Ready

[Eggplane]

Hi Behzad,
No, I can not stop any of the senses now--although I don't know what happens to them in deep sleep. At most, attention and emphasis shifts, with one sense becoming predominant over the others, and different sense objects flowing in and out of attention. It usually looks like the shifts just happen. Sometimes a sudden or forceful sense-object will capture all of my attention. Usually, it is a kind of drift, often spurred by thoughts (and vice-versa).

Every now and then it does feel like “I” am directing what I should focus on through intention.That is especially the case during an exercise like this, with concentrated observation on the senses. If I try to observe carefully to see if intention makes any difference, sometimes it seems like the intention precedes the shift in sense-object; sometimes the shift precedes the intention; and sometimes they happen simultaneously. All variations seem to happen in different contexts. Beneath that I sense yet another “I” telling myself to observe more closely and getting a bit frustrated when my mind wanders. I am sure that this extra layer of observation is influencing my perception of the sequence.

So I relax. The "I's quiet down and drift away (although the initial decision to relax often feels like one of those things that “I” decided to do). I find that I can keep my senses focused on one thing for a longer time and feel a wider range of senses at once. Shifts in focus happen less often, although I rarely notice them until after they happened and can't say much about how they emerged. But I also find that, even in a relaxed state, if I merely observe the senses for a long time, I start to feel tense, jumpy, a real struggle to hold focus, and start to have thoughts about all the other things I really ought/would like to be doing now.

A side note, in case it is useful to you, Behzad: For many years, I have not had a sense of a “Master self” that controls everything. I was a university academic who routinely talked of ‘fluid identities’ and ‘social construction’ and has read a lot of neuroscience which posits the brain as something like feedback loops and multiple overlapping identities. I absorbed this pretty well, and never feel an urge to assert "But I do exist!" But I do feel all kinds of passing and temporary selves, and my struggle is with the power and potency that some of them still have despite being aware of their temporariness. Often they monopolize my awareness with a sense of embarrassment, anger, sound of music etc. In these cases, “I” emerges as something that is under control from outside, not something that controls. And at other times, I do have a strong sense of an “I” that controls, usually when I am doing something analytical or see something as a clear choice.

[Eggplane]

Are you there, Behzad?

[Behzad]

Sorry, have had my family visiting me so had a lot to do : )

So you see that all the senses is functioning naturally, effortlessly and that you cant stop or turn them on. That you cant controll them right? They are functioning by them self, so is the beating of the heart, blood pumping around in the body, nails growing, hair growing, digestion, all the cells that is doing what they are doing, all this is happening without any I/me, right?

We will look into if there is a doer or not. I see that you feel that there is a I/me that is deciding what to focus on etc. We will take a look at that too later. Right know we are just hunting the I/me and se if we can find it, locate it, see it.

So lets take a look at the thoughts:

Can you see where thoughts is coming from?
Can you know what youre next thought is going to be?
Are you the thinker of thoughts?
Are you in control of them?
Can you stop thoughts from coming? Or hold a thought in 30 secounds?

Is I/me the seer of thoughts or is it part of the thought stream?

Look at all this questions and answer from youre direct experience. From what you see. Have a good look before you answer.

And please learn to use to quote function so you can answer these questions one by one.

[Eggplane]

So you see that all the senses is functioning naturally, effortlessly and that you cant stop or turn them on. That you cant controll them right? They are functioning by them self, so is the beating of the heart, blood pumping around in the body, nails growing, hair growing, digestion, all the cells that is doing what they are doing, all this is happening without any I/me, right?

The past couple of days, I’ve been noticing more and more quiet spaces between thoughts and sensations. Calling them “being”, “existence” or even “emptiness” seems a bit grandiose. Perhaps blankness?

Can you see where thoughts is coming from?

They emerge from the stimulus of sensations, memories, words, previous thoughts, emotions, etc. Usually some mix of these things will congeal into a full-blown thought. It is an endless chain of causation. Most thoughts then drift away or change so quickly that I am not able to follow this chain back very far without getting sidetracked into new thoughts and memories.

When I am relaxed, I can see many proto-thoughts bubbling up—words, half formed memories and associations, emotions, etc., usually in conjunction with something I have sensed. When two or more of these things manage to link together, they formed more full-fledged thoughts. If I am relaxed, I am more able to let them slip by before they become full thoughts. Which also means that I am less able to try and dig into where they came from.

For most practical purposes, the thoughts are like waves or gusts, rising and falling

Can you know what youre next thought is going to be?
Are you in control of them?
Or hold a thought in 30 secounds?

Under normal circumstances, no, because I am not paying any attention to where they come from and where they go (although I sometimes feel like my thoughts are in control of me).

It gets more complicated when I watch my thoughts or try to impose intention. As I said before, sometimes it feels like I can shift my attention. Or I can form the intention to think such and such a thing in 10 seconds from now, and then do it. Or to repeat the last thought that comes. I can sometimes even hold a thought for 30 seconds (although only if there is an image attached, or if I think of a general theme rather than a particular thought.) I am just as likely to fail in these exercises as to be successful. Which means that I really don’t have any basis to credit my intention and will power.

