Looking for guide :)

[Pete777]

You are not going to get this. There is no "you" to begin with.

Look at these sentences..
"How can I do this"?
"I'm getting it"
As it's been seen there nobody in the senses. What is the I in the sentence then? What does it point to? Disregard thought just for one moment and look in experience right now.

I’ve read some other threads and I understand that this is "I" is only the content of thoughts. But the thought is not viewed as just another thought, it is believed. I’m trying to learn how to view it as just another thought by checking the contents of every thought that comes – does it match DE? This way I'm hoping to get reference points so it will be possible to see that the "I'm getting it" is just another thought.

Just as an example:
A pen, can be felt, seen, used, etc.... This is what we call 'real'.
Can an "I" be sensed?

I look for a self. No self is found. A thought says “there really is a self”. This thought is then denied. However: the denying is not just seen as the content of another thought, it is believed. The thought has a presumed subject, hence the denying doesn’t breaking the illusion. Or even the thought “this is not going to be denied” can show up. This thought is also believed, and also presumes a doer.

Then the message: “look, don’t think” comes. Thoughts are then denied. This denying is still the content of another thought – a thought believed.


I’ve kinda seen that the content of thoughts ain’t real. But there are still some doubt about this. Some of the guides here in LU says that the content of thought is “always imaginary”. But what about thoughts that says “a screen is seen”. It's easier with things that ain’t here “this is a pan” – imagination.

Or another example: “I’m seeing the screen”. Saying “this thought isn’t true”. This thought is believed in and I’ve disproven myself.

[Pete777]

Some elaboration on the same theme:

I’ve read some of your conversations here on LU. In one of your conversations I found this exercise:

“Over the course of the next few days, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) it is REALLY happening or the content it’s just pure imagination. "The content of thought is always imaginary".

I’ve tried this, but I’m having problems with the exercise. It seems to be some content that is really happening. F. ex 1) “a screen is seen”. Or 2) “seeing is happening”. It’s easier with things that ain’t here f. ex “Darth Vader”.

As a follow up question I’ve asked if the content of the thought “seeing is happening” is the seeing. And no, it isn’t the actual seeing. But this shouldn’t mean that the content of the thought “seeing is happening” isn’t true?

A third thought is when asking “Is there a me?”. A thought says: “no there is not”. This thought is not viewed as just a thought, but believed. But still the illusion is not broken. I’m guessing because the statement has an I implied. Comparing “no there is not” to reality to see if it’s real seems strange. Does this even make sense? – Is what thoughts are saying. This too is believed, so it seems I’m stuck in limbo.

4) When looking at something and thinking “this is a lamp” there is a thought arising, and a lamp In sight. What about the content of the thought in such a case: Isn’t the content of the thought the lamp itself?

[codyjdennis]

Hey Pete,

Thoughts as arising thoughts are ‘real’, but they contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about Dart Vader. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “Dart Vader” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising mental image of a ‘chair’ but that image is not ‘real’. However, as an arising image is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).
Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea.

------

Here are a couple exercises to try out so you can see this for yourself. Take as much time as you need.


1) If you were in a desert, close to die of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts) or would you need to drink the ‘real’ water?
Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you too options: (1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written onto it (2) and in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose? The label or the actual water?
Could you quench your thirst with the label?
If not, what this says about labels? Are they real?

2) Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands. Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin. Hold it there, sensing it. Then open your eyes.
What happened to the melon?
How about the sensation that was so believable?
Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?

Was there an appearing mental image?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?
The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images, their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

- Cody

[Pete777]

1) If you were in a desert, close to die of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts) or would you need to drink the ‘real’ water?
Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you too options: (1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written onto it (2) and in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose? The label or the actual water?
Could you quench your thirst with the label?
If not, what this says about labels? Are they real?

I would choose the actual water. This shows that abstract labels isn’t real.

2) Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands. Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin. Hold it there, sensing it. Then open your eyes.
What happened to the melon?
How about the sensation that was so believable?
Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?

Was there an appearing mental image?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?
The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images, their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

It seems I have trouble really imagining the water melon. Don't have too many memories of it to use in the imagination I believe. But I kinda saw that nothing dramatic happens when the eyes opens - it's just recognized that it isn't there.


1)

Thoughts as arising thoughts are ‘real’, but they contents (what they are ABOUT) are not.

