Hi

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

How does it feel to see this?
This question is a tricky one :) I spent a lot of time trying to answer it, and that's the main reason why I'm replying so late. How does it feel? There come so many answers, and none of them is right. Life is here and now, and what thoughts can do are only snapshots of it, miserably failing to show what actually happens.

One answer that seems somehow fitting is: it feels as if I tripped over and you started praising me for it.
The whole situation looks embarrassing and an instinct says to hide what happened and to quickly get up,
but I am not able to do it - there is no "me" anymore.

Whow, so much beauty in your words.

And the whole website, the whole thing is just amazing.

Yes, absolutely. Amazing times we’re living in!

Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control.
Decision happens the same way a falling rock decides its course downward.

Intention is an AE of thought and its presence may influence the path of the "falling rock".

So is it possible to change the course of the falling rock by intention?

Free will: Isn't a stream of water free? All parts of the reality freely follow best paths available to them.

Yes, nice analogy. Actually the water is free because there is no will involved.

What makes things happen?
Life flows freely in all its diversity, and the mind differentiates "things which happen" in it.

Would the life-flow stop when the mind stops to differentiate?
Would there be any difference?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.
I am responsible for providing for my family, I am responsible for making breakfast for my daughters and accompanying them to the kindergarten etc.
I might succeed in it or fail, but ultimately it's the same as, for example, water's being responsible for moving a turbine.

Ok. Water is moving the turbine but it is not responsible for the turbine to turn.
You are providing for your near and dear ones but you are not responsible for that, as there is no ‘you’.

Does this make sense?


All the best

nina

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

here is one more ( never ending...) exercise using your water analogy that might be helpful
to understand responsibility: ( :

Imagine for a moment a scene, one of a little mountain stream which is tumbling down a hillside gully,
not far from its source. It has been raining and so the level is quite high.
Consider in your mind's eye, if you can, how it flows to the right over a little rock
(where, had the level been lower, it would probably have gone around the rock),
then the flow goes to the left over a tree bow, and then slows a little in a broader place,
before splashing over a small cascade into a pool, and so on down the mountain side.
Does it choose any of its directions?
Is it even really a separate entity different from the water deposited in it, the rocks,
the depressions in the ground etc?
Is it even the same entity moment by moment, or more the product of weather conditions
and water, like an ever-changing pattern?

1. Can you find anywhere where Marcin autonomously intervenes into life,
choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg;
what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch,
and describe to me what happens.
There are environmental factors, there are colour preferences
(but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?),
practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose
(eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look hip and cool for that person!) etc.
Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life?
Can you find someone somewhere?

3. Can anything be found for which Marcin is responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?



All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

So is it possible to change the course of the falling rock by intention?

It seems I didn't express it clearly - a rock in my example is rolling downhill, not in a freefall. It may be more fitting to use a stream analogy, as in your last post. An intention - a thought - exists in the reality Now, and as a part of the reality it interacts with everything Now, therefore influencing to some extent what happens next, mainly by influencing workings of the mind, that is other thoughts and decision making processes etc. in a human. A thought is not a switch, but rather - continuing rolling rock analogy - an obstacle that may (or may not, depending on conditions) influence the rock/stream's path or the manner of its flow.

Would the life-flow stop when the mind stops to differentiate?

No, the life flow wouldn't stop.

Would there be any difference?

There would be less thought-obstacles potentially influencing the pattern of the flow.

Does this make sense?

The responsibility is just a story. Moreover, the reality itself doesn't "make sense", it's the mind that creates stories, which seem to "make sense", but actually they are only patterns of thought.

One may say that the reality/life is _the sense_.

Can you find anywhere where Marcin autonomously intervenes into life,
choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

No, Marcin exists only in a story, not in the AE of life. It's a fictional character.

Now please consider a regular decision made eg;
what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch,
and describe to me what happens.

There are multiple thought patterns that arise in different conditions. They interact and the decision is made. For example - there are ingrained thoughts (habits) deciding very quickly which color is preferred, but they may be influenced by some slower, multi-step considerations (which also happen spontaneously in a free-flow manner as cascades of thoughts).

Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life?
Can you find someone somewhere?

No, no autonomous entity. There are only patterns influencing patterns, like waves on a surface of water.

3. Can anything be found for which Marcin is responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

No, nothing like this exists in the AE.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

thanks for the further clarification of the questions.

I’m going to show your answers to some other guides just to make sure that you really have covered all fields.

Would you like to add or ask something before me doing so?

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

No, I have nothing to add or ask at the moment. If there are any further questions later, I'll answer them gladly.

Thank you very much!

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

there are some questions about thoughts, decision, intention or control which seem not so clear at the moment:

So is it possible to change the course of the falling rock by intention?