The creation of an intention also makes it very hard to look at where an intention comes from. In other words, how did I decide what to think about in the first place? Intention focuses attention on the future, and draws attention away from where the intention came from in the first place. So, it seems very likely that an “intention” is just one link in that endless chain of thoughts, etc. that I described above.

I start to get frustrated when I engage in more intensive observation. I think that if I had more mental discipline I could do a better job of holding thoughts and watching where they came from. This frustration is attached to a lot of stories about myself: How much I hate meditating; my inability to control that constant mental chatter; my lack of mental discipline . . . which I know is untrue because I am very disciplined in other things . . . . Yeah, disciplined in the ability to make everything too complicated. . . etc. I’ll spare you the details. Hopefully some of these stories are starting to unravel now that I am looking at them.

Can you stop thoughts from coming?

With relaxed attention, thoughts slow down and drift away more easily. This happens best when I am outside, or doing simple activities. But I can not stop that sense of bubbling thoughts and proto-thoughts.

When I have intense attention, the more often I am blindsided by thoughts that seem to control me and the more frustrated I get.

Are you the thinker of thoughts? Is I/me the seer of thoughts or is it part of the thought stream?

No, the thoughts create a sense of me. They don’t always come with the label of “I”. Sometimes they are a process of putting an emotion into words; linking an image or sensation with memory and creating a personal story; or constantly hammering the same repetitive thought over and over. All of these processes create a sense of separation, and draw attention away from just being.

[Eggplane]

It's hard to find a thought that doesn't have an emotion attached. Thoughts without emotions are just words that drift away quickly.

Some thoughts are tied to images, while others pile word upon word to create internal dialogs and stories. Even when they don't use the label "I", they drawing out the map of me, drilling it in through repetition. Amazing how they almost never stop working.

[Behzad]

The past couple of days, I’ve been noticing more and more quiet spaces between thoughts and sensations. Calling them “being”, “existence” or even “emptiness” seems a bit grandiose. Perhaps blankness?

Yes, beautiful. Is there just emptiness, being, existence, blankness or is there a knowing to, that there is emptiness, existence, being etc? Is there anything seeing/knowing that there is being, blankness?

They emerge from the stimulus of sensations, memories, words, previous thoughts, emotions, etc. Usually some mix of these things will congeal into a full-blown thought. It is an endless chain of causation. Most thoughts then drift away or change so quickly that I am not able to follow this chain back very far without getting sidetracked into new thoughts and memories.

When I am relaxed, I can see many proto-thoughts bubbling up—words, half formed memories and associations, emotions, etc., usually in conjunction with something I have sensed. When two or more of these things manage to link together, they formed more full-fledged thoughts. If I am relaxed, I am more able to let them slip by before they become full thoughts. Which also means that I am less able to try and dig into where they came from.

For most practical purposes, the thoughts are like waves or gusts, rising and falling

Good, what you are describing is what stimulates thoughts to arise. But that was not my question. Look in DE (direct experience) and see from where is thoughts arising and where do they go when they leave?

It gets more complicated when I watch my thoughts or try to impose intention. As I said before, sometimes it feels like I can shift my attention. Or I can form the intention to think such and such a thing in 10 seconds from now, and then do it. Or to repeat the last thought that comes. I can sometimes even hold a thought for 30 seconds (although only if there is an image attached, or if I think of a general theme rather than a particular thought.) I am just as likely to fail in these exercises as to be successful. Which means that I really don’t have any basis to credit my intention and will power.

Lets look at this:

So think about a red elephant please for 10 or 20 secounds if you can. Now describe exactly how you did it? I want every little detail about how you did it here, describe the whole precess from beginning to the end?

I start to get frustrated when I engage in more intensive observation. I think that if I had more mental discipline I could do a better job of holding thoughts and watching where they came from. This frustration is attached to a lot of stories about myself: How much I hate meditating; my inability to control that constant mental chatter; my lack of mental discipline . . . which I know is untrue because I am very disciplined in other things . . . . Yeah, disciplined in the ability to make everything too complicated. . . etc. I’ll spare you the details. Hopefully some of these stories are starting to unravel now that I am looking at them.

If you belived that you could fly and where trying/practising every day to fly but never making it, do you think that you would be happy?
Wouldnt you be frustrated? Wouldnt you be irritated of not making it? Beacuse you are expecting to do something that is not possible : )

Same thing is happening with thoughts. Thoughts is happening. Then another thought is happening that say"I control my thoughts" <---- Is that a entity/person saying this or is it just thoughts?
Take a look at the thoughts, you see clearly that thoughts is happening. Can you see the controller to? Where is that one that wants to control the thoughts?
Maybe its just a thought "I want to control the thoughts" or "I have to control my thoughts" or "I can hold a thought in 10 secounds" etc. Where is the owner of these thoughts?

With relaxed attention, thoughts slow down and drift away more easily. This happens best when I am outside, or doing simple activities. But I can not stop that sense of bubbling thoughts and proto-thoughts.

