Enough of pain

[yuvi]

RB, when you are using 'quote' function, please extract my pointer to which you are replying. It will be easy for referring for both of us, as well as for other guides who are following this thread. So copy my questions, use quote function in your text editor, then type your response. Before submitting, preview once to be sure.

There is no "I" to find in my arms, legs, stomach, lungs or the rest of the body. Nor somewhere in my eyes, ears or nose, or in the rest of my head.

This is not coming from DE. There is an experience of sight, that is all.
When you listen to what thought says, then what is "seen" (as a visual image) is divided into "my body" and "not my body" (division no. 1). Thought further divides the "my body" into into arms, legs, etc (division 2). Then thought also divides "not my body or world' into different objects (division 3). All these divisions come from thought contents. In DE, we are trying to see the experience as it is without believing what thought says.

Now tell me,

1. In DE, are there legs, stomach, lungs, body, eyes, ears, nose, head?
2. In DE, is there a "my" that owns specific parts of "visual image" and call it "body"?
3. In DE, is there a "my" that owns specific "sensation"
4. In all the above questions, what tells that there is a "me", "this is my body" and "that is outside world"

"I" exists as a thought. "I" is a thought. I exist as a thought!

Perfect! Both thinker and thoughts are just "experience of thought". There is no "I" that thinks a "thought". Is this 100% clear?

[Redbeard]

1. It is experience of a body. Thought give name to different parts.
2. It is no “my” who can own anything.
3. It is experiences of sensations. That's all. Sensations come and go.
4. "I" is a thought. No one owns the "body". Body only exist. There is no outside world. There is no real divisions between the body and the world.

[yuvi]

In your response 1, you say: "it is experience of body". Is there an experience of body? Or is there an image (or seeing) in which one part is named as 'body' by thoughts?

Note: I am traveling, so may not reply frequently. Also, LU website is moved to new server and may be unavailable for sometime. Please work with the pointers I gave and notice how thought narrates about the experience and also divides experience into 'mine' and 'not mine'

[Redbeard]

Now works apparently the site again. Nothing to wait for now, let's start again. :-)
Having had time to look at what pointers you are proposing.
I now see that even images are thoughts. Yes, I see now that it was an image of the body I saw, and I saw it as "my" body. But it was wrong. The body only is. There is no owner who owns the body.

[yuvi]

Hi RB,

Sorry, i just came back from travel. I missed out on the notification that LU was back online.

I now see that even images are thoughts

Where does this "I" in the above sentence point to? Is there "an entity" that is "seeing" those images/thoughts" ?
What is the DE of this so called "seer" of "images or thoughts"?

I see now that it was an image of the body I saw, and I saw it as "my" body

"Body" is also a word that comes out of "thought content".
Notice this: The moment you wanted to describe the experience in order to reply me, a "thought" immediately pops out and narrates as you type the letters on keyboard. The words like "body", "I", "saw", etc. all come from these subtle thoughts that goes unexamined.
Be extremely focused to look at "thoughts" as just "thoughts" without believing the contents (or thinking).
All words (or concepts) are product of thoughts. in DE, LOOK at thoughts "as thoughts" and not getting lost in the content.

So again, from the above statement, is there "experience of RB seeing now that it was an image of body" or is it just an "experience of thought that tells that RB is seeing now that it was an image of the body."


Is there an "I" that saw the image of the body?

[Redbeard]

Hi again. Some trouble with the site.
Wrote "I" for practical reasens. "I" is a word, a emty concept, pointing to nothing.
It is no entity seeing anyting.
All at is is a thought that contain "someone called RB". Further thoughts describes other things.
It is thoughts and it's the content of the thoughts. That is clear.

[yuvi]

"I" is a word, a emty concept, pointing to nothing

It is thoughts and it's the content of the thoughts. That is clear.

nice looking, RB. You see how thoughts (habitual mental words "i", "my") creates a belief of a non-existing "entity" or an "experiencer" that is separate from experience. When looked closely, there are only thoughts and nothing else. Lets look at other experiences as well.

For this, please do a little exercise.
Read the instructions fully and then start.