It seems I didn't express it clearly - a rock in my example is rolling downhill, not in a freefall. It may be more fitting to use a stream analogy, as in your last post. An intention - a thought - exists in the reality Now, and as a part of the reality it interacts with everything Now, therefore influencing to some extent what happens next, mainly by influencing workings of the mind, that is other thoughts and decision making processes etc. in a human. A thought is not a switch, but rather - continuing rolling rock analogy - an obstacle that may (or may not, depending on conditions) influence the rock/stream's path or the manner of its flow.

How does a thought interact with everything?
Are thoughts the driving force of life?
Does thought control anything?

Now please consider a regular decision made eg;
what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch,
and describe to me what happens.

There are multiple thought patterns that arise in different conditions. They interact and the decision is made. For example - there are ingrained thoughts (habits) deciding very quickly which color is preferred, but they may be influenced by some slower, multi-step considerations (which also happen spontaneously in a free-flow manner as cascades of thoughts).

How do thoughts “interact” to make “decisions” exactly?
How do thoughts decide or choose?
How exactly are thoughts influenced and by what?



All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

Well, there was too much inference, sorry for that. I tried to make a model of mental processes that lead to a decision, which is all fiction of course, however a "useful" kind of fiction. It is easy to forget that we are not talking about models, but only about the AE.

How does a thought interact with everything?

It does not.

Are thoughts the driving force of life?

No.

Does thought control anything?

No.

Thoughts suggest that there is a link between now and the past moment. But in the AE there is no past moment at all. There is no time, no flow of life, because even change or its lack is irrelevant. There is one thing now, whatever it is, feeling alive, and within itself it contains some thoughts which show it as a part of a continuous movement. Is this movement real? Not in the AE.

How do thoughts “interact” to make “decisions” exactly?

They don't, what I wrote was inference about mental unconscious processes. There is no decision at all.

How do thoughts decide or choose?

They don't. They only suggest they did or that it was done.

How exactly are thoughts influenced and by what?

They are not. They just are here, and suggest influence and connection between phenomena etc.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

Well, there was too much inference, sorry for that. I tried to make a model of mental processes that lead to a decision, which is all fiction of course, however a <"useful" kind of fiction. It is easy to forget that we are not talking about models, but only about the AE

Hm, yes, somehow we have to communicate through words and terms – however doing so it is not necessary
to stick to a certain pattern.
You know, either it is crystal clear or not.
If things are not so clear than only inference might interfere.

At the same time it is not easy to put something wordless and nameless into words and terms.
The old question here is:

Is there identification with the thought process?

I tried to make a model of mental processes that lead to a decision, which is all fiction of course,
however a "useful" kind of fiction.

So is there identification with the thought process?
Who is this I who tries ‘to make useful models’?

Please look really close and honest here.

We have all time in the world. No need to rush here.

Thoughts suggest that there is a link between now and the past moment.
But in the AE there is no past moment at all. There is no time, no flow of life, because even change or its lack is irrelevant.
There is one thing now, whatever it is, feeling alive, and within itself it contains some thoughts which show it as a part of a continuous movement.
Is this movement real? Not in the AE.

I'm going to split the sentences a bit:

Thoughts suggest that there is a link between now and the past moment.

Who is thought?
Who is believing and/or listening to thoughts?

But in the AE there is no past moment at all.
There is no time, no flow of life, because even change or its lack is irrelevant

Yes, the past cannot be experienced. Same with future.

Is this a believe or a direct experience?

There is one thing now, whatever it is, feeling alive, and within itself it contains some thoughts which show it as a part of a continuous movement.
Is this movement real? Not in the AE.

Is this a believe, a conviction, or an experience?

How do thoughts “interact” to make “decisions” exactly?
They don't, what I wrote was inference about mental unconscious processes. There is no decision at all.

So how are decision made exatly? Please discribe as pecise as possible.

How do thoughts decide or choose?
They don't. They only suggest they did or that it was done.

Is there someone believing in the suggestions?

Who is this thought-thing, where does it come from and how does it get established?

How exactly are thoughts influenced and by what?
They are not. They just are here, and suggest influence and connection between phenomena etc.

Again, who is it suggesting and influencing?

Who is the author of all these suggestions?


All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

Is there identification with the thought process?

The thought process exists only as inference. There are just thoughts. Or maybe just one single diverse thought (one or many - just labels). This thought(s) is(are) here, but there is no one to identify.

But the "I" part of thought is still here as well. There are emotional responses of "I", habits of "I", excuses of "I". They suck in a lot of attention at moments. But the attention is not identification.

I tried to make a model of mental processes that lead to a decision, which is all fiction of course,
however a "useful" kind of fiction.

So is there identification with the thought process?

No, the "I" construction has been used in the above sentence as a handy way to label what happened.

Who is this I who tries ‘to make useful models’?

There is no "I", it was just a sentence.