Good. Thoughts come and go and create a sense of self. This you are seeing. Now, have a look to see if there is a Adam/me seeing this sense of self? Thoughts are being seen, right. So all the thoughts must belong to that wich sees them. Allt this thoughts must belong to that wich sees them. Because they are refering to that wich sees them. That must be the I/me. Take a look and see if there is anyone the thoughts belong to?

No, the thoughts create a sense of me. They don’t always come with the label of “I”. Sometimes they are a process of putting an emotion into words; linking an image or sensation with memory and creating a personal story; or constantly hammering the same repetitive thought over and over. All of these processes create a sense of separation, and draw attention away from just being.

So what is I/me?
Where is the I/me?

[Eggplane]

Yes, beautiful. Is there just emptiness, being, existence, blankness or is there a knowing to, that there is emptiness, existence, being etc? Is there anything seeing/knowing that there is being, blankness?

It goes by in a split-second. The moment I try to label it, it is gone. In fact, the moment I perceive it, it is gone. It was only there long enough to realize that “Woah, just being aware/blank is different than my sitting here sensing or thinking about my awareness.” And the moment I realize that, it is gone.

Good, what you are describing is what stimulates thoughts to arise. But that was not my question. Look in DE (direct experience) and see from where is thoughts arising and where do they go when they leave?

I'm not sure I see the difference. Any time I look for where a thought arises or goes, I see it merging and morphing into/from something else. For example: awareness of a smell arises along with a memory which brings an emotion, all of which congealed into a thought when words were applied. Or: this thought elaborated into stories about myself, which drew upon and created memories all of which were laden with emotions, which colored the way that I looked at that person across the street, and created new thoughts associated with my reaction to that person, and then about why I would have that kind of reaction, along with an emotion about my chronic reactivity, and so on. . . .

I’m not sure if I understand how to make this into more of a direct experience. Is it that that the chains of association described above actually include an overlay of memories, associations & intentions? In contrast, a direct experience will just look, ignoring all of those things? Which means that, of course, a direct experience can only exist in the now. It doesn’t mean that all of those other stimulations and associations didn’t happen, just that DE won’t see them. (Which doesn’t mean that they did happen either).

. . . So, all I can say right now is that, given my current understanding of DE, it reveals nothing about where thoughts came from and went because it doesn’t look at that. I find I am only able to do this kind of DE with sensations--that feeling of sensing which I mentioned in an early post. Any attempt to look directly at thoughts is always restrospective, after the thought loosens its control over me. Although, I suppose I can see those bubbling proto-thoughts when I relax.

So think about a red elephant please for 10 or 20 secounds if you can. Now describe exactly how you did it? I want every little detail about how you did it here, describe the whole precess from beginning to the end?

I read your sentence and then develop a picture of a red elephant. I look at the clock. I close my eyes and hold the image. Small thoughts rise and and fall: “Why does he have a rider?” "Why not a wild elephant?" “Can I see the other side?” “Wait, he turned grey for a moment.” “He’s shimmering in and out of view.” “It’s OK, I’m still holding a picture of an elephant even if he is a slightly changing elephant, even despite the thoughts.” “Maybe it’s a girl?” “Should I eat that hummus?” “How many seconds now?” Something feels tense, wants to stop. Something else wants to keep going. I stop. Look, 26 seconds. The image was clouded with thoughts and constantly shifting, but it did not go away.

I try again with images from the internet. Yes, I can hang on to that image better, it keeps him more stable. The thoughts keep flowing through, but the image itself is firmer. A cartoon elephant is even better.

I relax. Less thoughts flow through, the image is even more stable. “See, mental discipline is possible,” I tell myself. “That’s just a silly example about flying. Pick something more realistic. Like learning Chinese. I was frustrated all the time, it seemed impossible, but now I can speak and read Chinese. Maybe I don’t need mental discipline right now. But no need to persuade myself it’s impossible. . . .” Then I realize that I lost the elephant a long time ago.

Take a look at the thoughts, you see clearly that thoughts is happening. Can you see the controller to? Where is that one that wants to control the thoughts?
Maybe its just a thought "I want to control the thoughts" or "I have to control my thoughts" or "I can hold a thought in 10 secounds" etc. Where is the owner of these thoughts?

I am more likely to feel in control when my thoughts are more analytic. The best example may be when I am correcting a paper of a student I barely know on a topic about which I have little interest. I feel like I am the one drawing on all of my experience in the construction of arguments and deployment of facts to give good advice on how these ideas could be better expressed within standard academic writing format.

The more that emotions are involved, the more I feel like the thoughts are controlling me, catching me by surprise, undermining the analysis, compelling words and thoughts. But at the same time the stimulate an autobiographical construction of me through retrospective analysis: Oh, here is how I behave; here is my justification of this behavior; here is how I can create more/less of this kind of behavior, etc.

I certainly have no feeling of controlling these emotion-laden thoughts. Do I ‘own’ them? That doesn’t feel like the right word. They are more like a leaky roof, or a cockroach infestation, or perhaps some pretty flowers in the yard that I did not plant. They are not “mine” in any sense, but now “I” am burdened (or blessed) with them and have to figure out some way to deal with them.

