Pay Attention

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

Is there an actual, real feeler in thoughts, OR.. there is only thoughts ABOUT a feeler?

A feeling is noticed and the thought “I am ...” arises. This changes the quality of the experience, and more thoughts about the “I” or “me” that is having the experience arise. They are all thoughts about an “I” or a “me” not an actual thing in experience.

Just notice that the feeler is only ever appear as a thought assumption, and never as a real entity, not even in thoughts. Can you see this?

Dimly or partially. I have hit some resistance, feeling tired when looking, having difficulty sleeping at night. Being with the difficulty sleeping, dropping off, having dreams of oppression and violence.

There is no real Santa outside of stories ABOUT Santa. Then what about Keith? Is there a real Keith outside of stories ABOUT Keith?

No, there is no real Keith outside of the stories ABOUT Keith, and what he does/did, will do/didn’t do, likes and dislikes. It’s endless.

Is there any difference between Keith and Santa?

No they are both fictional characters. Things happen e.g. presents appear, presents are bought present are chosen without anyone needed to do those things.

Is Keith more real than Santa?

No, although I just glimpse this and then it slips away again.

Or both are just the figment of imagination and both only ever appear as a mental fabrication, as a concept only?

Both are figments that appear as mental fabrications, or constructs only.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

So you have some glimpses, but most of the time the self is believed to be real, right?

When you reply please indicate not just what you can see when you have glimpses, but in an overall sense what you see. Since if you give the ‘right answers’ without really seeing them, then it gives a false impression that you can see something, while actually you can’t. I base my questions on your comments, and my replies could be inappropriate if I have an impression based on your replies that you can see something, while you don’t really.

Dimly or partially. I have hit some resistance, feeling tired when looking, having difficulty sleeping at night. Being with the difficulty sleeping, dropping off, having dreams of oppression and violence.

What is this resistance about?

Is there a story with negative consequences to this investigation?

Is there something that needs resisting? What is that?

What is it that you don’t want to happen but you are a bit concerned that it might happen?

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

So you have some glimpses but most of the time the self is believed to be real right?

I don’t know about most of the time, or all of the time, or some of the time. When I notice thoughts/feelings like “but it seems like there is a me/I doing/thinking etc...” I look for the I that is doing it, and it is all thoughts, and the thoughts proliferate, and the “seems like I persists”, and I question it and so on. I haven’t tried to describe this because it is circular, and just keeps going on and I wasn’t sure how to capture it. This might not completely, or even adequately. I get that all the thoughts I have about who I am, what I’ve done and not done are just thoughts, that they are not things in experience, that they are stories being made and remade, and changed, and forgotten, and remembered. And I haven’t had an aha! moment into that. So at some level it is still all thoughts about thoughts, and there is something going on with regard to the quality of perception, which is why I talk about dimly or partially seeing. Comparing me/I stories, to stories about Santa for example I think things like “I dress differently, don’t have a long white beard” which I can see is just content, and avoiding the question so I look some more and thoughts like “Well I actually do things, like buy presents etc...” and I question that by looking for the person who acts outside of thoughts about the person who acts in actual experience. With cause and effect. There are things that happen after other things have happened, and I get that thoughts put a story together. I still know that touching a hot stove burns. Taking each moment as sufficient to itself leaves nothing that can be said. Anything stated will be a thought/story. Is this closer to what you need from me?

What is the resistance about?

Fear of letting go of thoughts as “I” don’t exist outside of thoughts. Fear of nothing, the wasteland.

Is there a story with negative consequences to this investigation?

There is an underlying story about “me” that I am bad somehow, or wrong and that is what I will discover or in failing to discover anything confirm. I notice trepidation when I open your replies, that there is a story that I will be told off, found wanting blah blah blah...

Is there something that needs resisting? What is that?

There’s a fear of letting go, a hanging on to the story of a self even if it is just a story, because without the story there will be nothing, annihilation, or worse chaos a never ending cacophony of thoughts coming from no where, belonging to no one and yet experienced as painful. Hell?

