Please help with guidance

[aubergine99]

Hello,

I can see that the thought arises from somewhere/unknown/no thought, and then there is a decision (which is another thought), and so on so a stream of thoughts arises and at some point there seems to be a claiming of these thoughts as I. When looked at, there is no I. But the claim of I still is there.

Possibly, Nika, but that, again, is a thought. There is no ‘I’.

Some great noticing with the exercises – good.

Again there still seems to be a sense of an I, like a thought that if a fire alarm goes of or my son starts crying, "I" will come to action and do whatever needs to be done in that moment.

Do you really think so? If anything, in the event of a fire alarm suddenly going off, or your son’s crying becoming distressing, the reaction would be to react automatically, without even the thought of an ‘I’ appearing. Thoughts would most certainly alert of a possible danger but reaction would occur automatically. Imagine you were driving a car, (assuming you drive) and a child ran out in front, would you have to think about stopping immediately or would it just happen? Try to imagine this.

Regarding the separation, my common way of looking says of course, there is a book, and here I am. I can also see how the book and everything in the field of vision is in awareness and has no separation. But again that seems like intellectual seeing, and not real seeing. Its like a painting of a chair and a book. I can see that that's a chair and that's a book, but I can also see that its all one painting. And I can also see that me seeing the painting and the wall and the room is also one thing.

Wouldn’t you say that in ‘normal looking’ the illusion of I is so strong that separation does appear to exist whereas on clear and close looking, it is seen that only thoughts give rise to this separation?

This was the weirdest exercise. Without thought, there seems to be no connection between the touch-feeling of an object and what it actually is. There is recognition of the object from memory, but without memory the feeling sense is completely different. I don't know if I am being clear. The information received from touch does not give any indication of what the object will visually look like, without using memory. Direct experience of touch seems to be indescribable by words. But then thought comes in naming the touch feeling - paper, table, and so on.

Yes, you are seeing clearly, Nika! Look even closer now.

Notice in your daily activities how thoughts are constantly labelling everything around you. The moment you open your eyes, see how thoughts start labelling. What is a window, a chair, a door before thought arises? There is clearly an image but what of? Before image even, what is there? Can you describe this?

Try this exercise. Find a quiet place, with no distractions. Close your eyes and keeping them shut, examine the experience. What is there, in that moment that exists? Clearly there must be something if you are having the experience, but what is it, can you describe it to me? Is there an ‘I’ there? Is there something there even before you think about it? Do your best to convey the experience.

I understand Christmas is a busy time, so get back to me when you can.

Happy Christmas
Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hello Brigitte,

Imagine you were driving a car, (assuming you drive) and a child ran out in front, would you have to think about stopping immediately or would it just happen? Try to imagine this.

You are right, the action would probably just happen. But there is a sense or feeling that "I" am in control, and that gives me a feeling a safety or security. Thinking that if something went wrong my body and mind would automatically react is a little scary, it seems. There seems to be a need for control to be safe. Even though I can see that there is no control at all. THe feeling persists.

Wouldn’t you say that in ‘normal looking’ the illusion of I is so strong that separation does appear to exist whereas on clear and close looking, it is seen that only thoughts give rise to this separation?

Thats exactly what I was trying to mumblingly say. Even now on looking at objects, I can kind of see how its all one thing in awareness, but I also see a shelf over there with some files on it.

Before image even, what is there? Can you describe this?

I can't seem to get a handle on this. The answer that comes is that before image there is nothing. Expectation of image maybe? Before labeling is easier to see. Before labeling there is the unique instance of whatever is seen at that moment from that particular view; which is then labeled in order to be analyzed, otherwise it would be incomprehensible, or maybe even awesome in its complexity and uniqueness. So labelling seems to be necessary, but it also seems that the label becomes confused with the thing itself. I get a little lost with this.

Try this exercise. Find a quiet place, with no distractions. Close your eyes and keeping them shut, examine the experience. What is there, in that moment that exists? Clearly there must be something if you are having the experience, but what is it, can you describe it to me? Is there an ‘I’ there? Is there something there even before you think about it? Do your best to convey the experience.

First thought is there is darkness. Then seeing that there is no darkness, lots of light shapes moving around. Sound coming from outside. There is also a voice describing what I see and asking what is there, which is also now dictating what my fingers type. The voice says that it is "I". Yet there is perception of this voice, so it is just thought. What is there before thought? a blank slate with information piping in, including thoughts. also a sense of being maybe?