Which brings me back to those analytic thoughts that I do feel like I own. I see them as the product of my experience and cleverness. And this is the nub. My career and paycheck and any worldly glory and my pride is also dependent on my analytical skills (or so I tell myself). There probably is nothing in which I have deeper emotional investment--even though I tell myself that the more analytic I am the less emotionally invested I am. The more analytic I am, the more I appear to distance myself from my emotions, the more I am proud of myself, the more I demonstrating the worth of “me." This is the me that sees itself as autonomous, not subject to those foolish emotions, the me that stands back and figures out (with great futility) about how to deal with them.

In other words, the analytic, controlling sense of me is actually the "me" that is most buffeted by the winds of emotion because it is least able to see them. . . . And, shit, that me is in charge right now as I write.

So what is I/me?
Where is the I/me?

1) Analytic answer: A nexus, a hook that links together those waves of thoughts and feelings and memories.

2) An answer arrived at through direct seeing, not filtered through retrospective analysis: . . . . . . . ummmm . . . . I don't know.

Sorry for writing so much--thanks for your patience. Adam

[Behzad]

I'm not sure I see the difference. Any time I look for where a thought arises or goes, I see it merging and morphing into/from something else. For example: awareness of a smell arises along with a memory which brings an emotion, all of which congealed into a thought when words were applied. Or: this thought elaborated into stories about myself, which drew upon and created memories all of which were laden with emotions, which colored the way that I looked at that person across the street, and created new thoughts associated with my reaction to that person, and then about why I would have that kind of reaction, along with an emotion about my chronic reactivity, and so on. . . .

I’m not sure if I understand how to make this into more of a direct experience. Is it that that the chains of association described above actually include an overlay of memories, associations & intentions? In contrast, a direct experience will just look, ignoring all of those things? Which means that, of course, a direct experience can only exist in the now. It doesn’t mean that all of those other stimulations and associations didn’t happen, just that DE won’t see them. (Which doesn’t mean that they did happen either).

. . . So, all I can say right now is that, given my current understanding of DE, it reveals nothing about where thoughts came from and went because it doesn’t look at that. I find I am only able to do this kind of DE with sensations--that feeling of sensing which I mentioned in an early post. Any attempt to look directly at thoughts is always restrospective, after the thought loosens its control over me. Although, I suppose I can see those bubbling proto-thoughts when I relax.

You say "awareness of a smell arises along with a memory which brings an emotion, all of which congealed into a thought when words were applied".

What you are saying is that thoughts arise out of different things that stimulate what thoughts may arise. Are you seeing in youre direct experience that thoughts are arising from the smell? Or from memorys? Or from other things? Do you see the thoughts coming out of these things? Is that youre actual experience or youre beliefs about how thoughts happen?

What is the source of the thoughts is my question?

Put away the thoughts for a while. Just have a look and see. Thinking is not needed. Its simple. If I ask you whare is the tv, you simply look to see where the tv is. Nothing complicated about that. Dont need to analyze where the tv is, right. That makes things just more complicated.

This is as simple as the tv example. Where is thoughts coming from? Look and tell me what you see....

I read your sentence and then develop a picture of a red elephant. I look at the clock. I close my eyes and hold the image. Small thoughts rise and and fall: “Why does he have a rider?” "Why not a wild elephant?" “Can I see the other side?” “Wait, he turned grey for a moment.” “He’s shimmering in and out of view.” “It’s OK, I’m still holding a picture of an elephant even if he is a slightly changing elephant, even despite the thoughts.” “Maybe it’s a girl?” “Should I eat that hummus?” “How many seconds now?” Something feels tense, wants to stop. Something else wants to keep going. I stop. Look, 26 seconds. The image was clouded with thoughts and constantly shifting, but it did not go away.

I try again with images from the internet. Yes, I can hang on to that image better, it keeps him more stable. The thoughts keep flowing through, but the image itself is firmer. A cartoon elephant is even better.

I relax. Less thoughts flow through, the image is even more stable. “See, mental discipline is possible,” I tell myself. “That’s just a silly example about flying. Pick something more realistic. Like learning Chinese. I was frustrated all the time, it seemed impossible, but now I can speak and read Chinese. Maybe I don’t need mental discipline right now. But no need to persuade myself it’s impossible. . . .” Then I realize that I lost the elephant a long time ago.

Can you do that experiment again Adam, but this time I want you to do that with closed eyes. After you have tried to hold a thought for 30 secounds with closed eyes I want you to open youre eyes and tell me if that wich YOU were doing were really happening here?
All that wich YOU were trying to do, was it happening here and now?
If youre eyes were open do you think you could see that I/me that were doing it?
Where did all that take place?
Is it real?
Can you distinguish between what is really happenig and what is imagined?

Think of being in a paradise Island, beautful beach, beautiful weather. Now, what is the similarity between You thinking about being in a paradise Island and You thinking that you can stop thoughts?
Can you see any of these 2 experiences here and now when you open youre eyes?
Where did these 2 things happen?
Are they real?