What is it that you don’t want to happen but are a bit concerned that it might happen?

I am terrified of not being good enough.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

I get that all the thoughts I have about who I am, what I’ve done and not done are just thoughts, that they are not things in experience, that they are stories being made and remade, and changed, and forgotten, and remembered. And I haven’t had an aha! moment into that.

Yes, since you are afraid of looking. And you are afraid of the fearful story you mentioned. Believing that story prevents you to really look, so you keep the whole thing in the intellectual level.

So at some level it is still all thoughts about thoughts, and there is something going on with regard to the quality of perception, which is why I talk about dimly or partially seeing. Comparing me/I stories, to stories about Santa for example I think things like “I dress differently, don’t have a long white beard” which I can see is just content, and avoiding the question so I look some more and thoughts like “Well I actually do things, like buy presents etc...”

But the difference (or the lack of difference) between Keith and Santa is not about the physical appearance (beard), or actions (buying or not buying presence). Can you see that this is just a mental reasoning?
Can you see that you avoided looking? And went to analysing?

With cause and effect. There are things that happen after other things have happened, and I get that thoughts put a story together.

But it’s not about getting this. All ‘getting’ is just more thinking. More intellectual understanding.
You need to SEE this experientially, and not just getting it conceptually.

Fear of letting go of thoughts as “I” don’t exist outside of thoughts. Fear of nothing, the wasteland.

Wasteland? What do you mean by that?

Do you think that it’s about letting go of thoughts of an I?

There is no such thing as letting go of thoughts or anything. Since in order to let go off thoughts, first, there has to be an I thinking thoughts, being in control of them, and then and only there could be a possibility of letting go.

But this is just another story believed. There is nothing that could let go off thoughts. Nothing. No I to let thoughts go. There are only thoughts, but without an I.

There is an underlying story about “me” that I am bad somehow, or wrong and that is what I will discover or in failing to discover anything confirm. I notice trepidation when I open your replies, that there is a story that I will be told off, found wanting blah blah blah...

I hear you. I can assure you, I am not here to scold you or told you off :) I am here to point you to see that these fears are just thoughts, and there is nothing real that can be threatened :)

There is no Keith in danger. :)
Since the one who could be told off is just a fictional character, like a character in a novel.
So there is nothing to be afraid of.
There is no one that could be hurt.
Only thoughts talk about someone who is has trepidation to open these replies. It’s just a nicely woven story :) Just as Santa is a nicely woven story.

Santa and Keith are identical… they are identical in being both just fictional characters, and not real entities.
Nothing can hurt Santa, since Santa is just a fiction, just an invented imagination.
Similarly, nothing can hurt Keith, since Keith is just a mental construct, a mythical character only.

There’s a fear of letting go, a hanging on to the story of a self even if it is just a story, because without the story there will be nothing, annihilation, or worse chaos a never ending cacophony of thoughts coming from no where, belonging to no one and yet experienced as painful. Hell?

This sounds as a quite frightening story. Can you see that this is just an internal movie? A fictional story?

As long as you think that this is a real possibility, you won’t be able to allow yourself to look.
And this is what you do. You don’t allow yourself to look since you think that this fearful story can come true.
But what if this story is not true?
What if this is just a fiction that you frighten yourself with?

I am terrified of not being good enough.

This is a common belief, many people have this, so you are not alone :)

But this is a belief about Keith, about this imagined character.
This belief has nothing to do with this investigation, right?
Rather this is a just a patter which has been played out many many times in your life, isn’t it?

So the main question is, what is stronger, the desire to keep the fearful story, or the desire to see that this is just a story and there is nothing to be afraid of?

Are you sure that you really want to see that there is no self at the core?
You might say no, and that is totally all right.
You might not be ready to let go off this fearful story.
Maybe this not the right time for you to do this inquiry. Only you can know this.

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

But the difference (or the lack of difference) between Keith and Santa is not about the physical appearance (beard), or actions (buying or not buying presence). Can you see that this is just a mental reasoning?