I will try to do this exercise again, it seems I am a bit stiff when I try it.


Please answer at your leisure as well, and have a Happy Christmas.


Best,

Nika

[aubergine99]

Hello again,

Good work, Nika. Thanks for doing those exercises.

Before image even, what is there? Can you describe this?

I can't seem to get a handle on this. The answer that comes is that before image there is nothing. Expectation of image maybe? Before labeling is easier to see.

What I was pointing to here is the sense of being (awareness) ever present. Before thought labels images, there is just the pure experience of what is happening. For instance, the experience of tasting something sweet as opposed to something sour is the unique ‘taste’ of it before labelling says that it is sweet or sour and what it is. The experience exists before any thought tells its story. This is the same for all experiences – life(ing) is all that exists. Do you see what I mean here?

Try this exercise. Find a quiet place, with no distractions. Close your eyes and keeping them shut, examine the experience. What is there, in that moment that exists? Clearly there must be something if you are having the experience, but what is it, can you describe it to me? Is there an ‘I’ there? Is there something there even before you think about it? Do your best to convey the experience.

First thought is there is darkness. Then seeing that there is no darkness, lots of light shapes moving around. Sound coming from outside. There is also a voice describing what I see and asking what is there, which is also now dictating what my fingers type. The voice says that it is "I". Yet there is perception of this voice, so it is just thought. What is there before thought? a blank slate with information piping in, including thoughts. also a sense of being maybe?

‘also a sense of being maybe’ YES absolutely! Is that sense ever not present in DE?

Let’s now look a little closer at thoughts.

Where do thoughts come from?

Are you in control of them?

Can you stop a thought from coming?

Can you stop it in the middle?

Do you know what the next thought will be?

Is "I" a different thought from the thought of say, a table?

Can a thought think?

Waiting to hear from you. Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hi Brigitte,

This is the same for all experiences – life(ing) is all that exists. Do you see what I mean here?

I can see what you mean. Its just that its hard to find the edge when I'm not concentrating, so most of the time the experience is overshadowed by the label right away. If I am trying to see the truth of what you wrote, then yes it is definitely so, there is awareness and then thoughts and labels come. Would you recommend I make an effort to see the pure experience and labels arising during day to day life?

Is that sense ever not present in DE?

No, its always there. The problem is to perceive the world through direct experience, and not through a cloud or fog it seems of thoughts.

Where do thoughts come from?

No idea. They seem to arise from nothing. Or from the unknown. They are influenced by perception and therefore the situation, but also can be random.

Are you in control of them?

There is definitely an illusion of control, but when looked at closely, that sense of control is also a thought.So there might be a thought to work on some problem, and other thoughts arise with various ideas and possible solutions, but what arises, including the original thought, is not under control.

But its gets a little tricky for me for example now, because I see your question and thoughts arise to answer it, and there is a sense of control that I remain on task and answer the question and not write gibberish or a poem or describe what I see out of the window. So there is a sense of control and censure and analysis of what I write.

Can you stop a thought from coming?

No definitely not. There is a sense that I can concentrate more on a stream of thoughts and kind of give it direction, or not pay attention to some thought and its stream usually goes away. Again this reinforces the sense of control.

Can you stop it in the middle?

Do you know what the next thought will be?

No thoughts kind of come fully formed and also come from unknown. There can be thoughts of what to think, and sometimes they match up. But sometimes not.

Is "I" a different thought from the thought of say, a table?

In substance the "I" thought is no different than a thought of a table, but in scale there seems to be a difference. I mean that the amount of thoughts connected to "I" seems to be greater than that of a table. I am this, I am that, I should this, I want that, and so on. And also there is identification with the I thought, so if someone said that a table somewhere in Australia is going to be burned, there would be no emotion attached, if it was said that my table that I use everyday would be burned, more emotion would come up, and if it was said that "I" would be burned, really a lot of emotion would come up. Although now I think that this would be true only if "I" is identified with the body or seen as "me". This is a new thought... hasn't occurred before.

Can a thought think?

It seems the answer is no. Thought come. Then other thoughts come. Thoughts kind of interact with each other, and there can actually be dialogues, but its all composed of new, fully formed thoughts arising.


Cheers

[aubergine99]

Hi Nika,

Would you recommend I make an effort to see the pure experience and labels arising during day to day life?

There really is no effort involved in looking at all, and what is the ‘I’ that would be making it? The main focus of what we do at LU is to point to the reality that there is no separate entity living his/her life, just life flowing spontaneously in all its forms and as all experiences.

