Please could I have a Guide

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

The words are being read by a collection of energies.

Conjurred' - Again a collection of energies. 'Not real', just a collection of energies.
Energies come together and can be perceived as forming thoughts almost all of the time. In reality thoughts are not present and the true reality of emptiness is apprehended and then as there are no thoughts no 'I' is present either.

Warm regards

Karunameghar

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

The words are being read by a collection of energies.

'Conjured' - again a collection of energies. 'Not real ' a thought, just a collection of energies,

Energies come together and appear as thoughts which come and go all of the time. In reality they are not there just an emptiness and the with no thought there is no 'I'.

Warm regards

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

Energies come together and can be perceived as forming thoughts almost all of the time. In reality thoughts are not present and the true reality of emptiness is apprehended and then as there are no thoughts no 'I' is present either.

Right now, in immediate experience, is there a direct experience of 'energies coming together' to form thoughts?

Or is it an idea from somewhere that 'energies come together'?

If it is an idea, where does it originate'?

You say these energies can be perceived as forming thoughts. Tell me how this works, from your experience.

If there is no 'I' present when there are no thoughts, does that mean that an 'I' is present when thoughts appear?

In reality thoughts are not present and the true reality of emptiness is apprehended

Would you agree that there are the following two ways of talking about thoughts? On the one hand we can talk of the content of thoughts, what thoughts are ABOUT. Whatever story about events is happening in thought is the content of thoughts.

On the other hand, let's look not look at the content or story but simply at the fact that thoughts appear at all. In this second sense we can say that thoughts happen. Rather like weather happens. Or a bit like a fridge humming away in the background, switching its self on and off. We may regard the noise, the content of thoughts as having nothing real to say or add to the direct experience of life but it's still fair to say that the phenomenon of thought is as much part of experience as anything else, like clouds or fridge noise?

What do you think of these two ways of looking at 'thought'?


Best wishes,

Jonathan

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

I am have been trying to answer from the profound apprehension of 'no self' , including consciousness, which happened when I did the six element practice the other day. I don't think this will ever go away. Nevertheless, thoughts on a day to day basis do come and go.

When thoughts come they can be observed and are in a state of change all the time.

If I am just an energy in the universe, then thoughts must be as well.

'If there is no I present when there are no thoughts, does that mean that an I is present when thoughts appear,' you ask.
Maybe it's on two simultaneous levels.

In answer to your next questions, yes is my reply.

Clouds, fridge noise and thoughts are all apprehended through the senses, but not separate from 'I'. There is no separate 'I'.

Warm regards

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

I have been trying to answer from the profound apprehension of 'no self' , including consciousness, which happened when I did the six element practice the other day. I don't think this will ever go away.

I understand. Sounds good. But on the issue of whether it will go away or not, what we do here is point directly. Because, whatever might ot might not be 'gained' or remembered, there is always NOW. Outside the special circumstances of meditation practice, the visceral and direct quality of moment-to-moment experience is the place to look.

Let's do a little experiment.

Place your hand on the table. Let it rest there as you sit. Right now there is raw sensation, perhaps of pressure and resistance of 'hand against table'? Whatever the feeling, look and see if it is possible to find a 'me', an 'I' in the sensation. Is there a 'self' anywhere?

Another experiment. This time, imagine a piece of fruit in your hand. Perhaps an orange, or even better, a melon. Imagine that fruit as realistically as possible for a minute or so with eyes closed.

Then, go and fetch a real piece of fruit. This time, hold the real fruit. Look at it, feel it, see its texture, smell its fragrance, feel its weight.

Now, comparing the two experiences, what differences do you notice? Which seems the most real? The 'thought-fruit' or the actual fruit?


Can 'no self' be 'apprehended'?

Is it a 'thing' that can be apprehended?

thoughts on a day to day basis do come and go.

If there is no 'I' present when there are no thoughts, does that mean that an 'I' is present when thoughts appear,' you ask.
Maybe it's on two simultaneous levels.

If you had to describe to someone who had never heard about it exactly what you mean by these two simultaneous levels, how would you explain it?


Warm regards,

Jonathan

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

When I place my hand on the table a there is a feeling of something soft against something hard.

On comparing the fruit, the imaginary fruit is a picture brought to mind which could be labelled 'pomegranate'. The actual fruit feels more real, but they are both labelled. Neither are really separate things. They are composed of energies just like 'I', not separate.

Can 'no self' be apprehended you ask. No, I was using the word by its meaning as 'understand'. Everything is a collection of energies or perceptions, nothing is separate from anything else.

Lastly to try and answer the question again re 'I' being present when thoughts appear. No, the 'I' and the thoughts are not separate from each other, neither are separate from anything else .

Warm regards.

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

Sorry for the lateness of this reply.

On comparing the fruit, the imaginary fruit is a picture brought to mind which could be labelled 'pomegranate'. The actual fruit feels more real, but they are both labelled. Neither are really separate things. They are composed of energies just like 'I', not separate.

But if we compare the idea 'I' with the holdable pomegranete there is quite a difference, isn't there?

On the one hand, 'I' is really an idea that is not more than a thought, Isn't that so?

On the other, the actual pomegranate has what, in conventional language, is described as 'physical reality', weight, texture, smell, colour. Isn't that so?

In other words immediate sensations are unmistakably different in quality from thinking about them, aren't they?


Best wishes,
Jonathan.