Yes, I can see that this is mental reasoning, and distraction from the question you were asking. That is why I didn’t mention it before. When these thoughts arise I keep looking for the “I” in experience.

Can you see that you avoided looking? And went to analysing?

The analysing goes on. I look at it, sometimes I get caught in it. When I remember I come back to looking for the “I” in experience.

Wasteland? What do you mean by that?

I mean an empty, desolate and barren place.

Do you think that it’s about letting go of thoughts of an I?

I think it’s about seeing through thoughts of an I and then not being so bothered or invested in them that’s what I meant by letting them go. I do believe that I need to do something, or get something. It’s good to hear that, that is not how it is.

I hear you. I can assure you, I am not here to scold you or told you off :) I am here to point you to see that these fears are just thoughts, and there is nothing real that can be threatened :)

Thank you. I do know that (intellectually at least) and understand that I am projecting the “telling off”. And I appreciate your guidance.

This sounds as a quite frightening story. Can you see that this is just an internal movie? A fictional story?

I can, or a part of me can. Intellectually I can see that it is a nightmare that I haven’t yet woken up from.

[But what if this story is not true?
What if this is just a fiction that you frighten yourself with?[/quote]
That would be great! That would be waking up.

This belief (not being good enough) has nothing to do with this investigation, right?

Yes, that is right. This investigation provides another opportunity for this belief to be believed, just like pretty much anything else does.

Rather this is just a pattern which has been played out many many times in your life, isn’t it?

Yes absolutely, and embarrassingly.

So, the main question is, what is stronger, the desire to keep the fearful story, or the desire to see that this is just a story and there is nothing to be afraid of?

The honest answer is I do not know and cannot know until I see that it is just a story. I suspect I would come back to looking in some way or another even if I was not doing this inquiry. I am not consciously, deliberately avoiding looking. I do want to see.

Are you sure that you really want to see that there is no self at the core?

I am as sure as I can be given the resistance is not fully conscious. I would like to continue. I am not trying to give a false impression of seeing when I don’t in my replies. I sometimes find it hard to know what to say in response as I know that all thoughts about “I” or “me” are just thoughts so I keep looking, and apart from that there is nothing to say.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

Thank you for our honest and open answers. I appreciate it :)

K: Fear of letting go of thoughts as “I” don’t exist outside of thoughts. Fear of nothing, the wasteland.

V: Wasteland? What do you mean by that?

K: I mean an empty, desolate and barren place.

Thank you for explaining it.

Where does this idea come from that seeing through the self is getting into a barren, empty place?
And more importantly, HOW do you know that this is the case?

Yes, thoughts might insist that this is how it is, or this might happen, but HOW do you know that thoughts are telling the truth?

How do you know that thoughts are in possession of truth at all?

How do you know that a lifeless thought can know anything about truth or awakening, or anything at all?

So what I ask you here is to check the credibility of thoughts. Since we almost never have the idea to question if a thought is actually telling the truth or if they are in possession of any truth at all.

The honest answer is I do not know and cannot know until I see that it is just a story. I suspect I would come back to looking in some way or another even if I was not doing this inquiry. I am not consciously, deliberately avoiding looking. I do want to see.

All right. We are going to shift this inquiry a bit… to looking at thoughts, and how unreliable they are.

Generally, there seem to be two kinds of thoughts:

1. thoughts which content point to something which is directly experienced, now in the moment.
2. thoughts which content point to NOTHING in DE (direct experience), rather to other thoughts content / ideas / concepts.

#1 would be ‘There is a table’, or ‘my hands are wet’, or ‘the flower is blooming’ - since something is SEEN at the moment, the thought points to something, even though table / hand / flower is just a label for something SEEN / EXPERIENCED.

#2 would be "I had dinner last night”, or “she said something nasty to me”, or “I want to be free”, or “I am going to do some shopping tomorrow”, etc.

