Could someone please guide me?

All threads where seeing happens are stored here. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
You are welcome to continue your conversation with your guide here after your name is turned blue.
User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:57 am

Hi Dirk,

Here are my answers:
Where are your boundaries?
Do you have any boundaries?
In direct experience, I do not have any boundaries.
Is there any place where you stop and the rest of the world begins?
No.
Can you find an inside or an outside?
No.
On direct evidence - do you have any size or shape now?
No.
Or isn't there just a clear, lucid, limitless space?
Yes. Space.
Is the clear intelligent space in any way affected by all these ever-changing sensations or thoughts?
No, it's not.
Without thinking:

Do you have a name now?
No, I guess in that state I don't.
What about your personality, age, race, profession, gender?

On direct evidence: Are any of these things given?
No, there is no direct evidence of any of that.
Can you really say:'I am this or that' right now?

Can you really say anything at all?
No. I can't

:)

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:57 pm

Hello Calbert,

Excellent!
Here is the second part of this exercise: seeing
While still sitting comfortably, open our eyes. Look around. Best to start in 'wide angle' mode - just gazing without focus. After a while you can start to also zoom in on specific areas of your visual field (and focus on 'objects'). Notice how this might increase the tendency to label 'things'. Play with this.
Really LOOK! Is there any actual separation between objects appearing in your visual field or is there only assumed separation due to labeling things? Is there any actual separation between the seen and the space it is seen in?

Summary: Is there anything whatsoever - that is seen, heard, sensed, or even thought - separate or independent (in any shape or form) from the actual ongoing experiencing?

Please note: this is not a 'state' - this is simply what IS (now and always) when 'disabling' mental abstractions and assumptions.

N.B. I can't do 'questions in red' here...

Looking forward to your observations.

Best Wishes
Dirk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:05 pm

Is there any actual separation between objects appearing in your visual field or is there only assumed separation due to labeling things? Is there any actual separation between the seen and the space it is seen in?
Not sure exactly what you are getting at, but just looking very literally, using direct experience I guess you could say that everything I'm looking at is all on the same plane. That what's coming into my eye is like looking at a flat painting. I looked out a window and no matter how 'far' (not direct experience) I was seeing the actual colors of close objects and far objects were all along the same backdrop. One dimensional. I'm reporting that as DE but it doesn't seem any different than normal.
Summary: Is there anything whatsoever - that is seen, heard, sensed, or even thought - separate or independent (in any shape or form) from the actual ongoing experiencing?
No.
Please note: this is not a 'state' - this is simply what IS (now and always) when 'disabling' mental abstractions and assumptions.
I like that you pointed that out. I think I meditate in a way that I'm trying to alter my state in some way. After you said that I simply just sat and observed my senses which felt a bit 'cleaner' than my normal meditating style. I will definitely keep this in mind for my regular meditating. The difference between 'wanting to feel good' and 'wanting to see what is' I think...

Calbert

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:14 pm

O.K. Good!

So let's recapitulate so far: On direct experience there is no evidence of there being any separation whatsoever. There is no separation between 'you' and the rest of the world (or reality). In fact, there is no evidence of a 'you' at all - other than the actual ongoing experiencing itself (which includes an undenyable sense of presence or aliveness).
Is this correct?

This is 'interesting' in so far, as this is the same 'recognition' that all of the mystic traditions have been hinting at in so many different ways - and any variety of existential / philosophical questions (of the 'what is reality?' and 'who am I?' kind) simply dissolve in this direct 'understaning'. However, nothing 'mysterious' here at all - no special state or experience, but simple direct non-conceptional experiencing!

A couple of quotes (attributed to the Buddha) to illustrate this:
'In seeing, there is just seeing. No seer and nothing seen. In hearing there is just hearing. No hearer and nothing heard.'
'You are all Buddhas. There is nothing you need to achieve. Just open your eyes.'

So if there is no separate you in direct experience, where do 'you' (Calbert) come into this? Where does separation come into this?
It should be clear and obvious, that this can only be through the CONTENT of thought - i.e. the one thing that we 'discarded' in direct experiencing. Is this clear so far?