Please look really close and honest here.

We have all time in the world. No need to rush here.

There seems not much more to be seen. This may be wrong of course, so please keep pointing me to it.

Thoughts suggest that there is a link between now and the past moment.

Who is thought?

Thoughts are labels, are also a means with which an order is imposed on a "picture". There is no "who" here.

Who is believing and/or listening to thoughts?

No one. The idea of suggestion itself is a thought.

But in the AE there is no past moment at all.
There is no time, no flow of life, because even change or its lack is irrelevant

Yes, the past cannot be experienced. Same with future.

Is this a believe or a direct experience?

The direct experience is that there is only now.

There is one thing now, whatever it is, feeling alive, and within itself it contains some thoughts which show it as a part of a continuous movement.
Is this movement real? Not in the AE.

Is this a believe, a conviction, or an experience?

The sense of movement is real. It appears as a kind of undeniable quality of the reality, like color for example. But the continuity of the movement, the development of the "action" is not. What was before is known only from thoughts.

How do thoughts “interact” to make “decisions” exactly?
They don't, what I wrote was inference about mental unconscious processes. There is no decision at all.


So how are decision made exatly? Please discribe as pecise as possible.

They just happen. Or in other words, it is not known how they happen. For example, the mechanism of decisions of the hands typing on a laptop here is known not more than the mechanism of decisions of a bird outside the window. The only difference is that the effects of these decisions (of the hands) coincide somewhat with some of the content of the thought.

How do thoughts decide or choose?
They don't. They only suggest they did or that it was done.


Is there someone believing in the suggestions?

No, there is no one. They are labels or pointers. Similar to sentences like "this was done by ME" or "this was done by thoughts".

Who is this thought-thing, where does it come from and how does it get established?

What is thought-thing?

How exactly are thoughts influenced and by what?
They are not. They just are here, and suggest influence and connection between phenomena etc.

Again, who is it suggesting and influencing?

No one. The language used here was imprecise. The "suggestion of influence and connection" here is just a primitive model, an image, contained in thoughts. It's a kind of a sketch how things may look.

Who is the author of all these suggestions?

No one. There is no persuasiveness in it, the thought just is there, and that's the whole "suggestion". As in a sentence: "This sign suggests that we should slow down".

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

sorry, 'thought-thing' was just meant as a discription of 'the thing there that is thinking'.

( :

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

The thought-thing is not a "who". Thoughts appear and go, that's it. They may be "overlaid" on the perceptions, or may "point" to each other. They often "act" as delineators of different things, for example delineating some part of the body sensation and giving it a label "a hand", or "tension", or " pain", or anything else. They also may delineate other thoughts, creating mental images and constructions. The thought-thing is such a mental construction.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

But the "I" part of thought is still here as well. There are emotional responses of "I", habits of "I", excuses of "I".
They suck in a lot of attention at moments. But the attention is not identification.

Well, it sounds as there is still a feeling of separation, something like: there is me and over there are the others.

Let’s have a closer look into these pockets:

When there is a little time gap, for example waiting for something; in a queue or whatever,
just notice your surroundings. There might be some visual perception, the feeling of the air
or the touch of the clothes on the skin; whatever - anything that is there directly experienced.

Become aware that you are breathing and notice this feeling of aliveness in the body.
Notice that there is just breathing along with a certain feeling of aliveness.

This helps to come out of the habit of the conditioned way of thinking.
Just be aware of your awareness in the present moment.
Well, actually there is just awareness, nothing like ‘Marcin’ being aware.

Try to create like this little spaces in your daily life.
You might discover an inner field or an inner dimension that is just peaceful,
or spacious.
It is always there, has ever been and is just beside all sort of experience.
It’s nothing new, it is totally well known and familiar.
Totally unspectacular and at the same time a breathtaking revelation.
Somehow it is the ground of all experience, or rather, the background, or the black screen behind the movie.

Try as much as possible to ground yourself in there, which means just to stay in this
field of presence, for as long as possible. As often as possible.

The running commentary of the mind, the conditioning and the desire to rationalize might begin to subside naturally.
You may become aligned with whatever arises in the present moment;
less reactive on the emotional level. But who knows.

When you see and derive your sense of identity from mental concepts there is this veil of conceptualisation.
There is this continues mental labelling of your sense perceptions.
This cuts you off from other human beings and establishes the sense of separateness.

So what we have tried to question in our whole exploration here is firstly: is it true?
Is there really a separate individual along with countless other separate individuals?
Is there a separate Me?

Once the fallacy of this is seen, another dimension opens up.
A deeper dimension in you that is more truly who you are.
Your personal history is no longer the source of your identity.
You can truly relate to others free of a screen of conceptualizing.
And that’s the whole thing, that’s the shift.

Please stay with this for some time and report how your're doing.

