SelfingStrong

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa,

Is the content of thinking "l"?

Yes, I notice mostly “I” thoughts.

You have told me that thought of table is not table.

It is just a thought.

And that when looking, there is no separation, and table cannot be found.

You have told me a separate seer, hearer etc., and now thinker cannot be found.

Yet somehow, when I ask if content of thought is "I", you tell me "yes".

Look again.

Content of seeing is merely colour - this is simply a way of describing the what appears as seeing - when we look, there is simply seeing - no separate seer can be found.

The same with hearing, etc.

So - again - what is the content of thought?

If you say "I", then you are going to have to tell me where this "I" is to be found.

You will need to tell me how this "I" is different from table.

Maybe I am taking myself to be that “knowing” of thought. Are the thoughts and the knowing of the thoughts the same thing? If they are, I don’t see it. One comes and goes, and one remains

I don't understand this statement.

Are seeing and knowing seeing the same?

Is there something separate that "knows" seeing?

If you don't think "I see this", does seeing stop?

So is seeing only known because a thought says "I see"?

Now - is thinking known even if a thought doesn't appear "I thought this"?

Does thought stop if there are no thoughts about "I" thinking, or does thinking simply continue?

So does there need to be a receiver of thought for thought to happen?

So can thinking and knowing thinking be separated?

What do you mean by:

One comes and goes, and one remains

?

Read and answer all questions very carefully here....

D x

[EMWBerry]

Hi Dave,
I didn't understand what you were asking with that first question. Content of thinking is not "I".

So - again - what is the content of thought?

Just concepts.

Are seeing and knowing seeing the same?

Yes.

Is there something separate that "knows" seeing?

No.

If you don't think "I see this", does seeing stop?

No

So is seeing only known because a thought says "I see"?

No

Now - is thinking known even if a thought doesn't appear "I thought this"?

Thinking is still known.

Does thought stop if there are no thoughts about "I" thinking, or does thinking simply continue?

No.

So does there need to be a receiver of thought for thought to happen?

No, thoughts happen on their own.

So can thinking and knowing thinking be separated? No.

What do you mean by:
One comes and goes, and one remains
?

Just like the clouds in the sky metaphor...that thoughts float by like clouds in the sky. That is all.

Lisa

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa -

The thought "I" - what does it point to, what does it refer to?

[EMWBerry]

The thought "I" - what does it point to, what does it refer to?

Just an idea or concept.

[DrWilko]

The thought "I" - what does it point to, what does it refer to?

Just an idea or concept.

Right. Good. So a thought referencing another thought.

So in the sentence "I type this", can what is referred to as "I" be found anywhere in experience? If so - where and what exactly is this "I" that is referred to?

Now go back to the Bahiya sutra.

You don't have any issues with "in the seen only the seen", "heard only the heard", etc. You seem clear on that, correct?

So are there any issues with "in the cognised, only the cognised"? How is this be any different?

So, no separation to be found in seeing between a seer and what is seen, in hearing between a hearer and what is heard, etc... Until we get to: no separation to be found in thinking between a thinker and what is thought... Yes? Or no?

[EMWBerry]

o in the sentence "I type this", can what is referred to as "I" be found anywhere in experience? If so - where and what exactly is this "I" that is referred to?

no, it’s just a thought claiming ownership of an action.

Now go back to the Bahiya sutra.

Y

ou don't have any issues with "in the seen only the seen", "heard only the heard", etc. You seem clear on that, correct?

yes

So are there any issues with "in the cognised, only the cognised"? How is this be any different?

it’s not.

So, no separation to be found in seeing between a seer and what is seen, in hearing between a hearer and what is heard, etc... Until we get to: no separation to be found in thinking between a thinker and what is thought... Yes? Or no?

corrrct, no separation. No thinker of thoughts or one who recognizes thoughts.

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa,

no, it’s just a thought claiming ownership of an action.

I think I get you are trying to say here, but it is important to be clear... Can a thought claim ownership of an "action"? What, actually, is claiming anything? Is there actually, at any moment an "action" to be claimed, or is that too, just thoughts...

Be very very clear about this - are thoughts doing anything?

Can a thought own anything?

What does the illusion consist of? Action and ownership?

Or simply, a series of thoughts, one after another, as you said like clouds, with no control over how they arise?

Be very very clear. Check, look. Is there anything else at all going on?

D x

[EMWBerry]

Hi Dave,

I think I get you are trying to say here, but it is important to be clear... Can a thought claim ownership of an "action"? What, actually, is claiming anything? Is there actually, at any moment an "action" to be claimed, or is that too, just thoughts...