Is that sense ever not present in DE?

No, its always there. The problem is to perceive the world through direct experience, and not through a cloud or fog it seems of thoughts.

Is there really a problem here? Is there an expectation for the world to be perceived differently? How is this known? Tell me.

There is definitely an illusion of control, but when looked at closely, that sense of control is also a thought. So there might be a thought to work on some problem, and other thoughts arise with various ideas and possible solutions, but what arises, including the original thought, is not under control

.

Yes – good noticing.

But its gets a little tricky for me for example now, because I see your question and thoughts arise to answer it, and there is a sense of control that I remain on task and answer the question and not write gibberish or a poem or describe what I see out of the window. So there is a sense of control and censure and analysis of what I write.

Where is the ‘I’ that is to remain on task, answer questions, not write gibberish, not describe what it sees out of the window? The sense of control may never change. Is there a need for or an expectation for change? Have a closer look and see what is really happening. Are there thoughts? Inspect them closely. Are the contents of thoughts ever real?

Can you stop a thought from coming?

No definitely not. There is a sense that I can concentrate more on a stream of thoughts and kind of give it direction, or not pay attention to some thought and its stream usually goes away. Again this reinforces the sense of control.

Keep looking in DE. Where is this sense of control, the sense of giving direction to a thought, or not paying attention to another thought? How is this known?

In substance the "I" thought is no different than a thought of a table, but in scale there seems to be a difference. I mean that the amount of thoughts connected to "I" seems to be greater than that of a table. I am this, I am that, I should this, I want that, and so on. And also there is identification with the I thought, so if someone said that a table somewhere in Australia is going to be burned, there would be no emotion attached, if it was said that my table that I use everyday would be burned, more emotion would come up, and if it was said that "I" would be burned, really a lot of emotion would come up.

Do you see that any difference, attachment to or depth of meaning from one thought with another, is just another thought? Is the content of one thought more real than another?

Do this little exercise. Close your eyes and imagine you are holding a watermelon in your hands. Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin. Hold it there, sensing it, and open your eyes. What happened to a melon? How about the sensation that was so believable? That which is real can be sensed in one or more ways. That which is imagined exists only in the mind. Look and notice what exists before thoughts appear?

You are doing really well. Just keep looking deeper in DE.

Warm wishes
Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hi Brigitte,

Just writing to let you know I'm going to have limited internet this weekend again. I'll get back to you on Monday fully.

The idea of no effort really spun me around. Its wonderful. Anyway I'll be back with the full report on Monday.


Best,

Nika

[NikaJ]

Hello Brigitte,

There really is no effort involved in looking at all, and what is the ‘I’ that would be making it?

This idea really kinda surprised me. I kind of understand it, but saying that looking takes no effort at all made me reexamine all that we have been doing here. Or more clearly how I have been aproaching the work. Like your question, "what is the I that is making the effort", to look at the answer still leaves a feeling of making a direct effort to look for or at something. Is the idea that effort or looking happens, and then I is claiming to be doing this? This idea does not seem so outworldy anymore. Actually it seems the most probable.

Is there really a problem here? Is there an expectation for the world to be perceived differently? How is this known? Tell me.

I should have used the word difficulty, instead of problem, as that is what I meant. But speaking of expectations, I realize that I guess there are expectations of kind of freedom from attachment to thoughts and emotions, which kind of makes sense if it is seen that "there is no separate entity living his/her life". This is known by a kind of dissatisfaction that is felt with emotional attachements, even pleasurable ones.

Are there thoughts? Inspect them closely. Are the contents of thoughts ever real?

I was looking at a bird flying by, and had the following thoughts: This bird is flying by in my perception, but there is no claim to it, it is not mine, it is just flying there. A thought also occurs in my perception, but there is a claim to it, 'it is my thought', but there really is no difference as per ownership or authorship.

Thinking about contents of thought being real is producing laughter in me. I don't know why. It seems kinda funny. Where did these thoughts come from? What exactly is real.

Keep looking in DE. Where is this sense of control, the sense of giving direction to a thought, or not paying attention to another thought? How is this known?

It seems obvious that there is no control at all, the sense of control is also a thought which I did not create - I did not think now feel control - obviously. Somehow this wasn't obvious in our previous post.

Do you see that any difference, attachment to or depth of meaning from one thought with another, is just another thought? Is the content of one thought more real than another?