Now please, gently observe your thoughts, noticing how they do their thing, chatting about this and about that, labelling, interpreting, giving meaning to events and things, analysing how things could have done differently, and so on.
While noticing the dance of thoughts, how they go around in loops trying to find verification for their own self-appointed truth…. check for yourself if the above given statement is true.

Are there two ways of thoughts or do you find more? If yes, please do give an example.
Does one set of thoughts point to something in DE and does the other one really point to another thought only?

Please spend a whole day looking at this. Check this again and again throughout your day.

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

Where does this idea come from that seeing through the self is getting into a barren, empty place?
And more importantly, HOW do you know that this is the case?

I believe it comes from my early life, being left alone to cry myself to sleep in a room high up in a big old building with the door tied shut. It runs deep, and whenever I have come close to some kind of insight I come to a point where there is a lot of fear/terror.

I do not know that this idea is true, and there is a lot of evidence (from others) that it is not. The only way I could find out if it were true would be to look, or to stop not looking.

Yes, thoughts might insist that this is how it is, or this might happen, but HOW do you know that thoughts are telling the truth?

I can test thoughts out for some things e.g. if I think I left my glasses on the kitchen table I can go and look to see if they are there. I could just try to remember where I left them go through my movements etc. I could even ask someone else to go and look for me, but I could only really know if I went and looked for myself.

How do you know that thoughts are in possession of truth at all?

By looking.

How do you know that a lifeless thought can know anything about truth or awakening, or anything at all?

By checking in experience. Thoughts cannot prove anything. They do keep on trying to find the right answer, to work things out, to get it right, and that process is endless at its own level.

Are there two ways of thoughts or do you find more?

I can’t find another mode of thought. They are either about an experience that is happening (often with a judgement attached e.g. that hurts, that’s nice) or they are about an experience that happened (is remembered in thought) or is anticipated in thought. There is much more of the second type - thoughts about thoughts - and there is an infinite regression in that thoughts about thoughts can have thoughts about them etc. Most of this activity appears to be about trying to get things right, or avoiding blame.

Does one set of thoughts point to something in DE and does the other one really point to another thought only?

Yes, and the DE thoughts can quickly spin off into thoughts about what was experienced. Although even the labelling is a thought about the experience e.g. I looked out of the window and thought “there are two dogs”, then I thought “they are dear not dogs” so the thought “there are two dogs” was not the direct experience but an interpretation of it. Right and wrong belong to thoughts, and thoughts about thoughts not direct experience.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

I believe it comes from my early life, being left alone to cry myself to sleep in a room high up in a big old building with the door tied shut. It runs deep, and whenever I have come close to some kind of insight I come to a point where there is a lot of fear/terror.

Thank you for your honest sharing. So this is a deep rooted fear, an old one and this is being projected to all sorts of things in your life, right?

And now this is being projected to seeing that there is no self at the core. Can you see this?

By checking in experience. Thoughts cannot prove anything. They do keep on trying to find the right answer, to work things out, to get it right, and that process is endless at its own level.

Yes. Thoughts always try to prove its ideas. So if there is a well-established belief or fear, like what you’ve mentioned, then thoughts are in a quest for finding validation and proof for its fears and beliefs. And at the same time ignores everything that would show otherwise.

Yes, and the DE thoughts can quickly spin off into thoughts about what was experienced. Although even the labelling is a thought about the experience e.g. I looked out of the window and thought “there are two dogs”, then I thought “they are dear not dogs” so the thought “there are two dogs” was not the direct experience but an interpretation of it. Right and wrong belong to thoughts, and thoughts about thoughts not direct experience.

You did a nice investigation.

Here are two exercises for you along the same lines.

1. Take a piece of paper and divide it in two parts.
- In one part you mark each thought which content points to the intake of senses,
- on the other part you make a mark for all thoughts which don't point to anything in DE, like into the so called future/daydreams/plans or past/memory.

Take half an hour time for it or longer and have a look how the percentage is.

2. Play around and notice thoughts during the day, and label them according to which category they belong to.

Share what you find. This time please give a list of examples for both categories.