I want you to look at every singel question and answer them.

I will leave youre responses of the other questions for a while and go deeper here so we dont mix up to much.

Take youre time.
Behzad

[Eggplane]

What you are saying is that thoughts arise out of different things that stimulate what thoughts may arise. Are you seeing in youre direct experience that thoughts are arising from the smell? Or from memorys? Or from other things? Do you see the thoughts coming out of these things? Is that youre actual experience or youre beliefs about how thoughts happen?
What is the source of the thoughts is my question?

It may well be that all those stimuli I see behind each thought are just a product of my beliefs. But to say that thoughts come from nowhere would also be just a belief, not supported by my experience.

Put away the thoughts for a while. Just have a look and see. Thinking is not needed. Its simple. If I ask you whare is the tv, you simply look to see where the tv is. Nothing complicated about that. Dont need to analyze where the tv is, right. That makes things just more complicated.

This is as simple as the tv example. Where is thoughts coming from? Look and tell me what you see....

I’m puzzled by “where.” The obvious answer seems to be 'from my mind.' But that is not an answer. What and where is mind? It only begs the question.

Do you mean “where” literally? As in a physical place that can be located on a GPS system, or from a material thing like a TV. If so, then thoughts don’t come from anywhere. Do they come from me? My feet? My heart? I’m told they come from my brain, but I’ve never observed that directly.

I can physically point to a TV. But can I see "TV" without the help of my thoughts? When I am directly sensing things around me, the labels don’t even register. They are just objects. But when I read your TV example and then tried to look, the experience is different. A thought arises and mediates the sense. Sometimes it is as simple as “TV” or even just “tf….” Sometimes more complicated like “It’s there to the right of the door,” or “That's not a TV, it’s a computer, I don’t even own a TV,” or “That thought made me look at the TV, which created this thought about the TV.” Each thought makes the experience different.

Can you do that experiment again Adam, but this time I want you to do that with closed eyes. After you have tried to hold a thought for 30 secounds with closed eyes I want you to open youre eyes and tell me if that wich YOU were doing were really happening here?
All that wich YOU were trying to do, was it happening here and now?
If youre eyes were open do you think you could see that I/me that were doing it?
Where did all that take place?

I did the red elephant exercise with my eyes closed the first time around. It doesn’t turn out much different if I do it with my eyes open.
What part of this was I doing? The intention claims to be me: “I will think about and hold on to the image of a red elephant.” Many other thoughts came in to disturb this. “I” was trying to hold the elephant, while simultaneously fighting against “my” random thoughts and tendency to want to think of something else. The different me’s were struggling against each other.
Unless memory deceives, it did happen. It is hard to imagine a single "I" that did them all. And I have no idea where it happened.

Is it real?
Can you distinguish between what is really happenig and what is imagined?

I don’t understand the distinction.
If you mean real in the sense of being able to find it on a GPS, no the elephant and my thoughts were not real.
But if ‘real’ can mean an experience that does not have a physical location, yes imagining an elephant and all those other thoughts did happen. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be sitting here writing about how it happened.

Think of being in a paradise Island, beautful beach, beautiful weather. Now, what is the similarity between You thinking about being in a paradise Island and You thinking that you can stop thoughts?
Can you see any of these 2 experiences here and now when you open youre eyes?
Where did these 2 things happen?

Ha ha. Thinking about the beach also brings up thoughts that I had better not pay too much attention to those other thoughts floating through if I want to hang on to this beach image.

Eyes closed or open, these thoughts and thinking about thoughts are pretty much the same. Do I see them? Not in a physical sense, but I can hold the image in my mind. It is happening in my mind/nowhere. Neither thought is linked to anything I am sensing now. Both are constructed out of images, stories and memories.

I can also close my eyes and imagine myself sitting in my living room. When I open my eyes, here I am in my living room. But it is not quite the same as when my eyes were closed. But even that experience of my living room when I first opened my eyes is already long gone, disappeared in the time that it took me to type these sentences. Like the living room of my closed eyes, the living room of a second ago only exists in thoughts. By the time I point to it and say that this one is here and now, it is already gone. As far as I can tell, that past room happened in pretty much the same place as that beach--which is the same place that room I am looking at now will go.

Are they real?

This word is tripping me up. Perhaps you can explain before I start speculating?

[Behzad]

It may well be that all those stimuli I see behind each thought are just a product of my beliefs. But to say that thoughts come from nowhere would also be just a belief, not supported by my experience.

I you sit like a cat watching a mouse hole and wait for the next thought to come. Tell me, where did you see the thought coming from?
Where do you see the thought go?

Do you mean “where” literally? As in a physical place that can be located on a GPS system, or from a material thing like a TV. If so, then thoughts don’t come from anywhere. Do they come from me? My feet? My heart? I’m told they come from my brain, but I’ve never observed that directly.

I am just asking you to look at youre direct experience Adam and tell me what you see, where thoughts come from, thats it. Do you see in youre direct experience that thoughts is coming from the brain? Or you? Or the heart etc? If not. Where do thoughts come from?