Let's look at the nature of thinking and thought then:

How 'real' are thoughts?
A thought is 'real' as a phenomenon arising in direct experience (just like a sound, or a sensation), however it is NEVER real in its CONTENT! In other words, thinking is real (as its appearance is experienced), but what it is about is not. The content(s) of thought are merely mental constructs - stories, ideas, concepts, images, etc.

Thoughts can be either verbal (''This is an apple!'') or visual (the mental image of an 'apple'), or both (mental image of a note that has 'apple' written on it).
Thoughts can either point to something real (for example: an apple) or to other thoughts ('this apple is succulent'), but they never are the actual 'thing'.

For example - do this exercise.
Think of an apple. Picture it in your mind. See it's shape, size and colour. Now picture holding it in your hand, feeling it's texture and weight. Imagine its 'appley' smell. Now imagine you are taking a big juicy bite out of it.

Was there a real arising of a mental image?
Was it a real apple?
Did you physically hold it?
Did you actually ingest an apple?

Can you eat the word 'apple'?
If you eat a note with 'apple' written on it - will that taste like an apple?
What does that tell you about labels?


Pay attention observing 'in action' how real thoughts arise, whereas their content is... well... mental? surreal? imagination?

What happens if you apply this to the labels 'I', 'me', 'Calbert'?



Looking forward to your reflections.

Best Wishes

Dirk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:24 am

Hi Dirk!
So let's recapitulate so far: On direct experience there is no evidence of there being any separation whatsoever. There is no separation between 'you' and the rest of the world (or reality). In fact, there is no evidence of a 'you' at all - other than the actual ongoing experiencing itself (which includes an undeniable sense of presence or aliveness).

Is this correct?
I think I have to say yes, this is correct.
This is 'interesting' in so far, as this is the same 'recognition' that all of the mystic traditions have been hinting at in so many different ways - and any variety of existential / philosophical questions (of the 'what is reality?' and 'who am I?' kind) simply dissolve in this direct 'understanding'. However, nothing 'mysterious' here at all - no special state or experience, but simple direct non-conceptional experiencing!
Yes, nothing supernatural or weird.
A couple of quotes (attributed to the Buddha) to illustrate this:
'In seeing, there is just seeing. No seer and nothing seen. In hearing there is just hearing. No hearer and nothing heard.'
'You are all Buddhas. There is nothing you need to achieve. Just open your eyes.'

So if there is no separate you in direct experience, where do 'you' (Calbert) come into this? Where does separation come into this?

It should be clear and obvious, that this can only be through the CONTENT of thought - i.e. the one thing that we 'discarded' in direct experiencing. Is this clear so far?
This is indeed very clear. I'm still feeling a 'me' (currently) but on direct evidence I would say logically the 'me' should not be there. It sounds like we are building a logical case for 'me' to see it in only one way. I wondered why reading 'Gateless Gatecrashers' didn't instantly dissolve my illusion (and was concerned that it didn't despite reading it with a fervor and determination) but I'm getting the idea that the guide method has to do with taking these logical steps in a very personal way. (yes?)
Let's look at the nature of thinking and thought then:

How 'real' are thoughts?

A thought is 'real' as a phenomenon arising in direct experience (just like a sound, or a sensation), however it is NEVER real in its CONTENT! In other words, thinking is real (as its appearance is experienced), but what it is about is not. The content(s) of thought are merely mental constructs - stories, ideas, concepts, images, etc.
Still totally on board.
Thoughts can be either verbal (''This is an apple!'') or visual (the mental image of an 'apple'), or both (mental image of a note that has 'apple' written on it).

Thoughts can either point to something real (for example: an apple) or to other thoughts ('this apple is succulent'), but they never are the actual 'thing'.
Of course.
For example - do this exercise.

