Guide request

[aubergine99]

Hi John,

Have not heard from you with the rest of your report yet.

Brigitte x

[John LB]

Hi Brigitte,

it will have to be later today if that's ok.

Kindest regards

John

[aubergine99]

Hi John,

It's been 2 days with no news from you. Is there a problem?

Brigitte x

[John LB]

Dear Brigitte,

I have replied twice - please let me know if you are receiving this message.

Kind regards

John

[aubergine99]

Dear John,

Yes, received today's but last one was on 29th November 10.30. Have you sent me anything since?

Brigitte

[aubergine99]

Hi John,

I had been waiting for your response before posting this:-

Hi, John
Yay, progress!

For me it still seems to leave the quandary of a ‘chain’ of thought e.g. doing mental arithmetic or trying to recall a narrative. To say that ‘one’ thought follows another is not quite right because as we saw yesterday, being faithful to DE we can not identify any particular ‘thought’ just thinking. However – given a particular starting point, e.g. mental arithmetic 138 x 5 one tends to follow a series of steps which then closes at the end – similarly for following a joke with a punch line. If a thought (lets allow ourselves to identify one for the moment) then identifies a train of thought then we say “ that mental arithmetic train of thought” if not then, well I suppose there is no train of thought: there is just the passing appearance of the answer 690.

What I am saying here is that thoughts sometimes appear connected to other thoughts (as a chain) but not necessarily.

By looking at nature, see that life-ing/experiencing happens, with or without any added thinking. The thinking is all thought fluff , stories only, and the experience doesn’t require any thinking for it to be. As in birds flying, rain falling, wind blowing. Does that make it any clearer?

This feels a bit like seeing, it is only when ‘tree’ is identified and separated out from the rest that it actually exists as it were (ex sister – to stand out from). Otherwise there is just a panorama of colours with an added sense of ‘depth’.
When an image appears in your field of vision, in DE it is just that ‘seeing’. It is always a thought that will separate the tree from that panorama of colours. Thoughts seem to want to separate reality by labelling and commenting on everything. The raw experience of seeing has no labels.

So a train of thought(s) not really. But that is not to say that thinking does not seem to unfold in recognisable patterns, but again the recognition of the pattern is itself just another thought (which curiously enough) stops the train / interrupts the pattern

.

Nice looking!

Talking about the 5 senses – the above discomfort is not at all easy to describe in these terms: I’ll try again later and report back.

Waiting for your response on the exercise.

Much love
Brigitte

[aubergine99]

Good morning, John

Decide to lift one arm up in the air after counting up to 5, say. Which arm do you decide to lift? Left or right? Can you pinpoint the moment of choice? How do you choose? Notice the thinking process in this – before and after the choosing.

The MOST odd feeling initially there is a real awkward mental discomfort until you fully surrender to the not knowing, and even then that surrender, at least for me, seemed to be kind of conditional because the discomort periodically returned.

I assume from your reply that there was no do-er involved in this decision. Is that correct?

Let’s look at identification as the body.

Who or what experiences? Is it John or the body? Is John the same as the body? Is the body experienced? By who/what?

Please try to answer all questions I put to you.

Warm wishes
Brigitte

[John LB]

Dear Brigitte,

The reply I was referring to was actually to an experiment holding hands down on the desk and wondering what would happen next, the discomfort was of anticipation and ‘trying’ to watch without having any Director role.
For lifting right arm or left. There is NO decision. It just happens – I can not say why or how. Once the choice to lift an arm is made, there is no choice actively made to choose right or left: it just seems to happen. If I say in 5 seconds time I am going to decide which arm to lift i.e. say to myself ‘right’ or ‘left’ the result is the same.

I assume from your reply that there was no do-er involved in this decision. Is that correct?

I am not sure that your assumption is completely correct, because I could not actually identify a decision (and therefore no doer involved). Is the difference I am highlighting clear?

Let’s look at identification as the body.

Who or what experiences? Is it John or the body?

In direct experience it is neither, there is just the raw sensation of the body. The body does not feel, the body is, if you like, felt Or rather there is just a sensation a kind of tingling vibration. In itself there is noting in the vibration or sensation itself which says ‘arm’ or ‘lips’ just an energetic tingling presence. Looking closely in this manner it is clear that the object experienced by a subject is a bit of a fiction because all that can be actually trusted or taken from the direct experience is the experiencing itself.