Unless memory deceives, it did happen. It is hard to imagine a single "I" that did them all. And I have no idea where it happened.

Have another look. Did it happen in reality or in imgination?
Where is the I that is doing the experiment?

The body you call Adam is seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. On top of that there is a story about a you that is doing a experiement. Is that story real or is it imagination? Is it actually happening in youre actual reality or in youre imagination?

If I would stand in front of you and be looking at you while you were doing this experiment without you saying anything to me about what you were going to do. Would i be able to see a I/me/Adam that is trying to hold a thought of a elephant and hold that thought for 30 secounds?

I don’t understand the distinction.
If you mean real in the sense of being able to find it on a GPS, no the elephant and my thoughts were not real.

Good.

When I say real I mean can you see it, touch it, feel it, smell, taste it, hear it? Is what is happening actually happeing so you can see it as real as everything else that is in youre experience right now.

So this whole thing you did with trying to hold a thought happend totally in imagination, right?

So how can a imgined I/me try to hold a thought for 30 secounds : ) ?

Eyes closed or open, these thoughts and thinking about thoughts are pretty much the same. Do I see them? Not in a physical sense, but I can hold the image in my mind. It is happening in my mind/nowhere. Neither thought is linked to anything I am sensing now. Both are constructed out of images, stories and memories.

Very good.

So where is the I that is trying to hold the thought? The I is part of the Imagination, how can something imagined=NOT REAL do anything in reality?

Can superman fly and save people? Do you really belive that Superman can do that?
Is Superman real or imagined?

This word is tripping me up. Perhaps you can explain before I start speculating?

I am asking if the elephant experience and the beach experience is real?
When you thought about Adam on the beach, were you actually at the beach or was it imagined=not real?
When you were thinking about the elephant and holding that thought, would I be able to see the elephant and that you were holding a thoguht about a elephant if I were looking at you? Would I see the things that you were seeing?
What would I have seen if I were looking at you?

[Eggplane]

I you sit like a cat watching a mouse hole and wait for the next thought to come. Tell me, where did you see the thought coming from?
Where do you see the thought go?

If I watch a mousehole then most of the thoughts come out of other holes and ambush me from behind. I can’t see them until they overwhelm me, by which time it is usually too late to see where they came from. When I do see them come from the mousehole I’m looking at, I am afraid that I still see them coming from the same place as before: bubbling out of this plethora of senses, memories, etc. that surround me. I can see them even better if I just relax, stretch, purr a bit and stare around lazily.

The next thought is never predictable, but is shaped by the context of the sensed environment, the immediate past and future—even if sometimes it might create a cascading chain that leads me far away from that. When they go away, they transform or get absorbed into some other thought, feeling or sensation; or else drift off into nothing. It all just happens. I may feel like I intervene through the intensity of my intention—but that too is just a thought that bubbled out of something else.

For the other questions, I’ll write tomorrow. I’m still stuck on ‘reality’ and what seems to me the difficulty of knowing or seeing what is ‘real’. I ended up writing many many paragraphs. Thinking too much. I want to put that aside and try to just watch.

[Eggplane]

Hi Behzad,
Sorry to make so much trouble here. But any way I approach it, the distinction between real and imagined--or between something sensed and something imagined—just doesn’t work. This could be a hangover from all the neuroscience and advaita-ish stuff I have read. But every attempt to investigate directly also comes up with the same result that the distinction does not work.

The beach and Superman arguments seem pretty obvious. But they fit so easily into habitual modes of thinking. So I went through several other examples asking myself these questions:

When I say real I mean can you see it, touch it, feel it, smell, taste it, hear it? Is what is happening actually happeing so you can see it as real as everything else that is in youre experience right now.

So this whole thing you did with trying to hold a thought happend totally in imagination, right?

When you thought about Adam on the beach, were you actually at the beach or was it imagined=not real?
When you were thinking about the elephant and holding that thought, would I be able to see the elephant and that you were holding a thoguht about a elephant if I were looking at you? Would I see the things that you were seeing?
What would I have seen if I were looking at you?

I wrote several pages in which I considered the taste of the inside of my mouth; headaches; the pulsating energies I can evoke in my body, the experience of reading, the oceanic vibration that is sometimes in my ear, bodily processes that I can not sense (such as functioning of endocrine glands). I considered the physical effects of imagined things (pulse, breathing, MRI scans). I also considered the very concrete differences in the experiences of the sensed world between me and my toddler daughter; or me and my girlfriend (who grew up in un-electrified rural Thailand with no school until her late 20s).

My habitual modes of distinguishing real and imagined can’t survive all this. Computers, TVs, girlfriends and empty Thai landscapes are as much a product of learned language, habits, stories and expectations as is the sense of “me.” I am not insisting on the reality of me, but that we should not assume anything exists until we have carefully looked at it. There may well be a reality. But I suspect that it has much more to do with those passing moments of ‘being’ than it does with any label or dichotomy. The simplicity of sensed reality v. imagined “I” is seductive. But the even greater simplicity of a world without dichotomies seems just as, if not more plausible.