Please close your eyes and sit comfortably on a chair.
Take a few deep breaths and notice the inhalations and exhalations with focus. If lost in thought, gently return back to the sensation of breathing. DO NOT FIGHT THOUGHTS, just let it come and go as a gentle breeze.
Do this for two minutes. And then LOOK for the answers to the below questions (Key: Direct Experience)

Question 1:
In DE, is there a "hearer" that exist separate from the sounds that are heard?

What divides the experience of hearing into hearer ("i" am...), hearing (listening to ....) and heard ("sound of a car/baby")?

Question 2:
In DE, is there a "sensor" that exist separate from the sensations that are experienced?

What divides the experience of sensation into sensor ("i" can...), sensing (feel my ....) and sensed ("back touching the chair")?

Repeat the exercise as many times as required. Do not rush. Please respond individually.

[Redbeard]

Following your exercises.
1. This is obvious. Sounds is, no one listens. Sounds occur, sounds disappears into silence. There is nobody listening. As a child, I could engulfed by listening to certain sounds, as a bell and dissappear.
2. There are just sensation. Sensation to sit on a chair, walking or driving a car. There are no "I" who owns any sensations. It is obvious. It can not be otherwise. No sensor.

[yuvi]

hi RB, you did not answer the second part of each question. Also, please use quote function so others can easily understand the conversation (what we do here may benefit others too).

so i ask again:

Question 1:
What divides the experience of hearing into hearer ("i" am...), hearing (listening to ....) and heard ("sound of a car/baby")?

Question 2:
What divides the experience of sensation into sensor ("i" can...), sensing (feel my ....) and sensed ("back touching the chair")?

[Redbeard]

It is the idea of an independent unit “I” that creates a divides of the experiences.

Question 1:
What divides the experience of hearing into hearer ("i" am...), hearing (listening to ....) and heard ("sound of a car/baby")?

When the thought "I" claiming ownership of the experience (“I hear…”), then it is a divides in experience. Someone hears ("I") a sound separated, outside from “I”.
But thit is a delusion. There is no one (“I”) who hears. Sound takes place, sound disappears, that's all.

Question 2:
What divides the experience of sensation into sensor ("i" can...), sensing (feel my ....) and sensed ("back touching the chair")?

When the thought "I" claiming ownership of the sensation (“I can feel…”), then it is a divides in experience. Someone can feel ("I") back touching the chair.
But thit is a delusion. There is no one (“I”) feeling the back touching the chair. It is just – back touching the chair.

[yuvi]

Can a 'thought' claim ownership?

Apart from the experience of thoughts (e.g. I can feel the chair; I hear the sound; that is a tree and I am here; I think the thoughts, etc.), is there an entity called RB that these thoughts point to?

Is there an RB who is the center of experiences like hearing, seeing, sensing, tasting, smelling?

How is RedBeard experienced?

[Redbeard]

Can a 'thought' claim ownership?

A thought is a thought. A thought cannot own anything. A thought cannot claim ownership.

If the experience of an "I" entity exists so creates the I-thought-concept a sense of separation, feelings of “I need control things”. (That's my car. If you take it, I get upset. You're hurting me.) Or to say “I own the car”.

is there an entity called RB that these thoughts point to?

There is no entity called RB that these thoughts pointing to. RB is a thought not a entity. And the thought is known as a thought.

Is there an RB who is the center of experiences like hearing, seeing, sensing, tasting, smelling?

There are trodden paths RB walked on. But RB missing. No RB-center of experiences. No RB.

How is RedBeard experienced?

The memory of the RB is left. But RB is not in control

[yuvi]

The last question: How is RB experienced? Can it be see the RB is experienced as a thought? A thought that has contents that start with 'I', 'me', 'mine'. But when looked, there are just thoughts, sensations, hearing, seeing? Content of thoughts however says that particular sensation or image (from sight) belongs to so called RB. Is this 100% clearly seen?

[Redbeard]

Can it be see the RB is experienced as a thought?

Yes, it is clearly seen.

A thought that has contents that start with 'I', 'me', 'mine'. But when looked, there are just thoughts, sensations, hearing, seeing?

Yes, it is clearly seen.

Content of thoughts however says that particular sensation or image (from sight) belongs to so called RB. Is this 100% clearly seen?

Yes, it is clearly seen.

[Redbeard]

Yuvi! Where are you?