Looking for a guide

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

My name's Paulo, and will be guiding you for a short while, as Deezer is away. He will have sent you a PM also.

For the moment, please respond to Deezer's last posting, and we'll take it from there.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you for taking over as my guide.

In terms of my response to deezer's last post:

When you read this and you are either impatient or dissappointed, etc, LOOK and tell me what the physical sensations are.
How do these physical sensations become 'impatient' or 'anything'?

As it happens, I was not particularly disappointed or impatient after reading that post but I think I get something of what deezer is pointing to. He seems to be suggesting that physical sensations can present themselves with an immediacy that is prior to the mind labelling them as good or bad.

Perhaps one's story has to kick in, or one of one's stories, to give a context for the current experience beofre that experience can be seen as good or bad. It is bad if it is thought to be leading the story away from a desired outcome, and good if thought to be leading toward the desired outcome.

This is somewhat theoretical at the moment but I will see if I can notice what takes place in these sorts of situations.

Looking forward to working with you.

Regards

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Wonderful to be working with you.

This is somewhat theoretical at the moment but I will see if I can notice what takes place in these sorts of situations.

It's important here to look at what actually IS in experience rather than rely on theory, or to try to 'work things out'. Here we simply look at what IS in reality, rather than thinking ABOUT what is in reality.

This is a nice little exercise to look at what IS in the moment -

1 Choose a time on your day when you know you won't be disturbed.
2 Sit or lie somewhere comfortable and close your eyes
3 For the next 5 minutes just note every sound that you hear
4 Write out all the sounds you heard in your next posting

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

I did the exercise and the sounds heard, from memory, were as follows.

cars driving by
door on stair closing
flame of oven roaring
metal of oven expanding
shout from outside
bleep of pedestrian crossing
rumbling of stomach
breathing
door of car closing
movement of head against pillow

I wondered whether to count the sound of some music I had been listening to prior to the exercise as it was still running through my head. And thoughts as well can make a kind of internal sound.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for trying that exercise, but there's one very important sound you seem to have left out. Have another go at that exercise and see if there is awareness of it next time around.

I wondered whether to count the sound of some music I had been listening to prior to the exercise as it was still running through my head. And thoughts as well can make a kind of internal sound.

Look at that more closely -

If someone was standing beside you, would they be able to hear the music playing 'inside your head'?

Where exactly is this 'internal' sound taking place?

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

I am rather intrigued by the matter of the unnoticed sound to which you refer. It occurred to me before trying the exercise again that it could be 'the sound of silence'. Upon doing the exercise I noticed that there was a kind of baseline sound which for me on this occasion was actually a bit like a ringing in my ears. I don't often notice such a ringing and I wondered if it is normally there or if it was just on that occasion. I listen now and there is a kind of silence/ringing that seems to be present. I don't know if that is what you're referring to. I'm also wondering if I have a ringing that I havn't noticed before as a symptom of degrading hearing mechanism that wouldn't be present in others with normal/healthy/proper/full hearing. Anyway, it is interesting that there is perhaps some kind of baseline sound that is 'closer' than the other sounds which appear 'on top' of it.

If someone was standing next to me, they would not be able to hear the music in my head, unless they were telepathic or something. That internal sound of music or thoughts seems to be taking place in my head and I can feel it almost activating movement in my mouth as if I were about to speak or sing the sounds.

That's about all I've noticed for now.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

I am rather intrigued by the matter of the unnoticed sound to which you refer

This was a bit of a red herring Paul, designed to help you focus a little more on what's happening in the moment. So often we miss the subtle elements of experience, but this is the kind of pinpoint focus you will need in your inquiry - catching those fine details in experience that often go unnoticed. Well done on noticing that background ringing sound - that's exactly the level of detail you will need.

Where exactly is this 'internal' sound taking place?

That internal sound of music or thoughts seems to be taking place in my head

Really? and if a surgeon were to open your head would they find a brass band in there?