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Dear nina,

Well, it sounds as there is still a feeling of separation, something like: there is me and over there are the others.

Life is turbulent here. But no separation. Of course, the separation can be recreated in thoughts, but they are kind of alien now. What I haven't written about the "I" thing, but maybe should be said for clarification, is: it is not here all the time; it is fading off or subsiding; when it's here, it is viewed from another, disengaged perspective.

But at moments it feels strong and it protrudes above the surface - it's like in your example of a stream, the "I" is a rock in it, it used to be something that almost entirely blocked the stream's flow, but now it doesn't, and at moments is submerged below the surface (as with any analogy, it is just an analogy).

Once the fallacy of this is seen, another dimension opens up.

Another dimension you write about has been seen. Maybe it still feels shallow and strange, but it appears more real than any thought construct. The problem with it, an obvious one when one has to write anything about it, is that words don't work anymore. That's what was meant by "snapshots" analogy: when something is moving and changing rapidly, any photo of it will never show its nature.

But it may so be because of not clear view of it. So yes, the exercise you have suggested seems one of the most important things to do right now, and it is what has been done recently in any moment when there was any "time gap", as you put it.

I will report any new developments as they occur. Thank you for your patience.

All the best

Marcin

[suma]

Dear Marcin,

Life is turbulent here. But no separation. Of course, the separation can be recreated in thoughts, but they are kind of alien now. What I haven't written about the "I" thing, but maybe should be said for clarification, is: it is not here all the time; it is fading off or subsiding; when it's here, it is viewed from another, disengaged perspective.

So can it be said like this:
Nothing changed, but everything looks different?

But at moments it feels strong and it protrudes above the surface - it's like in your example of a stream, the "I" is a rock in it, it used to be something that almost entirely blocked the stream's flow, but now it doesn't, and at moments is submerged below the surface (as with any analogy, it is just an analogy).

That’s actually totally OK and normal. There is a certain momentum in the running wheel.
The story doesn’t stop just in an instant, it continues.

What is most important here is to see that thoughts are just thoughts and only thoughts.
In thinking there is only thinking. Nothing more.
Nobody is there behind the thoughts thinking them.
So the story accordingly is becoming less and less important, less real or true.

Is this clear to you?

Do you remember the exercise with the hand?
Looking at it and then hiding it and only thinking about it and then noting the difference of both perceptions?
This is a good exercise to question whether something is true or not.
Is it true? Or is it just concepts and believes? Just keep on looking like this.

Another dimension you write about has been seen. Maybe it still feels shallow and strange, but it appears more real than any thought construct. The problem with it, an obvious one when one has to write anything about it, is that words don't work anymore. That's what was meant by "snapshots" analogy: when something is moving and changing rapidly, any photo of it will never show its nature.

Wonderful! Just rest in this dimension.
Try to find as many gaps as possible and just rest in that bare state of being.
That’s all that needs to be ‘done’ here: Question all assumptions and simply stay in that ‘other dimension’.

All the best

nina

[mpsi]

Hi nina,

Getting rid of "I" and the whole guiding process is really a miraculous medicine! The current perspective here is that the removal of the "I" concept (which seems to be basically done) laid bare other concepts - or beliefs - present in the mind. As it turned out, the most troubling and a big hurdle in life, was a concept related to rejection (rejecting/being rejected): that it is stressful, should be avoided, and - simply put - is a bad thing.

Basically what happened was that when "my" answers in this conversation were rejected repeatedly, the belief that the rejection is unbearable took a central stage. There was a strong body reaction and turbulent thoughts - probably cortisol level was quite high for some time.

This concept when at work was bringing many hurtful feelings which had been long identified with "I" and the idea of separation. Therefore it felt like an incarnation of "I". But after your last answer it's become suddenly clear what was the actual problem.

So an action was taken, and this concept has been removed. Now "you" can reject "me" as many times as you want, and there will be no hurt feelings! And then it is just extremely useful in everyday life situations :)

So can it be said like this:
Nothing changed, but everything looks different?

Yes. However, it seems like a process of recovering now: there was an illness, now the illness started to recede, but it's still impossible to function normally. The driving force behind the illness might be gone, but it is still important to keep a strict regime of prescribed medicines. There are probably many troubles ahead (like that rejection thing).

In thinking there is only thinking. Nothing more.
Nobody is there behind the thoughts thinking them.
So the story accordingly is becoming less and less important, less real or true.

Is this clear to you?

Yes, it's clear. But "I" habits are persistent and it is still important to continually question any incoming "I" states - is there anybody there? Who is doing this or that? - otherwise they linger like ghosts.

Try to find as many gaps as possible and just rest in that bare state of being.
That’s all that needs to be ‘done’ here: Question all assumptions and simply stay in that ‘other dimension’.

This is the best exercise, a prize in itself! :)

All the best

Marcin