Thoughts cannot claim anything. It is just more thoughts.

Be very very clear about this - are thoughts doing anything?

No. i watched this closely yesterday and today.

Can a thought own anything?

No.

What does the illusion consist of? Action and ownership?
Or simply, a series of thoughts, one after another, as you said like clouds, with no control over how they arise?

A series of thoughts with no control over how they arise.

Be very very clear. Check, look. Is there anything else at all going on?

Nothingbelse going on. Just thoughts....

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa,

Great... It sounds like we are beginning to get to the bottom of this...

So tell me now;

Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

If there is, or seems to be in any way shape or form, describe it as clearly as you can using what can be known from experience.

D x

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa,

I hope all is well with you.

I wonder whether you have seen my last post sent on Monday? Let me know when you can.

All good wishes,
Dave

[EMWBerry]

Hi Dave....I should have responded saying I was looking at this. I don’t know why I’m having a hard time answering it. There ‘seems’ to be an I or entity right behind my eyes. When you say to describe it using what can be known from direct experience, I can’t really. I can’t find an I in direct experience. It’s just a feeling or assumption that there is an I here. Just a thought...

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa

There ‘seems’ to be an I or entity right behind my eyes. When you say to describe it using what can be known from direct experience, I can’t really. I can’t find an I in direct experience. It’s just a feeling or assumption that there is an I here. Just a thought...

So - "I or entity right behind the eyes":

Is this "I or entity right behind the eyes" experienced in seeing? Hearing? Tasting? Sensing? Smelling?

Is this "I or entity right behind the eyes" apparent in thinking? If so - can it be found elsewhere?

If it cannot be found elsewhere, then what is referred to as "entity" or I is what exactly?

So - again:

Does a thought "do" anything?

Does a thought make anything happen?

Is experience happening to a thought?

Does a thought create experience?

D x

[EMWBerry]

Hi Dave,

Is this "I or entity right behind the eyes" experienced in seeing? Hearing? Tasting? Sensing? Smelling?

No.

Is this "I or entity right behind the eyes" apparent in thinking? If so - can it be found elsewhere?

it is experienced in thinking meaning there are ‘I’ thoughts (I have to do this or that, I am hungry, my head hurts, etc...) not that its responsible for or doing the thinking. It cannot be found elsewhere.

I

f it cannot be found elsewhere, then what is referred to as "entity" or I is what exactly?

a label that points to something that doesn’t exist.

So - again:

Does a thought "do" anything?

No

Does a thought make anything happen?

No.

Is experience happening to a thought?

No.

Does a thought create experience?

No.

Lisa

[DrWilko]

Hi Lisa,

it is experienced in thinking meaning there are ‘I’ thoughts (I have to do this or that, I am hungry, my head hurts, etc...) It cannot be found elsewhere.

So the thought "I" points to other thoughts that say an entity or I exists right behind the eyes. Is that about right?

Okay - it appears we are going around in circles, but what is happening is that there appears to be resistance, so it may appear that I am posing similar questions. Stick with this.

Is there any sensation at all that you can experience that is interpreted as "behind the eyes"?

Does sight appear "behind the eyes"?

Can anything at all be felt "behind the eyes"?

I am just trying to establish if there is anything at all that would lead you to conclude that there is an entity behind the eyes, and that this entity had any characteristics normally ascribed to a self.

If there is nothing to be found, then indeed, all we have is a thought "I", pointing to another thought "there seems to be an entity".

If that is the case, you can ask the same four questions from the last post again .

If there is anything at all to be found behind the eyes, ask those same four questions about whatever is felt, sensed/seen - whatever, behind d the eyes.

Does sensation behind the eyes do anything, etc.

D x

[EMWBerry]

Hi Dave,

So the thought "I" points to other thoughts that say an entity or I exists right behind the eyes. Is that about right?

yes

Is there any sensation at all that you can experience that is interpreted as "behind the eyes"?

no

Does sight appear "behind the eyes"?

no, I don’t actually experience eyes with seeing.

Can anything at all be felt "behind the eyes"?

no.

I am just trying to establish if there is anything at all that would lead you to conclude that there is an entity behind the eyes, and that this entity had any characteristics normally ascribed to a self.

If there is nothing to be found, then indeed, all we have is a thought "I", pointing to another thought "there seems to be an entity"

. Yes

If that is the case, you can ask the same four questions from the last post again

.
Ok, Im going to make another post with those questions.