hide and seek

[Forestfriend]

Can a thought be FELT at all?
Or only the sensations of the head can be felt?

No, only feelings are felt. Thought describes how feelings feel.
Thought cannot be felt. Sensations in the head are just sensations.

How is ‘thoughts coming from the head’ is actually experienced?
Can this be experienced at all?
Or only verbal and visual thoughts suggest so?

The experience of thought in the head is a thought thinking it is in the head.
The sensation in the head is a tension at present.

If there is no such thing as a thinker, then what is it exactly that noticed that thought 1 was negative?
Did thought 2 noticed that thought 1 was negative?
Did thought 2 made thought 3?
And what is it that decided to have the visual thought 4? Was it thought 2 or 3? Or something outside of these thoughts?
Does the visual thought 4 know about thought 1 or 2 or 3?

If there is no such thing as a thinker…thought is here. Who is to know if there is a sequence
or not. The noticing, the choosing, a runaway train. All stories thoughts are thinking. Beliefs without substance. I is nowhere to be found. Feeling very sad and crying.

“Even though I might interrupt a negative thought and replace it” – what does the word ‘I’ points to in this sentence?
What is it exactly that could interrupt and replace a negative thought?
Where is this one exactly that is interrupting and replacing a negative thought? – find the exact location

The word ‘I’ points to a thought. A thought that says it can interrupt another thought and
replace it with yet another thought. And location is where the thought thinks that it is. The location is here in this life form and not in that life form over there. That’s what the thought says.

What is it exactly that can’t stop a negative thought from starting up?

It's a thought.

Without thoughts, how is it known that the body is the location of thoughts?
When putting aside all intellectual knowledge, what is the experience of thoughts being inside or belonging to the body?

It’s a thought that thinks it belongs to this body/life form over here.

What is it exactly that is lacking the ability to try to replace them most of the time?
Where is this entity exactly?

Another thought. Without thoughts location is not known. And without the thought that this/these thoughts pertain to this body there is no knowing where the thought is coming from.

What is the AE of a manger thought? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
What is the AE of certain thoughts having powers?

The AE of a manager thought is that it is a thought.
The actual experience of thoughts having power is that they motivate action.

Are thoughts are entities that could perform certain activities, like managing, emphasizing, etc?
Or there are only THOUGHTS ABOUT managing, emphasizing, etc?

Thought calls up more thoughts and makes a ‘to do’ list. Then another thought comes in and says, “better get this written up now.” Body starts writing. So the thought isn’t the action, but the action is motivated by the thought.

And what is it that is associating thoughts with the body?
Isn’t the association happens only in thought?

Yes, it’s a thought that imagines lists of ‘to do’, then it claims to be the body. And thought continually describes anything the body is or has or does.

Can it be ACTUALLY experienced that thoughts are coming from the brain?
What is the AE of brain? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

No, the brain in the head thing is just a conventional belief. The actual experience of the brain is nothing at all. There is a thought that the tension behind the forehead is the brain, but really???

Without thoughts, can it be known that I = individual body?

Without thoughts I don't know that I am a body.

Thank you so much, Vivien, for your patience and energy.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

If there is no such thing as a thinker…thought is here. Who is to know if there is a sequence
or not. The noticing, the choosing, a runaway train. All stories thoughts are thinking. Beliefs without substance. I is nowhere to be found. Feeling very sad and crying.

Before replying to your other comments, could you please tell me a bit about what induced the sadness and the crying?

Is there a feeling of loss of something? Or what is it about?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Before replying to your other comments, could you please tell me a bit about what induced the sadness and the crying?

Two things to be honest. One in the background is that I’m about to receive as a houseguest the very person the example thinking process in that question involved, and I’m sad about that. The other is that first I read your whole post. Then I began examining the questions one by one. I had such a feeling of intense confusion and mind numbing—like the mind was turned back on itself and it couldn’t see itself, tense and struggling, and then the phrase, “there is no such thing as a thinker” was so sad, like something very dear was lost. When I write this quote, I feel tears well up even now. The Sufi phrase “Die before you die,” went through and the thought, “You wanted this.” but it was sad, painful. I thought about not writing about it, but since I had gone through several hours of that stuck discomfort, I thought it would be fake not to admit it. I was a bit surprised that I managed to respond to all the questions in the end, and what remained was a kind of gentle emptiness.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

The other is that first I read your whole post. Then I began examining the questions one by one. I had such a feeling of intense confusion and mind numbing—like the mind was turned back on itself and it couldn’t see itself, tense and struggling, and then the phrase, “there is no such thing as a thinker” was so sad, like something very dear was lost. When I write this quote, I feel tears well up even now. The Sufi phrase “Die before you die,” went through and the thought, “You wanted this.” but it was sad, painful.