You need to actually look Paul, just like you did with the listening exercise, look at what's actually happening - What are you referring to when you say 'internal'?

So often we're caught up in a world of thoughts and overlook what's actually happening right here and now. Over the next few postings we will be looking we'll be looking at Direct Experience (DE), and if you're unfamiliar with this approach there's a nice article by Neil in the link below which will help orientate you.

http://liberationunleashed.com/articles ... xperience/

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you.

I am rather intrigued by the matter of the unnoticed sound to which you refer


This was a bit of a red herring Paul, designed to help you focus a little more on what's happening in the moment. So often we miss the subtle elements of experience, but this is the kind of pinpoint focus you will need in your inquiry - catching those fine details in experience that often go unnoticed. Well done on noticing that background ringing sound - that's exactly the level of detail you will need.

Well, it worked!

Where exactly is this 'internal' sound taking place?


That internal sound of music or thoughts seems to be taking place in my head


Really? and if a surgeon were to open your head would they find a brass band in there?

You need to actually look Paul, just like you did with the listening exercise, look at what's actually happening - What are you referring to when you say 'internal'?

When I say 'in my head' or 'internal' I mean in my mind, imagination or 'thought-sphere'. Does that still sound ridiculous!?

So often we're caught up in a world of thoughts and overlook what's actually happening right here and now. Over the next few postings we will be looking we'll be looking at Direct Experience (DE), and if you're unfamiliar with this approach there's a nice article by Neil in the link below which will help orientate you.

http://liberationunleashed.com/articles ... xperience/

Okay - good. I've read the article and I've been making efforts over the last few days to tune into direct experience. Looking forward to getting some direction with this.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

When I say 'in my head' or 'internal' I mean in my mind, imagination or 'thought-sphere'. Does that still sound ridiculous!?

No, that's not ridiculous at all, it expresses what you were trying to convey a little more accurately. You see, the devil's in the detail, and we so often miss the subtle.

Since we're on the subject of thinking, let's begin by looking at one of the aspects of direct experience - THOUGHT

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of a car in as much detail as you can.

How did the thought arrive? Was there a Paul there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you for your latest piece of guidance.

I seem to be somewhat 'overrun' with storyline type thoughts today with some fairly compelling feelings arising about what's going on in my life at the moment. I'm quite happy to 'indulge' these or have them process, or whatever, and there's a few associated activities I want to catch up on.

I've been finding getting into the guidance and pointers very interesting and engaging and while I am not presently responding to your specific instructions, all of it continues to feed into experience as I get on with other things.

Looking forward to carrying on.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for letting me know your situation.

It's important to make a commitment to answer the questions and engage with this process as it unfolds. This process requires a certain momentum - you might think of it as having a personal trainer, whose instructions you will need to follow despite yourself in order to achieve a certain goal.

On a scale of 1-10, how committed are you to seeing through the illusion of a separate self?

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you for your message.

I appreciate that the process requires a high level of commitment and momentum, and it is a good sign for me that, by the content and promptness of your last message, that you are also taking this seriously.

It could be that the particular thoughts and feelings I am having today are part of the unfloding to which you refer, and that it is because I am serious that I want to give my fullest attention to your latest directions rather than make a more superficial effort and response. On the other hand, I recognise that this could just be more meaningless story and a sidestepping of the task at hand.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say I am about a 9 although from my perspective today I wonder if it is slightly lower right now. Perhaps I need to up this to 10. I appreciate that commitment may have to be total for this to work.

Also, in relation to the latest exercise, the car I thought of first of all was my own and I was a little hesitant to post details of this as it would compromise my anonymity!

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I strongly do not believe I am going away, in case you got that impression, and I hereby commit to giving my fullest attention to the latest task and posting my report about it tomorrow.

Paul

[jupiter7]

Paulo

Think of a car.

Share your experience of what happens when you think of a car in as much detail as you can.