Attending to the arm or lips kind of pulls these bits of the overall body sensation out from the whole and the mind adds to this extraction by overlaying a kind of 3D map spatially locating the supposed location of the sensation but that is a thought – mind stuff. It is not part of the direct experience of sensing the body.

Is John the same as the body? Is the body experienced? By who/what?

No – John is not the same as the body. The body is not experienced as an object, but rather experiencing just is. This raises a very intresting question if John is not he same as the body then what/who is it? Hmmmm...

Yours warmly

John

[aubergine99]

Hello again,

Re: Lifting left or right arm exercise:
I assume from your reply that there was no do-er involved in this decision. Is that correct?

I am not sure that your assumption is completely correct, because I could not actually identify a decision (and therefore no doer involved). Is the difference I am highlighting clear?

No, not really, John. Is there a decider and a doer? Yes or No? Please be clear on this.

Who or what experiences? Is it John or the body?

In direct experience it is neither, there is just the raw sensation of the body. The body does not feel, the body is, if you like, felt Or rather there is just a sensation a kind of tingling vibration. In itself there is nothing in the vibration or sensation itself which says ‘arm’ or ‘lips’ just an energetic tingling presence. Looking closely in this manner it is clear that the object experienced by a subject is a bit of a fiction because all that can be actually trusted or taken from the direct experience is the experiencing itself.

Good – do you see that ‘object experienced by a subject’ is a (labelling) thought?

Attending to the arm or lips kind of pulls these bits of the overall body sensation out from the whole and the mind adds to this extraction by overlaying a kind of 3D map spatially locating the supposed location of the sensation but that is a thought – mind stuff. It is not part of the direct experience of sensing the body.

.

Yes again.

Is John the same as the body? Is the body experienced? By who/what?

No – John is not the same as the body. The body is not experienced as an object, but rather experiencing just is. This raises a very intresting question if John is not he same as the body then what/who is it? Hmmmm...

Well, look at that last sentence. Who or what is experiencing? What does DE say about that?

How do you feel this process is going John? Is there anything you are getting stuck on?

Do you see a ‘separate self’ doing, sensing, or thinking in DE? Or is life happening on its own?


Warm wishes
Brigitte

[John LB]

Dear Brigitte,

Sorry for not getting back to you today - I have just returned in home from a 400 miles drive. I will get in touch properly tomorrow.

Best wishes

John

[aubergine99]

Thanks for keeping in touch. Hope you feel refreshed tomorrow.

Brigitte x

[John LB]

Dear Brigitte,

Firstly, let me say that I am now back from my travels and should be able to be in much more regular and frequent contact with you. I apologise for being rather intermittent. I realise that you are guiding me as a gift and I really am very thankful for that and I would not want you to think that I’m taking it for granted.

Re: Lifting left or right arm exercise:
I assume from your reply that there was no do-er involved in this decision. Is that correct?
I am not sure that your assumption is completely correct, because I could not actually identify a decision (and therefore no doer involved). Is the difference I am highlighting clear?
No, not really, John. Is there a decider and a doer? Yes or No? Please be clear on this.

I would like to try to explain what I experience: in direct experience, there was no decision made. Seen on paper and in normal experience one thinks that a decision is made but sticking close to DE when the action occurs there is not an object called a ‘decision’ that can be identified. A ‘decision to be made’ can be a thought before hand and a ‘decision that was made’ may appear after the ‘event’. In fact both of these qualified decisions are nothing more than thoughts attached to something which does not actually exist (the action) at the time of the thought. When the action happens it just happens.

I repeated the arm lifting experiment today and various other experiments including the one I mentioned about running along the river and taking the right/left fork. Again, there is simply no decision that is actually made. Also at the point of the action itself there is no ‘doer’ either in direct experience or as suggested by logical requirement of an agent to make a decision. In other words no ‘doer’ observed even if it did not have a thing (in this case a non-existent decision) to do.

Sorry to be a bit long winded here but please put me straight if I’m taking the wrong approach.

Is John the same as the body? Is the body experienced? By who/what?