I can see it for the easy examples f. ex “Darth Vader”. But I have problems with some thoughts:

a) Thoughts about specific things in opposition to a note with the word water which is an abstraction. Example: point to glass of water and think “this water”. There is then an arising thought, some water seen. The question is what the content of the arising thought is. In my opinion the thought points to reality. This means that the content of the thought is real in so far it points to something that exists in reality. Example 2: “A screen is seen”. 3) “seeing is happening”. NB. After thinking a little bit more about this I’m not so sure with my conclusion. The thought “this water” seems to point to the water, but it isn’t just pointing to the thing we experience as water. I believe that it also gives a expectation of what is to be seen. This expectation is an abstraction of water and is imaginary.


b) When the content of thought is abstract the thought “the last thought was true” arises. The question is if the content of this thought . How can it be known that this is just imagination? It seems the 5 senses ain’t able to help me with answering this. Maybe it’s more correct to say that the contents of thoughts are only real of it points to something in reality? This would still mean that the content of the thought “there is a self” only is real if a self can be found in reality.


Possible solutions:
• Reframe: the goeal isn’t to see that content of all thoughts is imaginary. The goal is to check if the content of arising thought “I” points to something in reailty.
• Or see the process in which thoughts are believed

[codyjdennis]

This is one of (if not the most) important thing to see. Without this, I wouldn't confirm anybody.

Try the watermelon exercise again but switch the watermelon for your favorite food.
Is the idea of your favorite food more real than the actual food?
---

How can it be known that this is just imagination? Maybe it’s more correct to say that the contents of thoughts are only real of it points to something in reality? This would still mean that the content of the thought “there is a self”only is real if a self can be found in reality.

All thought is imaginary. Not just some thoughts. Yes, some thought's do point towards objects in reality but even those are imaginary.

Try looking at it in this manner.
Computer is just a word. Yes, this word points towards an object in reality.
But...
Can you find the WORD computer in reality. I'm not talking about the object it points to. I'm talking about the word itself.

[Pete777]

1)
Try the watermelon exercise again but switch the watermelon for your favorite food.
Is the idea of your favorite food more real than the actual food?

I can do this to an extent. When the eyes open it's simply not there. No emotional reaction (which I've been expecting from the shift). I’m not really sure if I imagine it clear enough though. It seems hard for me to pretend it’s there – all the while I know it’s not.

2)

All thought is imaginary. Not just some thoughts. Yes, some thought's do point towards objects in reality but even those are imaginary.

Try looking at it in this manner.
Computer is just a word. Yes, this word points towards an object in reality.
But...
Can you find the WORD computer in reality. I'm not talking about the object it points to. I'm talking about the word itself.

No I can’t. But I still have a problem with some examples. Your example still points to an abstraction. The problem for me is examples when thoughts point to DE. Could you please give me an answer to this? There are 3 categories: 1) an arising thought 2) the content of the arising thought and 3) if the content points to something in reality: the actual reality (DE).

Example: I discover a new material in the ground. I name it “burber” the first time I see it. When this naming is described using the categories above it looks like this: 1) a thought comes: “burber”. This is an arising thought and can’t be denied. 2) The content of this thought (what it is about) is the DE of “burber”. 3) The actual experience is “burber” in DE.

This shows that the content of thought in this situation = DE. This should be true because what else could fit in the category “content of thought”? The only thing left is the arising of the thought and that is category 1.

The reason for making the example in this way is to bypass the objection that thoughts still give expectation about what is, even if it does point to DE. F. ex sensations in the body points to DE, but they also give expectations of how things should be, how things have been etc.

[codyjdennis]

No emotional reaction (which I've been expecting from the shift).

Right. Good to see this. It's not going to be something huge. If anything it's very ordinary.

Could you please give me an answer to this? There are 3 categories: 1) an arising thought 2) the content of the arising thought and 3) if the content points to something in reality: the actual reality (DE).

Sure Pete.

1) Yes there is the arising thought. The experience of thought itself is real. Just to elaborate on this. I call it real because there is undoubtedly and obviously an experience of what we call thought.

2) "The content of the arising of thought"

I'll try to be less abstract here.
You are most likely sitting in front of your computer or phone looking at this. Would you say the actual object is real or the thought is? Could you type or go on the internet on the thought "computer"? Or do you have to go to the object.

3) The distinction when a thought points to something in reality is that the thought is not more real than what it points to. It's just a thought. We label something computer, which is very useful but I can't use the thought computer. I need the object. This is why it is imaginary. It's just as imaginary as batman, Vader, or Santa Claus.