Is the distinction between a sensed reality and imagination crucial to the LU process? Can we investigate into “I” without relying on this distinction? To be sure, I found these questions very helpful:

So how can a imgined I/me try to hold a thought for 30 secounds : ) ?

The body you call Adam is seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. On top of that there is a story about a you that is doing a experiement. Is that story real or is it imagination?

So where is the I that is trying to hold the thought? The I is part of the Imagination, how can something imagined=NOT REAL do anything in reality?

At best "I' has only mixed success at holding thoughts. Even more difficult is deciding on a thought to hold. If it is not given to me (like the red elephant) the choice is totally uncontrolled. In other words, the intention to hold a thought sets off a chain of other thoughts, with no control over how they unfold.

The ‘intention’ thought itself carries the most powerful “I” feeling. I’ve never yet been able to get a fix on where the intention thought comes from, because the intention thought itself takes up the role of the observer, and it is very present- and future-oriented. And even as it observes it is shaping those observations into stories. So I can't always trust it as direct seeing.Indeed, when frustration, story-telling, thoughts about what I will write here start to shape my observation, these seem like good hints that direct observation is being derailed.

Can the “I” thought even create other thoughts (much less reality)? It is clearly just part of that ever-flowing stream of shifting thoughts and perceptions. Nothing special. Even the sense of control is a passing thing, constantly disproven, if not by the next thought then by the thought or perception after that.. . . . . But that sense is still seductive when it comes, the nexus for so many stories and feelings . . . .

[Behzad]

If I watch a mousehole then most of the thoughts come out of other holes and ambush me from behind. I can’t see them until they overwhelm me, by which time it is usually too late to see where they came from. When I do see them come from the mousehole I’m looking at, I am afraid that I still see them coming from the same place as before: bubbling out of this plethora of senses, memories, etc. that surround me. I can see them even better if I just relax, stretch, purr a bit and stare around lazily.

Adam, how can you see a thought arise out of the senses, memories and other things that surrounds you?
This means that first of all you can see litterally that thoughts arise out of youre senses, is that true in youre experience?

If thoughts is coming out of memory you need to see the memory first. Where is the memory? Then you must also see that thoughts is coming out of the memory. Is that youre experience, do you litterally see that thoughts arise from memory?

If not, then look again where thought is coming from in yooure direct experience?

Is the distinction between a sensed reality and imagination crucial to the LU process? Can we investigate into “I” without relying on this distinction?

When I say what is real and what is imagined then I am pointing to that everything that is in youre field of perception right now, everything that is seen, heard, felt, tasted and smelled is real. So you have whats happening (real) and whats not happening (Unreal).

So right now I am sitting and writing to you. I hear my dog in the background, I hear some birds etc. This is what is happening here.
If I now start to think about yesterdays dinner or all the things I have to do tomorrow at work then that is just imagination (not happening). Yesterdays dinner och tomorrows work exist only in thought not in reality. Not here and now. Can you see the distinction between real and unreal?

Real is really happening, unreal is not really happening, can this be seen?

[Eggplane]

Adam, how can you see a thought arise out of the senses, memories and other things that surrounds you? This means that first of all you can see litterally that thoughts arise out of youre senses, is that true in youre experience?

If thoughts is coming out of memory you need to see the memory first. Where is the memory? Then you must also see that thoughts is coming out of the memory. Is that youre experience, do you litterally see that thoughts arise from memory?

Yes.
Arise from; stimulated by; react to; conditioned by. . . . none of these phrases are completely accurate, but some combination of them is a pretty good description of what I see. The perceived phenomena are like ripples on an ocean, a thin surface over unfathomable currents. Yes, this is a hokey and potentially misleading metaphor, but the most appropriate that comes to mind.

Do I "literally" see this? Well, I don't literally sense the great majority of my thoughts. Except those that come with images. i see the images. I'd even say that I literally see them. . . . But is this the point, that things that can not be sensed don't exist? Like ultraviolet light or high frequency sounds or the working of my endocrine system?

If thoughts is coming out of memory you need to see the memory first. Where is the memory? Then you must also see that thoughts is coming out of the memory. Is that youre experience, do you litterally see that thoughts arise from memory?

If not, then look again where thought is coming from in yooure direct experience?

Memories are just thoughts. I can not see them until they emerge. They sometimes emerge in the wake of a thought or a sense. Sometimes they lead to a new thought or the refocusing of attention. There is no reason to believe that they exist at times when they are not being thought. There is no reason to believe that any of them are accurate. They are all conditioned by the senses and thoughts that surround them.

When I say what is real and what is imagined then I am pointing to that everything that is in youre field of perception right now, everything that is seen, heard, felt, tasted and smelled is real. So you have whats happening (real) and whats not happening (Unreal).

So right now I am sitting and writing to you. I hear my dog in the background, I hear some birds etc. This is what is happening here.
If I now start to think about yesterdays dinner or all the things I have to do tomorrow at work then that is just imagination (not happening). Yesterdays dinner och tomorrows work exist only in thought not in reality. Not here and now. Can you see the distinction between real and unreal?