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,
I noticed a spelling mistake it should have been “deer” not “dear”.

Thank you for your honest sharing. So this is a deep rooted fear, an old one and this is being projected to all sorts of things in your life, right?

Yes, that’s right.

And now this is being projected to seeing that there is no self at the core. Can you see this?

Yes.

Take half an hour time for it or longer and have a look how the percentage is.

I was surprised to find that it was about 5 to 4 in favour of thoughts pointing to the intake of the senses. I think perhaps doing this exercise meant that I didn’t wander off into thoughts about thoughts as much as normally.

Share what you find. This time please give a list of examples for both categories.

I noticed many more thoughts about thoughts than I did thoughts pointing to intake of the senses. It is like I take the latter thoughts for granted most of the time. So, when cycling I think “there is a lorry” but quickly move on to thinking “how fast is it going? Will it stop? Do I need to slow down or speed up, or do something else?”. I notice flowers on the table but the thought “flowers” doesn’t really register before I move on to thinking “Which ones are doing well? Are some of them dead? They are a bit messy. Maybe that is alright...” Then there are thoughts about something I said or did, or about what someone else said about me from years ago. Thoughts about what to eat, and how I should behave. Whether I should drink less alcohol. A lot of these thoughts are about getting things right or being right or wrong. Thoughts pointing to sense experiences usually have a judgement thought following them for example “that sounds like a motorbike” followed by “It was a nice low growling sound” or “It was a high pitched screening sound...Why do people drive so fast?....” Then there are thoughts comparing myself with others e.g. “I have a better sense of style than my wife...”. Thoughts pointing to the intake of the senses are only really noticed when something is wrong e.g. a lorry arriving at a junction faster than feels safe, an item in the kitchen not in its normal place, a puddle in front of me, or when they impact in some other way e.g. the clouds break after days of greyness and a shaft of sunlight shines through.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

I was surprised to find that it was about 5 to 4 in favour of thoughts pointing to the intake of the senses.

Oh, that’s way too high. Usually, thoughts about DE is less than 1%. So you probably missed some.

Thoughts pointing to sense experiences usually have a judgement thought following them for example “that sounds like a motorbike” followed by “It was a nice low growling sound” or “It was a high pitched screening sound... Why do people drive so fast?....”

Yes… thoughts are quick of offering judgements, narration, interpretation… it’s good to see this. And it has nothing to do with reality!

Thoughts pointing to the intake of the senses are only really noticed when something is wrong e.g. a lorry arriving at a junction faster than feels safe,

“lorry arriving at a junction faster than feels safe” – are you sure that this thought is about DE?

What is the DE of ‘feels safe’?
What is the DE of ‘safe’?
Is it color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or just a thought/concept?

What is the DE of ‘faster’?

an item in the kitchen not in its normal place,

Are you sure that this thought is about DE?

What is the experience of ‘not being it’s normal place’?
What is the experience of ‘normal place’?
Is it color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or just a thought/concept?

clouds break after days of greyness and a shaft of sunlight shines through.

What is the DE of ‘after days’?

And what is the DE of ‘shines through’?

Isn’t all there is the noticing of light/color, and ‘shaft of sunlight shines through’ is already a thought INTERPRETATION or STORY ABOUT the raw experience of light?

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

Oh, that’s way too high. Usually, thoughts about DE is less than 1%. So you probably missed some.

I put a mark whenever I noticed a sense impression that I had a thought about e.g. things I saw: my hand, the pen, a light, a chair, a desk; things I heard: traffic mostly; things I felt: warm, cold, itch.

“lorry arriving at a junction faster than feels safe” – are you sure that this thought is about DE?

No it’s not. What I was trying to say was that I didn’t even notice most of the sense impressions going on. The ones that I did (such as the one I labelled lorry) were the ones I had further thoughts about.

What is the DE of ‘feels safe’?
What is the DE of ‘safe’?
Is it color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or just a thought/concept?