No – John is not the same as the body. The body is not experienced as an object, but rather experiencing just is. This raises a very intresting question if John is not the same as the body then what/who is it? Hmmmm..

.

Well, look at that last sentence. Who or what is experiencing? What does DE say about that?

All I can say honestly about this is that, in terms of the conventional approach, which says:

“I experience an object”

all that can be genuinely found and therefore trusted, based on DE, is the experiencing itself. There is no object to be found and no observer thereof. It is interesting to really see this when it is looked for.

How do you feel this process is going John? Is there anything you are getting stuck on?

I think this process is going fine. The getting stuck seems to be related to two real issues:

(i) Seeing –especially the depth of vision component part of vision, sets up a distance such that an ‘object’ seems to be ‘over there’. I understand that the depth of field is just another more subtle object of experience, but there we are, it is quite persistent.

(ii) Personal issues i.e. the rising of an independent self ‘in here’ or on whose behalf e.g. a defence is mounted. – From an earlier perspective, you indicated that these ‘sticky issues’ would be tackled later, so we can leave this for now if you like.

Do you see a ‘separate self’ doing, sensing, or thinking in DE? Or is life happening on its own?

Life is happening on its own. However, I would say that the habitual way of considering life means that this is seen when it is looked for, at all other times, the habitual approach returns i.e. there seems to be a doer as part of the action. I guess my question is: is this habitual and if so do the kinds of enquiries we are doing here need to be repeated again and again? I have heard it said that once seen it is never forgotten. The case I mentioned of running along the path and seeing that a decision is not made and there is no decider to be seen either is very clear. However that somehow does not seem to be as profound an insight as I had expected or had understood it to be. I can only conclude that this lack of impact is because at a deeper level somewhere, the ‘John principle’ is firmly ensconced.

Much thanks

Warmly,

John

[aubergine99]

Hello John,

Firstly, let me say that I am now back from my travels and should be able to be in much more regular and frequent contact with you. I apologise for being rather intermittent. I realise that you are guiding me as a gift and I really am very thankful for that and I would not want you to think that I’m taking it for granted.

You're welcome and it's best to keep the momentum going here, if possible.

Who or what is experiencing? What does DE say about that?

All I can say honestly about this is that, in terms of the conventional approach, which says:
“I experience an object” all that can be genuinely found and therefore trusted, based on DE, is the experiencing itself. There is no object to be found and no observer thereof. It is interesting to really see this when it is looked for.

Good noticing! Direct experience is the only criteria there is for proof of existence, isn’t it, or else it is just an idea/thought?

How do you feel this process is going John? Is there anything you are getting stuck on?

I think this process is going fine. The getting stuck seems to be related to two real issues:

i) Seeing –especially the depth of vision component part of vision, sets up a distance such that an ‘object’ seems to be ‘over there’. I understand that the depth of field is just another more subtle object of experience, but there we are, it is quite persistent.

It will continue to be persistent, as there is no getting away from it. Make the distinction with what ‘seems to be’ and ‘what is’. That’s all that is needed here. When you open your eyes, an image appears and thought then separates and labels. Before thought does that, is depth of field there? Is there a separation between the seeing and the seen? Likewise, with any of the other senses.

(ii) Personal issues i.e. the rising of an independent self ‘in here’ or on whose behalf e.g. a defence is mounted. – From an earlier perspective, you indicated that these ‘sticky issues’ would be tackled later, so we can leave this for now if you like.

At LU, dealing with personal issues is not what we offer in this enquiry. The noticing in direct experience is all there is to see anything. Just by looking, it can be seen whether something is ‘real’ or is content of thought. Does personal exist in DE? If not, it is not real. How can something unreal become a problem once it is seen for what it is?

Do you see a ‘separate self’ doing, sensing, or thinking in DE? Or is life happening on its own?

Life is happening on its own. However, I would say that the habitual way of considering life means that this is seen when it is looked for, at all other times, the habitual approach returns i.e. there seems to be a doer as part of the action. I guess my question is: is this habitual and if so do the kinds of enquiries we are doing here need to be repeated again and again? I have heard it said that once seen it is never forgotten. The case I mentioned of running along the path and seeing that a decision is not made and there is no decider to be seen either is very clear. However that somehow does not seem to be as profound an insight as I had expected or had understood it to be. I can only conclude that this lack of impact is because at a deeper level somewhere, the ‘John principle’ is firmly ensconced.