When I think of a car there is an image of that car 'in front of my mind'. Even with eyes open I can 'see' this imagined car. With eyes closed the image can appear perhaps a little more vividly. Various viewpoints of the car appear as the image as I consider the car and the image of it more closely eg. from the side, the front, some the interior, where it is parked. There is a sensation that attention is being focused in the head area, just above and behind the eyes. Although with eyes open there is a feeling that the image is in front of the eyes or generally more diffuse in its location. It's as if I'm picturing that car outside on the street right now and that it is pictured in the same way as the street itself is pictured, the difference being that I take the street to be existing out there right now but not with that particular car on it. I can direct my sight to other things in the room and still the image of the car is there. There are some thoughts and other images related to the car such as my friend, the owner, who is pictured smiling pleased with his car, sitting inside it. There is a feeling of what that car means to him and what it means to me. There are thoughts with images appearing about my car and about his other car and a kind of bundled feeling that contains or summarises the details of the conversations and interactions we have had relating to these cars. I think about what Paulo might be thinking as he reads my post about the car thought. I think about the location of the visual image of the car again and where that image is located. I think about how much more noticing I can do about what happens when I think of this car and decide hesitantly that that is enough for this part of the question even though I suspect that I could get more detail about it written down.

How did the thought arrive? Was there a Paul there choosing the particular car that appeared in thought, it's colour, size, etc?

The thoughts of this car arise after other thoughts of a couple of other cars that were thought about as candidates for the exercise. I feel as though I have chosen the particular car over another couple of cars because I didn't want to write about the other two cars. How did the thoughts arise? I was reading the text in your post and understanding that there was an instruction to think of a car. My mind then starts producing images of candidate cars. While I experience a series of thoughts that feel like me choosing which car to think about for the exercise, when I am happy that the imagined car is the car that I will write about, the images of that particular car come forth rather freely without a sense that there is a me having to produce them. On reflection I see that the thoughts about choosing which car to focus on have also arisen rather freely, with ideas flowing from the perceived instructions in your post to think of a car, to the ideas, thoughts, images of the candidate cars. This, as opposed to there being a Paul who is doing it all from scratch. There are thoughts about whether this is how it has actually been in my experience involving thinking about these cars or whether the description being provided is coming from preconceived notions about what direct experience is like, or should be like if done correctly. I don't know if there was a 'Paul' choosing thoughts about cars. What is a 'Paul' I wonder? There were thoughts arising and a focus to these thoughts in that they were mainly about cars. There is taken to be a body-mind that is doing the various elements of this exercise. The particular thoughts are taken to arise in the context of, and due to, an experiencing subject body-mind that has a history of past experiences and thougts involving these cars. But when actually doing the exercise, the thoughts are arising rather freely in flow and there is no need to reference this apparantly continuous experiencing subject in order that the thoughts are there.

How did that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared?

The cars that appeared including the particular car that was eventually 'chosen', appeared through the triggering of latent memories, thoughts, images of cars that previously occurred in the experience of this body-mind. These particular cars appeared because this particular body-mind has encountered these particular cars distinctly more intimately than most other cars. Recent experiences of these cars mean that they are 'fresh in the mind' as it were. These particular cars are taken as having something to do with 'me' in particular. Could other cars have appeared, I wonder? They didn't. Were there possible cars that could have appeared or is that just an idea, I wonder? I went for what seemed to be the cars that are most personal, current, relevant to me. Did I go for them or did thoughts about them just arise, I wonder? Did the sensation and experience of me 'going for' a particular car also just arise? I wonder again.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your detailed and thorough response.

The thoughts of this car arise after other thoughts of a couple of other cars that were thought about as candidates for the exercise

It's important to look at the very first response, in the moment.

the images of that particular car come forth rather freely without a sense that there is a me having to produce them

But when actually doing the exercise, the thoughts are arising rather freely in flow and there is no need to reference this apparantly continuous experiencing subject in order that the thoughts are there.

Great, now that's looking in the moment. You can see that there is no 'I' there to make a choice about what arises in awareness before it arrives there. No soul or spirit sitting on a cloud somewhere browsing car catalogues and deciding which one to deliver to consciousness.