Again obviously not. I do not keep using the word obvious for no reason, there is like a felt sense of obviousness about these questions now. I am also smiling nonstop while I write. :)

What happened to a melon? How about the sensation that was so believable?

I'm a little stuck at this. I could kind of sense the melon, however there was knowledge at all times that there is no melon. The sensation was created and believed I think. Opening the eyes, it is seen there is no melon.

That which is real can be sensed in one or more ways. That which is imagined exists only in the mind.

This is what threw me. There was a kind of sensation of a melon created, but the melon was not real.

Look and notice what exists before thoughts appear?

Before thoughts appear there is an awareness or space where they appear, along with other sense information coming in.


I had questions before coming to the computer today, but they seemed to have slipped my mind.
I may also have problems answering this week on a daily basis, but I'll check in as often as I'm able. I'll be looking for the "I" in the meantime. Thank you Brigitte.

Nika

[aubergine99]

Hello again,

Is the idea that effort or looking happens, and then I is claiming to be doing this? This idea does not seem so outworldy anymore. Actually it seems the most probable.

Looking happens – a direct experience (real)
‘I’ claiming to be doing this – an idea only (unreal)

Actually it seems the most probable. If there is any doubt, just focus on looking. That alone will reveal the truth of what is.

I should have used the word difficulty, instead of problem, as that is what I meant. But speaking of expectations, I realize that I guess there are expectations of kind of freedom from attachment to thoughts and emotions, which kind of makes sense if it is seen that "there is no separate entity living his/her life". This is known by a kind of dissatisfaction that is felt with emotional attachements, even pleasurable ones.

This is a bit like the Santa story that we believed as children. As a child, you may have been told that Santa would not bring you any presents if you had been naughty. This thought would have felt real to you, would have been a problem perhaps. When you eventually realized that Santa wasn’t a real person, it became obvious also that there was never any problem about him maybe not giving you presents either. The whole story was made up. This is the same for all thoughts about attachment, expectations of freedom, anxiety, fear or suffering. This too is a story.

Thoughts are a bit like soap bubbles. Do you remember blowing some as a kid? Imagine your thoughts are like these. Watch them float up in the sky, carried along in the breeze, see them disappear in an instant. What is in those bubbles – what is left when they burst?

[

I was looking at a bird flying by, and had the following thoughts: This bird is flying by in my perception, but there is no claim to it, it is not mine, it is just flying there. A thought also occurs in my perception, but there is a claim to it, 'it is my thought', but there really is no difference as per ownership or authorship.

Good to see that, Nika. No difference at all. No ownership of experience.

Thinking about contents of thought being real is producing laughter in me. I don't know why. It seems kinda funny. Where did these thoughts come from? What exactly is real.

Good to see you looking deeper. Look at the apparent flow of life with no you in it. I sense there is quite a bit of loosening going on here, which is great.

This is what threw me. There was a kind of sensation of a melon created, but the melon was not real.

Imagination seems quite powerful. Look at anxiety or phobias, for example. The worry and fear seem real enough but they are just thoughts that are believed in. Like the Santa story – like the ‘I’ story.

Keep up the good work, Nika.

Brigitte

[NikaJ]

If I is illusion, what does seeing through the illusion bring? Why do it? What sees?

Mind makes decisions on given information based on previous consciouss and unconciouss stimuli?

Thoughts are words? Do i use words to see?

How do i make progress or measure up. Where is home?

Hi Brigitte,

Just a quick note that I am still without regular internet access but have been working and thinking on this work alot. I've written some things as well. I'll put it all together and send to you on Monday. Please don't think that i have given up or my desire to see this has lessened because of my absence. Quite the opposite.

All the best,

Nika

[aubergine99]

Hi,

Glad you are continuing with this process, Nika.

If I is illusion, what does seeing through the illusion bring? Why do it? What sees?

Seeing through the illusion doesn’t change anything really but the perspective appears to change, revealing the reality of what is – that’s the best way I can put it. This can be subtle or mind-blowing. Why do it? What brought you to this place? Only you know that. Does the truth interest you? What sees? This is beyond our investigation really. Does there need to be something/someone seeing for seeing to happen?

Look for the truth in your direct experience, Nika. It is that simple. Read through the work we have already done again which may help to clarify matters. There is still more enquiry to do but let’s start with that and report back next week with any findings.