Think of an apple. Picture it in your mind. See it's shape, size and colour. Now picture holding it in your hand, feeling it's texture and weight. Imagine its 'appley' smell. Now imagine you are taking a big juicy bite out of it.
My apple is green (incidentally). ;)
Was there a real arising of a mental image?
Yes, a real thought was in my head of a green, succulent apple.
Was it a real apple?
Not at all.
Did you physically hold it?
Not at all.
Did you actually ingest an apple?
Nope.
Can you eat the word 'apple'?
If you eat a note with 'apple' written on it - will that taste like an apple?
I can't eat a word and a note would taste like a note.
What does that tell you about labels?
It tells me labels are not real and a label is just a mental construct; a placeholder for an actual thing or even a ficticious thing which exists only as a thought. A label can be for a unicorn or for a real pencil.
Pay attention observing 'in action' how real thoughts arise, whereas their content is... well... mental? surreal? imagination?
Yes, thoughts are mental.
What happens if you apply this to the labels 'I', 'me', 'Calbert'?
Hmmmm. I was about to argue that in my example above a 'pencil' is a real object. But then realized any way you look at a 'label' the reference is always something concocted by a thought. Labels are thoughts whether or not they point to real or fiction. So the label 'Calbert' is a thought. Take away the label and in direct evidence is a body called 'Calbert' which senses its environment, but there isn't a physical "I."

A pencil is still a pencil whether or not it has the label 'pencil.' (A rose by any other name...)

"I" without the label "I" is not anything tangible.

Am I doing that right? Why does it feel like I skipped something in the logic in a moment of 'wishful thinking?'

Thanks. Looking forward to more... Curious what's next because nothing 'dropped away.' It doesn't seem reasonable that just a few sentences of logic can alter my perception. But I'm very intrigued!

Calbert

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:17 am

Very good!
I think I have to say yes, this is correct.
You think you have to say it is correct, or it IS correct? Please re-read the paragraph and check against your observations from direct experience.

I'm getting the idea that the guide method has to do with taking these logical steps in a very personal way. (yes?)
Yes, this guiding is 'personalized' for you. Be very intimate with it :-)
So the label 'Calbert' is a thought. Take away the label and in direct evidence is a body called 'Calbert' which senses its environment, but there isn't a physical "I."
Yes, 'Calbert' is a thought and there is no physical 'I'. And - in direct experience - is there even evidence of a 'body' which senses its 'environment'? Or is there just sensing / perceptions happening - some of which might be labeled 'body' (heat, pain, tingling, touch) while others are labeled 'environment' ('sound', 'table', 'water', 'bitter', etc.)?
"I" without the label "I" is not anything tangible.

Am I doing that right? Why does it feel like I skipped something in the logic in a moment of 'wishful thinking?'
You are doing very well indeed!!

Let's look at the relation between thoughts and 'you'. Sit quietly and investigate. Then carefully answer the questions. Take your time here.

Where do thoughts come from?
Where are they going?
Can you stop a thought in the middle?
Can you predict what the next thought will be?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you choose to only have 'nice' and 'positive' thoughts?

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
Who thinks? “I think” - What is 'I'?
What is the thinker of thoughts?
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or is it that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

Is there an 'I' that controls thoughts?
Is there an 'I' that owns thoughts?

What is the 'I-thought'?
Do you think thoughts, or are there only thoughts about 'you'?

Replace 'thoughts' for 'feelings' in the above questions. Does that change any of your answers (and if so which)?


Looking forward to your reflections.


Dirk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Hello Dirk! Thanks for your reply.
So let's recapitulate so far: On direct experience there is no evidence of there being any separation whatsoever. There is no separation between 'you' and the rest of the world (or reality). In fact, there is no evidence of a 'you' at all - other than the actual ongoing experiencing itself (which includes an undeniable sense of presence or aliveness).

Is this correct?
I think I have to say yes, this is correct.
You think you have to say it is correct, or it IS correct? Please re-read the paragraph and check against your observations from direct experience.
It is hard to say it vehemently because with my eyes open I 'feel' separate. I can understand it from a certain logic but maybe you have a different way to convince me of the sight one. I totally get it that with my eyes closed I'm feeling 'no boundaries,' etc. But if I combine sight and touch (reach out and feel an object that is a few feet away) I am separate. Is it fair to "shut off your headlights" and then announce that the deer in the road is no longer there? At the same time, if I look at a cup in front of my monitor the visual image really can't distinguish that the cup is not embedded in the monitor; I am using previous experience to understand that a the cup is slightly in front. In other words, you could paint a painting that tricks your mind into seeing 3-d when it is actually flat. If I accept that, is it enough to move past this and answer 'yes' to the question? Is that the point?
Yes, 'Calbert' is a thought and there is no physical 'I'. And - in direct experience - is there even evidence of a 'body' which senses its 'environment'? Or is there just sensing / perceptions happening - some of which might be labeled 'body' (heat, pain, tingling, touch) while others are labeled 'environment' ('sound', 'table', 'water', 'bitter', etc.)?
There is no evidence of a body. Well, if I look down I see something, but to my point above there is nothing factual to say what I'm seeing is not part of the chair. I think maybe that's the logic we are going for here, yes?
You are doing very well indeed!!
Yay!

