thoughts might look like in an imagined future. It looks like a 'yes' from here then...

Are these expectations relevant to anything? Do they matter?

Give me a response to this statement:

'Nothing exists outside the present moment'