Don’t try to figure this out through thinking. You may (or may not) already have an intellectual understanding of the illusion but this is not what we do at LU. It is through the direct experience of the senses that this discovery will be made. Thinking takes you into speculation and not verification. If you think there is an ‘I’ here, let’s look for it. When you have searched everywhere for it and there is no hiding place left unturned, will you then be convinced it is just an illusion?

Mind makes decisions on given information based on previous consciouss and unconciouss stimuli?

This would be just a story about mind. Stories can be very interesting but this is not relevant here. Is what mind is, going to help you in searching for a separate self? Isn’t mind just a label for thoughts?

Do i use words to see?

Use your senses to see and use words to describe what you see.

How do i make progress or measure up. Where is home?

‘Home’ is when you clearly see the illusion and how it operates.

Speak soon
Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hi Brigitte,

I went through our correspondence, and it was very eye opening. There are things in my first posts that are complelty not true for me now.

Here is where I am at the moment. I complelty understand that I is an illusion. More exactly, I understand that it cannot be.

However there seems to be a habit to look at events from a personal perspective. For example, there is a task that I must accomplish (this wording feels wierd now), in the future. When thoughts arise that there is no I to accomplish anything, and the task will be or will not be accomplished, and there is nothing to be done about it, there is a kind of panicky fear in the chest.

I guess I am having trouble accepting lack of control or free will. When I look for it, its not there and can't be there, but then thoughts come and habits take over the thinking, and there is planning and worrying going on. I don't expect that there should not be planning or worrying, but they are identified with the I. It might just be a matter of keeping looking at each instance and seeing no I or self there.

I've also been sick with the flu these past days, which make my thinking a bit muddy or lazy. But again, when looked for, there is no self.

There is a sense of still not quite getting this on a core level, but those are also thoughts coming, and going.



All the best to you,

Nika

[aubergine99]

Hi Nika,

Poor you - flu is nasty. Hope you are feeling better now.

I guess I am having trouble accepting lack of control or free will. When I look for it, its not there and can't be there, but then thoughts come and habits take over the thinking, and there is planning and worrying going on. I don't expect that there should not be planning or worrying, but they are identified with the I.

There’s nothing wrong with planning. Planning is necessary for things to get done, in the future, and in a certain way, if your intention is for things to run smoothly. Examine this last sentence carefully.

Are thoughts about planning being thought by anyone? Look

Is the planning or worrying being done by anyone? Is anyone having any intention? Look

Do you see how language can fuel the illusion of 'I'?

In the future, in a certain way, for things to run smoothly – recognize that these are thoughts only.

Does future exist in this moment?

There is a sense of still not quite getting this on a core level, but those are also thoughts coming, and going.

These are early stages, Nika. Habits form over time and will take time to unravel. Noticing the arising of thoughts and happenings can be really helpful in confirming the illusion and the habitual personal identification tends to lessen gradually. It’s understandable, in a way, that the illusion exists, for the survival of the body/mind organism.

I complelty understand that I is an illusion.

Great! Do you see this also in direct experience or is it just an intellectual understanding?
Let’s now look at identification as the body.

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

Look forward to your replies. Please answer all questions.

Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hi Brigitte,

Poor you - flu is nasty. Hope you are feeling better now.

Thank you, I'm much better.

Are thoughts about planning being thought by anyone? Look

Thoughts are being thought, or just arise I guess. There is no director to the thoughts, they are somewhat based on previous thoughts, but not necessarily. Thoughts occur in awareness, but there is no "thing" that controls them.

Is the planning or worrying being done by anyone? Is anyone having any intention? Look

The answer to this is almost verbatim as above, substituting "planning and worrying" for thoughts. Regarding Intention, there is still not really a feeling, but more like hope, that there is someone/something that can set intention, but again its kind of clear that intentions are set based on thoughts, and thoughts occur without anyone directing them.

Do you see how language can fuel the illusion of 'I'?

I guess specificity and description or sharing of information requires the word I. So there is constant reinforcement of I concept.

Does future exist in this moment?

No. Only thoughts of future, and those also exist in this moment. Or don't exist at all. The moment exists.

These are early stages, Nika. Habits form over time and will take time to unravel.

Would you say that Self or illusion of I is a habit?

Great! Do you see this also in direct experience or is it just an intellectual understanding?

I am not sure, so that probably means that its only intellectual. There are moments, when for example I got angry at something, then came the realization that there is no you to be angry, just anger occurring, which considerably lowered and dissolved the anger much faster than it would have done before. So there are some effects of this being felt. I'm still not quite sure how to access this seeing in direct experience.