The illusion is very strong. Do you have the expectation that this will disappear? Are expectations real in DE?

Take a good look in your day-to-day activities and see what exists and what are thoughts? If you could stop thinking, what would be left?

Are you ready for the final questions?

Brigitte

[John LB]

Dear Brigitte,

It will continue to be persistent, as there is no getting away from it. Make the distinction with what ‘seems to be’ and ‘what is’. That’s all that is needed here. When you open your eyes, an image appears and thought then separates and labels. Before thought does that, is depth of field there? Is there a separation between the seeing and the seen? Likewise, with any of the other senses.

Thanks this helps not to get hung up on this.


(ii) Personal issues i.e. the rising of an independent self ‘in here’ or on whose behalf e.g. a defence is mounted. – From an earlier perspective, you indicated that these ‘sticky issues’ would be tackled later, so we can leave this for now if you like.

At LU, dealing with personal issues is not what we offer in this enquiry. The noticing in direct experience is all there is to see anything. Just by looking, it can be seen whether something is ‘real’ or is content of thought. Does personal exist in DE? If not, it is not real. How can something unreal become a problem once it is seen for what it is?

When I said personal – I did not mean the “Oh I’m so sad” variety, but rather those persistent type which hint at, suggest, presuppose and generally cajole and lull one into existence (when it is not being specifically investigated) – do you know what I mean?

You are right – just looking - asking ‘Is this true’ ‘Is this real’. So far the answers keep coming back negative.

However that somehow does not seem to be as profound an insight as I had expected or had understood it to be. I can only conclude that this lack of impact is because at a deeper level somewhere, the ‘John principle’ is firmly ensconced.

The illusion is very strong. Do you have the expectation that this will disappear? Are expectations real in DE?

As an illusion – disappear – no! But I would expect to know more fully, and confidently that this is an illusion – that this is how things seem rather than the truth of the situation (gets back to the ‘just looking’ issue above).

Take a good look in your day-to-day activities and see what exists and what are thoughts? If you could stop thinking, what would be left?

Can you leave that one with me for a day or two – will call in tomorrow with experiences.

Are you ready for the final questions?

Not quite yet, but thatnks.

Warmly

John

[aubergine99]

Hi John,

At LU, dealing with personal issues is not what we offer in this enquiry. The noticing in direct experience is all there is to see anything. Just by looking, it can be seen whether something is ‘real’ or is content of thought. Does personal exist in DE? If not, it is not real. How can something unreal become a problem once it is seen for what it is?

When I said personal – I did not mean the “Oh I’m so sad” variety, but rather those persistent type which hint at, suggest, presuppose and generally cajole and lull one into existence (when it is not being specifically investigated) – do you know what I mean?

I suppose you are referring to persistent sticky thoughts about ‘I’, but am not sure here. Yes, we can tackle those, by all means.

However that somehow does not seem to be as profound an insight as I had expected or had understood it to be. I can only conclude that this lack of impact is because at a deeper level somewhere, the ‘John principle’ is firmly ensconced.

Perhaps you were expecting a Wow moment with fireworks, but clarity can come just as a subtle 'pop'. It's like nothing has changed, yet everything has changed. Just keep looking. Where is ‘I’, ‘me’, John, ‘self’ in your experience, other than as a thought?

The illusion is very strong. Do you have the expectation that this will disappear? Are expectations real in DE?

As an illusion – disappear – no! But I would expect to know more fully, and confidently that this is an illusion – that this is how things seem rather than the truth of the situation (gets back to the ‘just looking’ issue above).

Sorry my mistake. I did not mean that the illusion should disappear. I meant to ask whether you had expectations that once you had seen the illusion, you would never identify as it again.

An expectation is a feeling that something is going to become a reality in the future. Where are expectations in DE? Where is the past or future in DE? The reality is right now, John, in direct experience. There really is nothing else. I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to look and see for yourself. Can you see this?

Sit with this for a while and get back to me.

Warm wishes
Brigitte