Can you see this?

[Pete777]

Hey Cody.

2) "The content of the arising of thought"

I'll try to be less abstract here.
You are most likely sitting in front of your computer or phone looking at this. Would you say the actual object is real or the thought is? Could you type or go on the internet on the thought "computer"? Or do you have to go to the object.

No I can not, I need the real thing. But the problem for me is: the thought computer seems to be category 1 (see above). And the content of that thought seems to be the DE of the computer. Maybe it will help if we can agree what the contents of a thought is. This is the sticking point for me.

Is it my image/prejudice/concept of what a computer is? If that is correct, then I agree that the content of the thought "computer" is imaginary. However: this will only make abstract thoughts imaginary. The content of concrete thoughts is direct experience, not imaginary - please see my example about "burber". I would appreciate if you could make a comment on that example.

I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to be a smart-ass by writing this. THis is a sticky point for me. You seem to keep giving me abstract thoughts as examples - I'm not sure if you understand my point of view.

3) The distinction when a thought points to something in reality is that the thought is not more real than what it points to. It's just a thought. We label something computer, which is very useful but I can't use the thought computer. I need the object. This is why it is imaginary. It's just as imaginary as batman, Vader, or Santa Claus.

I understand. A thought is just a thought - it's not the thing itself. But this only means that an arising thought is not the same as things. It doesn't mean that the content of an arising thought can't be DE. Can you understand why I seem to be stuck at this point?

[codyjdennis]

What exactly do you mean by "abstract examples"

[codyjdennis]

Sorry I'm replying from my phone.

Also what do you mean by "abstract thoughts"

[Pete777]

By abstract thoughts I just mean that the thoughts in the examples refers to something abstract. F. ex: the content of the word/thought "computer" is my concept of what a computer actually is. A thing that can be used for communication over distance, a combination of hardware and software, etc. All this is my abstract concept of what a computer is. It doesn't refer to anything specific in reality. This is why I agree with you that this is not "real" - it's just a concept.

Since the claim is that this counts for all thoughts, I experimented with an example where there is no abstract content of the thought (that I have found). Let's say you put a label on something in experience you experience for the first time. You the would probably not have any concept of what it is. Can it then be said that the content of that thought is imaginary? I would say no, because I couldn't find any such content.

An argument against this could be that the content of the thought is the naming itself. But in reality the experience has no name. If that's the case then I guess I follow your resonnement.

[codyjdennis]

Thank you for clarifying Pete. I think we have just misunderstood each other.

The pointer, thought and content of thought is not very clear and I apologize for that.

From your writing it seems like you took content of thought to be kind of your definition of what "computer" is. This is not what I'm pointing you towards. However, it's great you investigated that aspect as well.

An argument against this could be that the content of the thought is the naming itself. But in reality the experience has no name. If that's the case then I guess I follow your resonnement.

What I'm really pointing you towards which I think you are starting to see in the quote above is that the content of thought is the naming itself. (You're spot on that experience has no name)

With your example "burber", the material itself is not really burber. It's just a label that was given to it.

The actual object we called computer is real. The thought "computer" is not.

Thoughts are at best pointers to reality. So when we say "That is a computer", it points to the object but the object itself is not really a computer.

Do you see this?

[Pete777]

I can see clearly that a thought about a thing is not the thing itself, if that's good enough for an answer.

[Pete777]

thanks for seeing my side of the case

[codyjdennis]

I can see clearly that a thought about a thing is not the thing itself, if that's good enough for an answer.

thanks for seeing my side of the case

Great :)
&
No problem. You made some good points.
-------

I'm going to give you a few exercises to do... please tell me where you feel any stickiness or confusion in any of this.

------------------------------------------
What is happening in this moment? With your five senses, what do you experience? Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, even thoughts. Just list what there is going on, don’t draw conclusions.

------------------------------------------
Notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought “I hear that.” Now just pay attention to how sound happens. Take your time with it. Are you doing the hearing, or is it just happening?

-------------------------------------------
As you go about your day today and move around, see if you can find that there is a self moving things around.
Look for this I.
As you talk, walk, drive, eat, type, ..anything..check it out.
Is there a self living your life?
Or are there just thoughts about everything, including a self, seeming to live your life?
You don't have to decide or believe anything at all, just look at whats true for you.
In all that you are doing today, just keep looking at this. keep the focus on this.
Keep looking to see if there is something real, besides a thought, that owns and directs the body.

- Cody