I will try to answer the other questions after work. I want to give it some clear space. Meanwhile I'm posting this now to get my visual field comment back to you.

Thanks very much. "I" am very excited about this process...

Calbert

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:44 pm

Hi Dirk,

"I" didn't have a moment of quiet time to reflect, but "I" will do this at some point this weekend.

Uh, 'reflecting didn't happen.' :)

Hope you have a great weekend...

Calbert

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:42 pm

Hello Calbert,

Some astute observations here...
It is hard to say it vehemently because with my eyes open I 'feel' separate. I can understand it from a certain logic but maybe you have a different way to convince me of the sight one. I totally get it that with my eyes closed I'm feeling 'no boundaries,' etc. But if I combine sight and touch (reach out and feel an object that is a few feet away) I am separate.
This is not about convincing you of anything. The real question is 'who (or what) is separate?'
Is it fair to "shut off your headlights" and then announce that the deer in the road is no longer there? At the same time, if I look at a cup in front of my monitor the visual image really can't distinguish that the cup is not embedded in the monitor; I am using previous experience to understand that a the cup is slightly in front. In other words, you could paint a painting that tricks your mind into seeing 3-d when it is actually flat. If I accept that, is it enough to move past this and answer 'yes' to the question? Is that the point?
The real purpose of this initial exercise is not so much to question the apparent separation between so called objects (even though that in itself can be an interesting area to examine), but to investigate the assumption of a subject - object dualism, through direct experience.
In other words: in direct experience, is there any evidence of a you (the 'seer') doing the seeing of the 'seen', or is there simply 'seeing'? This equally applies to the other senses.

If you assume that you are a body who is doing the seeing (feeling, touching, perceiving, experiencing) of objective things ('out there', separate and independent from you), you will not 'see' this - ever!

However, when you recognize that 'you' (a story), 'Calbert' (a label), the body / organism and all other apparent 'things' (every-thing and every-body in the universe), as well as each and every concept about any of this - are simply appearances in the 'Experiencing' (yet as such not separate from the experiencing itself), 'you' instantly transcend all dualisms.

This guiding and all 'exercises' are for this purpose. Secondary insights may arise, but are sideshow to THIS.

Do take your time with the questions.

Best Wishes,

Dirk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:41 pm

Hey Dirk! Thanks for your response...
And - in direct experience - is there even evidence of a 'body' which senses its 'environment'? Or is there just sensing / perceptions happening - some of which might be labeled 'body' (heat, pain, tingling, touch) while others are labeled 'environment' ('sound', 'table', 'water', 'bitter', etc.)?
No, that is correct. Using Direct Experience I can't even say there's a body which senses the environment. That is learned information (I'm thinking: would a 5 year old child be able to say that sentence?) No, there are just the sensations that we've used intelligence to describe as stimulus from the environment.
Where do thoughts come from?
Thoughts can just 'pop' into my head. At the same time, I can daydream (and often do) which can involve a scenario that I find pleasurable. When I daydream, I start with a concept and then I can certainly 'steer' the events in the daydream to go my way.