These are all thought/concepts that followed the sight and sound sensations I labelled lorry.

What is the experience of ‘not being it’s normal place’?
What is the experience of ‘normal place’?
Is it color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or just a thought/concept?

These are all thoughts about the thing and where it is. The impression of the thing was in direct experience. For example this morning I saw a whisk in a jug with a lot of other kitchen tools. The impressions I labelled “whisk” stood out, the others didn’t because I believed the whisk didn’t belong there. This belief had nothing to do with the direct experience it’s just that I noticed it. The labelling is also not the direct experience. I was looking for those more direct thoughts as opposed to thoughts about them. Was that not what you were asking?

What is the DE of ‘after days’?

And what is the DE of ‘shines through’?

Isn’t all there is the noticing of light/color, and ‘shaft of sunlight shines through’ is already a thought INTERPRETATION or STORY ABOUT the raw experience of light?

“After days” “shines through “ weren’t the direct experience it was just that I noted the experience of lightening because it brought pleasure. Most sense impressions pass unnoticed.

Keith

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

The labelling is also not the direct experience. I was looking for those more direct thoughts as opposed to thoughts about them. Was that not what you were asking?

Is there such thing as direct thought? There is a difference between certain thoughts that POINT TO direct experience, like the words: color, sound, smell, taste, sensation…. and thinking that there are direct thoughts with experience.

Can you see that no matter what the thought is, the thought is never ever contains any experience?

Like the word ‘taste’ is an actual experience of a taste? Or it is just POINTING TO the indescribable experience labelled ‘taste’?

Can you smell the thought ‘vanilla’?
Can you taste the thought ‘sweet’?
Can you burn by thinking of fire?

Please don’t keep these questions on the intellectual level. Rather try your best to actually smell the thought ‘vanilla’, and so on… try this out in experience.

I noticed a sense impression that I had a thought about e.g. things I saw: my hand, the pen, a light, a chair, a desk; things I heard: traffic mostly; things I felt: warm, cold, itch.

Is ‘the pen’ a sense impression, aka an experience?
Or pen is already in label or an interpretation ABOUT the direct experience of color?

Is traffic a direct experience? Or is it already a story/label/thought ABOUT the immediate experience of sound?

Isn’t warm, cold or each already a thought label on the raw experience of a sensation?

Again, please don’t just think these through, rather dig deep and notice what is real in experience and what is just a story/thought ABOUT it.

Can you see how simple experience is?
And how much story, interpretation, and meaning is given by thoughts?

There is the simplicity of raw experience, and then thoughts ADD, and spin a big story around it… which is never ever an experience. Can you see this clearly?

Please spend a whole day looking at this again and again. Seeing this clearly is essential. Since this is how we distinguish between reality and fiction.

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien

Is there such thing as direct thought?

No, a thought is always about something. They follow very, very, very, closely on sense impressions.

Can you see that no matter what the thought is, the thought is never ever contains any experience?

Yes I can see that. Experience is ineffable.

Like the word ‘taste’ is an actual experience of a taste? Or it is just POINTING TO the indescribable experience labelled ‘taste’?

Words can only ever point to or symbolise an experience. Sometimes they point more accurately than others.

Can you smell the thought ‘vanilla’?

No, I can only bring up memories of having smelled it, which brings up memories (thoughts) of what responses I had. None of which captures the actual experience, which anyway would not be the same twice, so the smell of vanilla is not even a thing. While I was doing the exercise on tasting the word sweet I had recently drunk a cup of coffee and was surprised to find a taste I called banana in the experience. I had never noticed that before in coffee nor would I have associated banana with the taste ‘coffee’.

Can you taste the thought ‘sweet’?

No, I can only experience the taste of what is in my mouth at the time, and even that I often don’t pay attention to.

Can you burn by thinking of fire?

No, I can remember times when I burned myself. I can’t recreate the experience.

Is ‘the pen’ a sense impression, aka an experience?
Or pen is already in label or an interpretation ABOUT the direct experience of color?