Who or what experiences? Is it Nika or the body or other?

The body experiences, gives interpretation to experience through the mind, and creates the illusion of an experiencer.

Nika is a name that was given to the body. There is no actual "thing" which is Nika.

Is Nika the same as the body?

No. The body seems to be real. Nika does not. Nika is like the university analogy from the Gateless Gatecrashers book, Nika is a name given to the body and its history or memories and other characteristics, but is no thing.

Is the body experienced? By who/what?

The body is experienced by the body. Or the mind which is also the body. There seems to just be experience or awareness, in which there is the body and all other things, but awareness itself is not attached or emanating from anything. Just is.

That's what I'm getting at the moment anyway.


Every time I finish writing out the answer I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards you. Thank you for this Brigitte.

Best,

Nika

[aubergine99]

Hi Nika,

You are doing just fine. Good work.

Would you say that Self or illusion of I is a habit?

Yes - just conditioning.

Who or what experiences? Is it Nika or the body or other?

The body experiences, gives interpretation to experience through the mind, and creates the illusion of an experiencer.

Hhmm… yes and no. Take another look at this using direct experience remember. This sounds like you are thinking for the answer and not using senses. Do you really experience a body experiencing? When touching something soft or hard, do you experience the hand doing this touching or is that what thoughts are telling you? Really focus on the experience here – do you see that the hand (body) is not being experienced at all (or even the object)? This is what is meant by LOOKING – using your senses not thoughts. Look to see what is really going on? Of course, thoughts tell a story of how the body is the medium through which experience occurs.

The body seems to be real. Nika does not. Nika is like the university analogy from the Gateless Gatecrashers book, Nika is a name given to the body and its history or memories and other characteristics, but is no thing.

Yes, good.

There seems to just be experience or awareness, in which there is the body and all other things, but awareness itself is not attached or emanating from anything. Just is.

Great noticing here! Do you see this is true for all experience? Keep looking all around you and notice life enfolding with no ‘I’ or others doing anything. But looking deeper into experience – is there a line of separation between the seeing and the seen, the hearing and the heard etc?

Look at this quote below. Not sure where I got it from now, but I like it.

“Life is a dance of beingness. You are not a dancer. You ARE the dance. You are not a being. You ARE being. You are not a person living a life. You ARE Life. You are not “going with the flow”. You ARE the flow. You don't have experiences. You ARE experience. You are not free. You ARE freedom. You are not at peace. You ARE peace. You do not love. You ARE love.

Such a subtle shift, but interesting to notice how the idea of a "middle man", a person, seems to separate you from what you ARE, how it seems to create two...a dancer and a dance, an experiencer and experience. But there is no doer. The "middle man" is thought.

Furthermore, it only SEEMS to separate you from what you ARE, but it never can. That's because, it, too, appears as what you are, and it, too, is seen in perfect clarity. There is never a time when you haven't seen what you are appearing as in perfect clarity. What is happening? That is what you ARE. It isn't happening *to* someone. It's just happening AS you.”

Every time I finish writing out the answer I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards you. Thank you for this Brigitte.

Thanks - you’re welcome.

Warm wishes
Brigitte

[NikaJ]

Hello Brigitte,

Do you really experience a body experiencing? When touching something soft or hard, do you experience the hand doing this touching or is that what thoughts are telling you? Really focus on the experience here – do you see that the hand (body) is not being experienced at all (or even the object)?

This is really trippy for me. Its hard to differentiate senses from thoughts. I can tell that location (I am touching that object over there) is a thought. THe experience is occuring here. I don't know if I see that the hand or body is not experienced. Its more like its one big experience which has a hand touching an object but also a sound coming from the window, a pain in the knee etc. so everything is part of the one experience of the moment. Thats kind of what I'm getting from senses. Then thought comes in and breaks the experience down into different parts.

But looking deeper into experience – is there a line of separation between the seeing and the seen, the hearing and the heard etc?

This is along the same lines, the seeing experience includes all parts of experience (except maybe the seer, who doesn't seem to be there, just awareness of seeing).

Look at this quote below.

At first I was not able to exactly get the quote, now I am reading it and its making perfect sense. I think my understanding is slowly moving from intelectual to more real experience. very slowly, and its aboyt 95% intellect at the moment I think. But its much more understandable what you are trying to communicate. It just seems like there is an invisible barrier between seeing and reality. I guess thats the Gateless Gate :)

So at least I see where I'm going (maybe).


Best,

Nika