What is a 'Paul' I wonder?

Lovely question - maybe you can tell me, remembering to focus on the moment.

appeared through the triggering of latent memories, thoughts, images of cars that previously occurred in the experience of this body-mind

Think of a snark

Share the experience of what happened.

Did I go for them or did thoughts about them just arise, I wonder?

No need to wonder (i.e. think ABOUT) reality - simply look, it's unfolding moment by moment.

A bit of gentle guidance that will help in your inquiry - we are very much focused here on the moment, the only experience that actually exists. Sometimes awareness can shift to thinking ABOUT the moment, and becomes caught in all kinds of constructs of the mind.

Consider the following statement -

Thoughts are real, but the content of thoughts is not.

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Thanks Paulo.

What is a 'Paul' I wonder?


Lovely question - maybe you can tell me, remembering to focus on the moment.

'Paul' is a word that has been used to identify a particular body-mind. 'Paul' is 4 letters which when read and spoken make a particular sound. I am a Paul. This body-mind thinks of itself as a Paul in a similar way to how this body-mind thinks of a table as a 'table'. If one was to address a table, one might say 'table' but table is the word for that sort of thing rather than that particular thing. Is Paul a particular thing or a sort of thing? The label is not unique in the way that the human thing being described by the label is unique. 'Paul' is not, then, an identity, but a convenient label. A proper identity would be a thing that is the same as another thing. And yet, why is there a sense if identity associated with the written or spoken word 'Paul'? I, as the unique thing that a continuity of thought, feeling, experience, takes itself to be, cannot be Paul or a Paul. There are many body-minds called Paul so it is not correct to say I am Paul as if there was only one. I cannot be a Paul because I am not identical with the other body-minds called Paul. There is no apparant identity across the various body-minds called Paul that make them Pauls any more than it makes them any other name. So, if I say 'I am Paul', I am not speaking accurately or truthfully about what is the case, but only conventionally and for convenience.

Paulo, I don't know if the above paragraph represents what you mean by focusing on the moment. I see it as a description of the chain of thoughts and reasoning arising in relation to the question of what a 'Paul' is. Are you looking for a description of a different order of phenomena that occur when the question of a Paul arises for me?

Think of a snark

Share the experience of what happened.

What happened is that I said or thought 'a snark, I don't know what a snark is'. There is then the looking up of what a snark is and the finding that it is an imagined creature - a creature that does not exist. There arises the thought that I cannot share with you the experience of what happens when I think of a snark, rather, I can type a description of what happened when I thought of a snark. My 'sharing' is not then a true sharing. The experience is unique and I know of no way to truly share it.

Moving on with the description, having discovered a brief definition of a snark on the internet, I imagine or 'there is an imagining of' Lewis Carrol's story referred to in the definition of snark encountered. There were images viewed as part of that description and they are replicated in imagination as thinking about a snark continues. There are thoughts of the concept thought to be suggested by the term snark as a thing that has a name but does not actually exist, and then there are thoughts of how this relates to this process of seeing that the sense of self is an illusion. Pondering proceeds presently and the following words are about to be written, as thought of the question of whether I will writing a live stream of consciousness about snark pondering or whether I will be pondering it and then summarising in writing the chain of reasoning about a snark.

How easy it is to come up with a word, a label for a thing, a description of a thing and in sum a sense of something that does exist, even though that the thing described doesn't actually exist. There is the imagining of a strange looking, elusive, mythological creature with an appearance like the one in the images of snark viewed. There are thoughts of how Lewis Carrol may have been getting at the same matter as the process of seeing through the illusion of a separate self is getting at. What is that matter exactly? Presently, I ponder this.

Is it that something can be imagined to exist that does not actually exist? What is the difference between actual existence and imagined existence? Will there be an actual physical or otherwise tangible finding of a sort of an experience described in words and imagined to exist ie. of having seen through the illusion of self? Only if that experience is identical with its description. I know of nothing that can be an account of something and the thing itself at the same time, and so I am reasoning that I ight be looking for something that does not exist.