If I really 'let go' say, in meditation, I sense little snippets of phrases or situations that just slip in and out with no rhyme or reason and usually do not follow a coherent path. Just a jumble of nothingness that I can 'watch' in amusement. Almost like in a movie when they show a character drugged up and you hear little phrases from the movie all echo-y. Like the time travel scene in Start Trek 4 - they go back in time and you hear parts of sentences from later in the movie. When I'm really in a good meditation that's what my thoughts do.
Where are they going?
Some thoughts (usually negative - things that impact my ego) can pop in and go wherever they want to, getting me frustrated. Some thoughts are just simple: "hey what's the name of that type of tree? Grandma had that tree in her front yard..." etc. (I think that example is from Untethered Soul) but that's how it works. Thought to thought to thought in connected streams that go nowhere.
Can you stop a thought in the middle?
If I am having a negative thought "I think my girlfriend is cheating on me" I can stop it and "talk" to myself in thoughts and get myself out of it. "Tell" myself all the logical things that negate that thought. So I can't "stop" the thought but I can influence the direction.
Can you predict what the next thought will be?
No.
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
No.
Can you choose to only have 'nice' and 'positive' thoughts?
Uh... probably not but some I can outwit. Some I can't.
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
No, I don't think there is an "I" generating thoughts. I think they arise.
Who thinks? “I think” - What is 'I'?
This is hard to answer. When I think about it I envision something centered that is the real "me" which is mute, and something off to the side, much smaller that is an endless loop saying "I, I , I , I , I " to itself. It's like this spinning circle and the larger thing in the middle is silent and still. The larger thing is oblong, like a tall thin body, and the circle is where the head would be, but off to the side. Outside the larger oblong thing. Ha ha that's weird.
What is the thinker of thoughts?
Again, it feels like a 'process' outside of me like computer code in a loop. I haven't really thought of it that way until I started this 'no self' thing. When I open my eyes this loop seems to settle in behind my eyes and grab the controls.
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
No. No it doesn't. It is off to the side. I was doing an exercise from the LU app where I held my hand out and I had the "thinker" say in my head "move your hand" but then I "told myself" to also not do it. Then, in opposition to the 'thinker' as I sat there I wiggled my hand randomly. I saw that the 'guy in my head' is not the person making me do stuff. The hand was directed by something else.
Or is it that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
This I believe (from reading Gatecrashers) analytically but for me I still 'feel' the "I" as me. I do believe these exercises are helping.
Is there an 'I' that controls thoughts?
It feels like both: thoughts can come or I can steer thoughts.
Is there an 'I' that owns thoughts?
It feels like that "computer process" in my brain can also generate thoughts.
What is the 'I-thought'?
An illusion created by all the things that have 'built' the code in my brain, but I still see the illusion as something. It's a tiny bit exposed or shifted but "I" am still here.
Do you think thoughts, or are there only thoughts about 'you'?
The thoughts either prop up or tear down my sense of "I." They are very focused on how things affect "me." But I like the ones that make "me" feel good. I recognize that I create a reality in my head where "I" come off looking good. I use my measuring stick to judge the world and since it's my measuring stick it uses things I'm good at to measure. Every once in a while my reality doesn't go the way I think it should and I believe that's because "I" must be seeing something incorrectly because it feels better to think it's the way I want it to be. The thing that thinks the thoughts is the same thing that is 'defending' itself to exist. Therefore it feeds me "good" feelings.
Replace 'thoughts' for 'feelings' in the above questions. Does that change any of your answers (and if so which)?
Feelings I think are more direct. I don't think I can influence feelings, though I can change my environment and hope the feelings shift on their own. I had trouble with addiction and I used chemicals to simply 'shut off' feelings. Feelings seem to be outside of of "my" control. Thoughts seem manufactured sometimes, feelings never do.

Yesterday as an exercise I repeated the following words in my head:

"Joy"

then

"Fear"

then

"I"

I had some sort of response to "joy" and "fear." Like they felt 'real.' When I repeated "I" it was just hollow and empty. It did not resonate as a real thing. No substance.

Calbert

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm

Hello Calbert,
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?

No, I don't think there is an "I" generating thoughts. I think they arise.
Or is it that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

This I believe (from reading Gatecrashers) analytically but for me I still 'feel' the "I" as me. I do believe these exercises are helping.
Again: This is not about thinking or believing (or even feeling!) things to be one way or another. It is about looking in direct experience and seeing WHAT IS!

I cannot emphasis this enough: Go back to the vantage of your direct present experiencing! Thinking, believing or 'feeling' won't help 'you' here!

It all revolves about this question: in direct experience Is there any evidence of a 'you' ('I', 'me', 'my', 'Calbert', etc.), or are all of these labels / story / thought content?