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

Yes there is a difference between the idea 'I' and the actual pomegranate. There is also the I as in the I, me, that I could see actually holding the pomegranate. 'I' on its own is an idea, a thought not real, and I as me, the being, is the same as the pomegranate, a collection of energies.

Yes, immediate sensations are very different in quality from thinking about them, but they both come from the same family of senses, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.

Regards
Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

Yes, immediate sensations are very different in quality from thinking about them, but they both come from the same family of senses, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.

Please forgive me if you feel that I have been pushing the subject of thought rather a lot and asking a lot of questions relating to it. This is because it is so important.

There is (or, to avoid possible misunderstanding, appears to be) a critical differemce between the five senses that interface with an 'external' world and 'mind'.or thought,.

In simplest terms and without any intellectualising about it, and speaking from immediate experience, could you say what the main difference is (or appears to be)?

Kind regards,

Jonathan

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for being so patient.

The difference between the five senses and the mind or thought is that the senses are usually felt or experienced eg pain, perfume, noise.

The mind puts a label or name on things sensed. The mind constructs things sometimes from past, present or future experiences and can carry on endlessly doing this.

Sometimes it can do wonderful things like invent something new, often following on from observed senses. Or cause one to act kindly, then combining with observed senses.; maybe the senses have noticed that someone looks sad and then thoughts come into play to decide how to help that person. Right now my senses have noticed that my hands feel cold, and so my thoughts are suggesting I put my hands under my jumper to warm them up.

Kind regards

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Thanks Karunamegha,


It is good to notice this capacity of thought to create all sorts of stories.

The difference between the five senses and the mind or thought is that the senses are usually felt or experienced eg pain, perfume, noise.

Yes. The five senses are not creating stories in the way that thought does.

Is there an experiencer of experience?

Do eyes see?
Do ears hear?

Do the senses 'do' sensing?
Is there a doer of seeing?

If you place your hand on the table once again, with eyes closed, ...

Is there a direct experience of 'hand'?
Is there a direct experienc of 'table'?
It there an 'I' anywhere in experience?

The mind constructs things sometimes from past, present or future experiences and can carry on endlessly doing this.

Yes. Now, if attention is bought to the here and now of current sensation, whatever is appearing right now, that can be noticed, can't it? Hand on table right now is not happening in the 'past' or 'future' is it?

If attention resides in the unbroken moment where is 'past'? Where is 'future'?

Sometimes it can do wonderful things like invent something new, often following on from observed senses. Or cause one to act kindly, then combining with observed senses.

Now this is trully intetesting.
Does thought 'invent new things' or does it just think it 'invents new things'?
Could it be that inventions just happen? and that thought labels these inventions as 'mine'?
Does thought 'cause' anything to happen? Or does it seem that this is what is going on? Is anything that appears actually caused by thought? Or is it closer to the truth that thought takes credit and makes the announcement 'this is caused by thought'?

Is it truer to say that there is no way of knowing how things happen but thought always announces that it made things happen?

Right now my senses have noticed that my hands feel cold, and so my thoughts are suggesting I put my hands under my jumper to warm them up.

Now look! Could it be that the whole sequence of registration of cold and then movement to place hands under jumper flowed 'by its self' and that thought simply told a story about how it had done the noticing of cold and then made the movement happen?

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

Is there an experiencer of an experience you ask.

No.

The senses do sense things.

There is no direct experience of hand or table, just the feelings from the senses of soft against hard, and the eyes see what thought has named a hand and a table. So there is no experience of 'I' in the experience.

I agree that there is no past and future to be found just the present moment. Past and future are constructed by thought.

I do think thought could cause something to happen if for example two different substances were taken and mixed together, then another substance would appear. Yes, thought can make things it's own.

The last question re cold hands I don't know how to answer.

Best wishes.

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

Thank you for your answers.

I am going to put important questions in blue from now on..Please try to answer each of these blue ones.

Is there an experiencer of an experience you ask.

No.

Good.

The senses do sense things.

Really? How about the hand on table experiment?
You found that there is no direct experience of 'hand' or 'table'.
What 'things' are being 'sensed'?

There is experience right now. These words on the screen are being seen.
Is it clear that they are not being seen by 'you'?
If this is the case, how is this known?

I do think thought could cause something to happen if for example two different substances were taken and mixed together, then another substance would appear. Yes, thought can make things it's own.

Substances can be mixed together. Does thought 'do' the mixing?
Does thought 'have the idea' of 'mixing substances'?
Prepare two glasses of different substance and actually mix them in a third.
Notice if there is an entity anywhere that thinks-and-then-does any of this?
Notice if thought makes any of this happen or if all simply flows

Can thoughts think thoughts?

The last question re cold hands I don't know how to answer.

A related one then. Driving a car to the shops. Conventionally it is thought that 'a person decides' to 'do' these actions. And there is the idea from thought that a 'decider' or 'chooser' then controls a sequence of events, for example, labeled 'driving'.

Does thought have any power to 'make things happen', moment to moment?
How much is it simply a commentary about what 'has happened' or 'will or may happen'?


Best wishes,

Jonathan.


,

[Karunamegha]

Hi Jonathan

I'm going to observe a bit longer and reply tomorrow.

Best wishes

Karunamegha

[JonathanR]

Hi Karunamegha,

That's fine. Whatever looking is needed.

Best wishes,

Jonathan.