‘The pen’ is not a sense impression, it is a thought about a set of sense impressions as is the word colour. The direct experience is wordless.

Is traffic a direct experience? Or is it already a story/label/thought ABOUT the immediate experience of sound?

It is a thought about an immediate experience of sounds.

Isn’t warm, cold or each already a thought label on the raw experience of a sensation?

Yes they are thoughts about sensations.

Can you see how simple experience is?

Simple in that it is not made up or added to, and difficult to access because thoughts are always present.

And how much story, interpretation, and meaning is given by thoughts?

Yes it is a perpetual running commentary with lots of judgements, hopes, fears, regrets, joys etc.

There is the simplicity of raw experience, and then thoughts ADD, and spin a big story around it… which is never ever an experience. Can you see this clearly?

I can see clearly that this is the case. I cannot clearly see raw experience, or not for very long. I can get glimpses of it, come closer to it.

Keith - PS It is Christmas here (Sweden) today so I might be late replying next time.

[Vivien]

Hi Keith,

You did a nice investigation :)

No, a thought is always about something. They follow very, very, very, closely on sense impressions.

What do you mean by this that thoughts follow very closely on sense impression? Could you say a bit more about this?

I can see clearly that this is the case. I cannot clearly see raw experience, or not for very long. I can get glimpses of it, come closer to it.

Are you sure that ‘raw experience’ is not available all the time?

Next time when you drink coffee, just notice that no matter how much thoughts are present, the taste is immediately known. No matter what thoughts say, the taste is there and directly known. Can you see this?
Do thoughts need to stop in order to taste coffee?

Look around the room. Isn’t the colors and shapes directly experienced regardless of the presence of thoughts?
Do thoughts need to stop in order to see colors/shapes?

Next time when you eat something… can you notice that the taste and smell of food is there regardless of thoughts?

Listen to the background sounds/noises. Do thoughts need to stop to hear the sound?

So the aim of this investigation is not to make thoughts away and have only the DE… that is not possible. For thoughts to go away, first you have to be a thinker with control over thoughts.
Rather, this investigation is about shifting your focus from thoughts to experience. That’s all.

We are very used to focusing on thoughts and hardly noticing experience. (thoughts in the foreground, experience in the background).
But you just shift your focus to experience, so experience gets into the foreground, and thoughts get into the background.
We are not trying to get rid of thoughts. It’s just a shift in focus. That’s all.

Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?

Vivien

[Purpleturtle]

Hi Vivien,

What do you mean by this, that thoughts follow very closely on sense impressions? Could you say a bit more about this?

I mean that thoughts labelling sense impressions follow the sense impressions almost simultaneously e.g. there are a number of sense impressions, smells, sensations, tastes that I label “coffee” then I tend to forget the impressions themselves.

Are you sure that ‘raw experience’ is not available all the time?

I need to make some effort not to get lost in thoughts and miss the ‘raw experience’.

Next time when you drink coffee, just notice that no matter how much thoughts are present, the taste is immediately known. No matter what thoughts say, the taste is there and directly known. Can you see this?
Do thoughts need to stop in order to taste coffee?

Yes, I can see that there is taste there that is directly known, and then there are thoughts that interpret the flavours into coffee (or banana). Thoughts don’t need to stop exactly. Attention needs to be paid to the sensations rather than the thoughts.

Look around the room. Isn’t the colors and shapes directly experienced regardless of the presence of thoughts?
Do thoughts need to stop in order to see colors/shapes?

Yes they are, and no thoughts don’t need to stop.

Next time when you eat something… can you notice that the taste and smell of food is there regardless of thoughts?

Yes.

Listen to the background sounds/noises. Do thoughts need to stop to hear the sound?

No, they do get in the way with the labelling of directly experiencing the sound just as it is in its uniqueness. It’s strange that thoughts run a story that the bare experience would be boring, that they (thoughts) are much more interesting. And the opposite is closer to the truth.

Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?

Yes, I do notice that, and the stories that thoughts weave are seductive.

Keith