The image of a beach can stay when I open my eyes. The changes in pulse and respiration that accompanied the evocation of this beach are also there. The experience of imagining a beach is happening. Yes, the experience of imagining a beach is apparently very different than the experience of being on a beach. But that latter experience is no more stable than the former.

I taste the inside of my mouth. This is very much like the act of imagining a red elephant: It entails a feeling of intention; requires concentration; is hard to maintain for a long time; and nobody standing outside of me can see it. Was it real? The only difference with the elephant is that it entailed the sense of taste instead of smell, and had two surfaces rubbing against each other. Does that make all the difference?

I feel energy waves through my body. With a little bit of attention I can feel very strong tingling and flows. It is more stable than the red elephant. I don’t know what to call them: chi; aura; energy fields; subtle body, the luminous egg . . .? I don’t believe in any of these things, and can find no serious discussion of them by scientists or doctors. With labels like this, it is easy for me to mark them as “unreal”. And it has nothing to do with the 5 senses. It is a feeling, but not something I touch nor something that I can clearly locate. An observer would not know it is happening (but the same would also be true for a headache). But I feel it. Sometimes strongly. Yes, it is happening even though I know of no common definition of “real” that can encompass it. I truly don't know if this is real or imagined, in any sense of the words. But it happens.

Yes, there is the here and now. The closest I come to it is those moments between thoughts; those direct sense perceptions when I am not labeling things; and perhaps in those times of experiencing objectless sensing. That is what I would be most inclined to call ‘reality’. It is still ephemeral for me. As soon as I call something I see a “computer” or “TV” or “my rabbit” or “unreal” or “me” it is gone; lost under a web of associations with other objects, experiences and emotions that those labels evoke.

I might not be communicating what I see very well. This passage from the Greg Goode article that is posted on the LU website seems to be a nice summary of what I mean:

It is not just the self that is empty. Everything is empty in the same way.
For something to be empty is for it to depend on other things (which are also empty). My “self” doesn't stand alone. It depends on a body, a mind, and on being labeled as a “self.” Apart from all these things, there is simply no self to be found.
And like turtles, it goes all the way.
Rocks, trees, bridges, planets, sentient beings, bodies, minds, thoughts, emotions, memories, truths, standards, certainties, pain and suffering, joy and happiness, afflictive and enlightened states of mind. None of it is truly there. The more closely we look, the more we don't find these things.

Yes, my seeing may be overdetermined by having read lots of things like this in the past. I always try to keep that possibility in mind, and I’m not prepared to talk about what the ‘ocean’ is. All I can say now is that what I see suggests a flowing, bubbling interdependence of everything. Nothing has substance on its own—except possibly the objectless sensations themselves (what Goode talks about as the 'awareness' path).

Behzad, apologies for the overkill in this posting. I am not sure why I am so resistant. I hope it is honesty about what I am seeing, but there is surely a lot of ego in here as well.

[Eggplane]

Hi Behzad. Haven’t heard from you for a couple of days since I answered your questions above, so I have been 1) Looking more carefully at where those “intention” thoughts come from; 2) Looking at where emotions come from; 3) Still looking at that reality v. imagination dichotomy.

Finding emotions was easy, bcause my ex-wife and girlfriend are both VERY angry at me right now. I’ll confess that I also diverged from the LU-only program; and did a few Byron Katie-ish exercises. The latter helped to see all of the stories that latch on to those emotions—as well as the things that I do to provoke those same arguments over and over again. And overall, I could clearly see how those emotions weren’t really happening to me, and what a thin connection they had to any of those stories.

Looking back, I see also the extent to which controlling emotions has been crucial to the construction of me. For years I was a gold medal emotion denier. I treated them as imaginary things, things that could be repressed and controlled and subject to my will. I never really considered where they came from, just that my identity was linked to my ability to regulate them. And the more I did that, the more I was blindsided by them.

Also some luck in letting those “intention” thoughts slide away before they capture me. Still haven’t seen one as it arises.

But I also saw how the “me” and intention thoughts are entangled with the reality v. imagination distinction. When I feel that I intentionally created some thought or image in my head, this is the kind of thing I habitually label as “imaginary.” It is something specific to me, something I own, something that I have created, something that makes me unique. A crucial thread for the construction of “me” is that constant attempt to make my “imaginary” thoughts into something “real”—i.e. making my dreams come true, changing the world, proving I am right, becoming a leader, putting ideas into practice, blaming others, that kind of stuff. This transition from my thoughts to “reality” is one of the key stories that creates “me.”

In other words, it seems to me that the real v. imaginary distinction is a powerful dualist tactic that can be used to perpetuate the distinction between inner self and outer world. Pointing out that thoughts are imaginary doesn’t help to see that there is no me, because that is what I’ve always believed. This belief has long been a cornerstone of the psychological “me” that is separate from the outer world. Better to focus on the fact that there is no me that has control over these thoughts and actions—that the intention thoughts are no different from all those other thoughts.

In being skeptical of the dichotomy, I'm not trying to say that all thoughts are actually "real", or that sense objects are "illusions". To say either thing would be to get caught in the dichotomy. They just are.