If you are clear about this, let's have a look at these:

Thoughts can just 'pop' into my head. At the same time, I can daydream (and often do) which can involve a scenario that I find pleasurable. When I daydream, I start with a concept and then I can certainly 'steer' the events in the daydream to go my way.
So if the assumed 'you' is only a thought, how can 'thoughts pop into your head'? And how can 'you' daydream, and so on?

Wouldn't it be more true to say that thoughts simply arise out of nowhere?
- including the thought that thoughts arise in a specific location labeled 'head'
- including the thought that there is a 'you'
- including the thought that this 'you' is the owner of a specific location labeled 'head'

Wouldn't it me more accurate to say that 'daydreaming happens' - which can involve scenarios labeled as 'pleasurable' (as well as any other kind of scenario)? And then a self-referencing 'I' thought might arise claiming to be the 'doer' ('I' am daydreaming). And then a story may arise about being the 'controller' of the daydreaming ('I can certainly steer the events in the daydream go my way'). Is it not that thoughts simply 'go one way or the other' - and then arrises another thought claiming to be the doer, owner, controller and so on? And in another scenario, the story might tell that 'you' are the 'victim' (rather the 'controller') of 'negative' thoughts, with a subsequent struggle to get back into control, and so on...

This is all just a storyville, Calbert! Nothing wrong with stories, but you need to see that that's all they are: stories.
There is no way out it, other than 'seeing' it for what it is!

If I really 'let go' say, in meditation, I sense little snippets of phrases or situations that just slip in and out with no rhyme or reason and usually do not follow a coherent path. Just a jumble of nothingness that I can 'watch' in amusement. Almost like in a movie when they show a character drugged up and you hear little phrases from the movie all echo-y. Like the time travel scene in Start Trek 4 - they go back in time and you hear parts of sentences from later in the movie.
This sounds like direct experiencing to me...

I appreciate that - when compelling stories about 'me' doing, suffering, and so on arise - it may SEEM different somehow... but it only seems so: it is the same thing: thoughts, sensations, feelings - coming and going in an ever-changing flow of experiencing. Maybe the apparent difference lies only in the focus and belief going into the CONTENT of the appearances?

Where are they going?

Some thoughts (usually negative - things that impact my ego) can pop in and go wherever they want to, getting me frustrated.
So here is the 'I' as a victim... Still only a story!
BTW. What is ego? Does it actually exist, or is it another thought? And how is 'yours'?
Some thoughts are just simple: "hey what's the name of that type of tree? Grandma had that tree in her front yard..." etc. (I think that example is from Untethered Soul) but that's how it works. Thought to thought to thought in connected streams that go nowhere.
Aren't all thoughts simple, in direct experience?
Can you stop a thought in the middle?

If I am having a negative thought "I think my girlfriend is cheating on me" I can stop it and "talk" to myself in thoughts and get myself out of it. "Tell" myself all the logical things that negate that thought. So I can't "stop" the thought but I can influence the direction.
A whole array of thoughts (even conflicting ones) might be happening - but isn't it true that the 'you-part' is story / thought, just as much as the rest of the storyline?
Can you choose to only have 'nice' and 'positive' thoughts?

Uh... probably not but some I can outwit. Some I can't.
Is that true? Or may there only be thoughts about 'outwitting'?

Please review the above, before we move on to the rest.

Best Wishes,

Dirk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 pm

Good commentary. I get what you are saying and these examples are good for showing me my patterns. Yes, definitely stories.

Thank you. I will mull on this, meditate, and get back with my response.

Calbert

User avatar
DirkPetz
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby DirkPetz » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:58 pm

Hello Calbert,

Excellent observations and questions! You're definitely onto something here...
Question: that voice in my head that says "hmmmm, should I have pizza or a hamburger tonight?" Is that what is building or reinforcing this concept of "me" in my head? (stories)
Yes, you could say that 'the voice' is building / reinforcing the concept of a separate and independent 'you'. For example your 'dinner play' seems to suggest the presence of 'you' as a 'choice maker'. However on careful investigation, it can be observed that this little dialog is nothing but a running commentary of (apparent) 'decisions' going on a different level. In the end, can you precisely pinpoint 'you' deciding between pizza and hamburger, or did the 'decision' simply come about ('by itself')? And who decided that the menu choice wasn't between spagetti and french fries, in the first place?