Or might the matter of the snark be suggestive of the search to find the existence of the self? Has the self, my self, been described. I am describing now that my self would be the entity or sense of entity fostered by continual belief in, or unquestioned assumption of, the existence of a somehow 'substantial' thing that is consistent with the happenings of this body-mind. What is consistent with the actuality of experience of, or as, what is happening? True consistency with, true identity with, I reason, the actual thing can only be the thing itself. The sense of self as entity or epiphenomenal sense of entity is not consistent with all happenings as experience. The sense of self is a sense of an existence that is going on along side the happenings of experience. Does this sense exist? What is the difference in asking whether self or whether sense of self exists? There can be a sense of snark in that there is an image of a snark and thoughts of a snark that picture an actual or potential actual snark. Thus, there can be the imagination of something as real that has no actuality outside of that imagining or the descriptions encountered that are taken to reflect the imaginings of others. Is the self like the snark?

How can it be seen that there is no snark? Something that isn't cannot be seen but it can be imagined? What is the difference between seeing and imagining? Seeing is sensory experience of actual while imagining is a copy or rearranged version of that which appears to come and go in the mind. Does something that comes and goes exist? Does coming and going exist? Imagining is the appearance of existence. The nonexistent can appear to exist. Is it that the self is imagined and that the seeing that there is no self is also imagined? If so, why am I looking for something that does not exist and expecting to find that it does or doesn't exist in a way that also doesn't exist?

This intellectualising is taken to have run its course for now. The knowledge or seeing that has been aspired to through the inquiry has remained elusive. Also somewhat like the snark!

A bit of gentle guidance that will help in your inquiry - we are very much focused here on the moment, the only experience that actually exists. Sometimes awareness can shift to thinking ABOUT the moment, and becomes caught in all kinds of constructs of the mind.

Consider the following statement -

Thoughts are real, but the content of thoughts is not.

Thoughts are real. They are happening now. They have been happening previously. I can point to them by reflecting (thinking) on them. I cannot share them but I can describe them. I know thoughts exist. In imagining or thinking about the existence of thoughts, thought and imagination itself is happening. I cannot think that thoughts do not exist without actual thinking taking place.

The content of thought is not real. Mmm. Le's see. What is the difference between thought and the content of thought? The content of thought is about something that does or doesn't actually exist. Whether the thing thought of exists or not, the thing thought of is not the existing thing, eg. the thought of the car is not the car and the thought of the modified car is not the car - the car exists, the modified car does not exist.

Where is the separation between thought and the content of thought? What do we mean when we say 'content of thought'? I am thinking about my friend, there are images and words appearing in imagination. The images and words really appear. Does the thought itself appear or does it actually exist?

I look in experience now and I can't properly distinguish thought from the content of thought. Can there be a thought without any content? No. A thought is always about something. But the thought and the subject of the thought are arising simulataneously. The appearance of the content of thought is real. The content of thought appears as the thought. Is thought really happening? 'A painting' is a label for a physically existing object. The image seen in the painting is really being seen but only as an image. The physically existing thing to which the image refers is real. If the image is of an imagined thing then the imagined thing is not real.

Thoughts can be thoughts about the real or thoughts about the unreal. The thoughts are not the things in either case. Thought is distinguishable from the content of thought because thought can be about the real or the unreal while still being thoughts. If thought was identical with the content of thought then all thought would have to be about the same thing. Thought is about different things and about different orders of [thought] things (those also having a physical existence and those with no observable physical counterpart) and so thought cannot be identical with the content of thought.

I would agree that in this way, thought is real but the content of thought is not. What is the significance of this for actual experience? It does mean that while I continue to think almost constantly, I am in a world of the unreal. However, I am really in it. What is real about being in an unreal world? Am I in an unreal world?

Thought goes on and who is any the wiser about all of this?

Paul