Does a person who has seen no-self lose that voice?
No, this 'voice' (or the 'I-thought' in it's basic manifestations) as such won't go away, after seeing 'no self'. What gets recognized that it is not 'your' voice; that there is 'emptyness' behind it.
What you have to realize is that things will still and always 'appear' the way they appear to be. The sea will always appear to be blue, but you don't try to get a bucket full of blue water out of it. There always appears to be water in a mirage, but when you walk up to it, where did the water go? It was never there, it only 'appeared' to be! It is the same with 'self'.

Having said that... Certain self-referencing loops are likely to fall away, pretty quickly. For example, once you have seen no self, why would there be a lot of energy going into stories of the 'Oh, I am such an idiot, why did I say that... I can't believe I did that...', etc. type?
The other side of that would be 'Wow, I am amazing! I really get the whole no self thing now - I must be enlightened...'
The whole story telling show gets rather amusing, when self-centred stories start to loose their charge and grip.

I can see that 'thinking' as a process. But if I didn't have that process, what is next to it watching that happen?
That would have to be another "me" which is clearly not the case.
Right. So maybe there is nobody here to notice 'no-self'? And yet clearly, the NOTICING is happening!! So how to define THAT? Fist of all that, any need for defining or understanding is only more thinking arising. The habitual need to identify and self-reference might be strong. Yet, again, there is nobody behind it!
I am not saying there is nothing happening here. The noticing / the experiencing is going on. But is there a separate 'you' needed for this to be what it is? If you need to define 'your' True Nature as anything at all (which is problematic in itself), then it must be THIS - the noticING / the experiencING / the BeING itself. Only that THIS is neither some 'thing' (= object) and therefore can never be 'seen' as such, nor is it personal, separate or independent from any-thing else. 'You' can never 'know' THIS, yet you cannot not be it!!
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art that!


So you say to look with direct experience. My direct experience sees/hears a voice in my head asking me about dinner.
So, in direct experience, there is a voice asking about dinner! Who says that it is yours? Another thought? And is it indeed in a specific location labelled 'head', which in turn belongs to a 'you'?
What is the problem?
What is wrong with right now, if you don't think about it?


I'm confused...
That's a story! Equally would be: 'I totally get it - I am enlightened now!' Just let the stories come and go - they are not 'yours', anyway.
I don't see a problem here. Do you? :-)

Best Wishes

Dirk

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:35 pm

So here's where I'm at:

I 'get it' that this thought process churning is not me. That's my computer code and it likes to say "me, me, me."

I see the 'characters' of other people running around gratifying egos.

I can sit in peace in the grass and do absolutely nothing but look at the ducks and the grass swaying. I often have no compulsion to do anything superfluous.

I rarely take things personally because it feels like none of this really matters. My ego gets hurt much, much less frequently.

I 'get it' that the "real" me is when a ball comes at my face and my arm shoots up to block it and I didn't have to think about what to do. That example really makes me think. I think I'm supposed to see that I'm always that guy. It's like too quick for the "me" to grab it.

I believe that when I sit down there's a part of me that only knows that a split second later and it announces to the world "I just sat down!" so that it "feels" like it's in charge. I'd say that "part of me" is not me. It's programming thinking that it's alive, for lack of a better word. It's hijacked this creature and tells itself its running the show. When the creature does something good, this programming announces that "he" did it and isn't it awesome!?

But at the same time:

"I" am petting my cat. I don't "directly experience" that cat petting is just happening.

"I" feel like I'm deciding to get in my car and go to the store.

When I 'look inside' yes I see that there is no 'little me' inside my head. But I'm still continuing to use "me" and "my" because it's just what I've done. I really "believe" this is exactly true - that there is no self - but to your point that's not going to help me.

I listen to the LU sound files over and over.

I'll keep looking. It feels close but I also feel stumped...

User avatar
Calbert
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Could someone please guide me?

Postby Calbert » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:36 pm

Oh, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with right now. Right now is perfect.


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 375 guests