Thank you for sharing this with me.

When the thought arose “there is no such thing as a thinker” – then was it just a thought believed, or it was actually SEEN that there is no thinker?

And what does it mean to you that there is no thinker?
What makes you sad about this?

Is there a story about some negative consequences of seeing that there is no thinker?
If yes, can you please share what is this story about?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

When the thought arose “there is no such thing as a thinker” – then was it just a thought believed, or it was actually SEEN that there is no thinker?

It was like a friend was fading away. Like I had lost someone. ‘No thinker’ leaves a gap, a blank space in my inner world. I want to know the truth and see the fiction of it, but it felt sad to see that. Then I wasn’t confused anymore, but I felt empty and humble. I’m not sure what you see when you SEE there is no thinker, but I’m trying to describe the experience here.

And what does it mean to you that there is no thinker?
What makes you sad about this?

If there is no thinker then this story I’ve been telling over and over about all the things that make up me and my experience become very hollow and unimportant, because the thinker analyzed and organized the drama. It’s like your Santa Claus story which I didn’t think a strong enough analogy till now. Without the belief in the thinker I feel sad. A close companion for a long time is taken away and I’m left looking wistfully into the empty space.

Is there a story about some negative consequences of seeing that there is no thinker?
If yes, can you please share what is this story about?

I don’t have a clear story about negative consequences. I really think the consequences would be positive. But the associations are: My Buddhist friend said years ago, “You hold the ego gently in your arms while it dies.” Last year I took care of my mother while she was dying. Our family dog is dying. Perhaps this change of perspective is mixing up with the thoughts of loss and grief that are part of the story here these days. Also I burned the ego in a note in the winter solstice bonfire, and I burned the separate self in the summer solstice bonfire. I’ve had nearly daily periods of extreme fear for the last months with nothing tangible to fear. I’m asking what is the fear trying to protect me from? And I have run into a new resistance to change that I didn’t have earlier in my life like moving furniture or selling the old car. So in this milieu seeing the wily thinker as an outdated idea feels sad. Even the death of a fiction feels sad to me.

Thanks for your quick reply

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

I’m not sure what you see when you SEE there is no thinker, but I’m trying to describe the experience here.

What I mean by SEEING it, is that you know experientially that it’s no thinker there. And not just you believed that there is no thinker there.

When you are not sure if your keys are in your pocket, you have 2 options:

1. You either ASSUME and thus BELIEVE it it’s not in your pocket
2. Or you ACTUALLY SEARCH your pocket by LOOK INSIDE, and you can actually SEE that it’s not there.

Can you see the difference?

So which one, did you actually SEARCHED for the thinker, and you SAW that there is no thinker inside the head, or you just believe without actually looking for it?

Without the belief in the thinker I feel sad.

And what is it exactly that is feeling sad?

You are talking as if there were 2 of you-s.
The non-existent thinker, and the other you who is sad about the non-existent thinker.

So how many Forestfriends are there?
Is there actually something there inside the body feeling sadness?
Where is this feeler exactly?

A close companion for a long time is taken away and I’m left looking wistfully into the empty space.

Again, you are assuming that there are 2 of you-s.
There is the close companion who is just been lost, and the one that is feeling the loss of the other.

But there are not 2, not even 1 of you. There is ZERO of you.

The one that is feeling the sadness is the same one as the companion. These are not 2.
Both of them are just illusions. Can you see this?

But the associations are: My Buddhist friend said years ago, “You hold the ego gently in your arms while it dies.”

You see, the problem is with this belief.

The ego cannot die! It’s not possible.
There is nothing there that could die.

But as long as you associate seeing through the self with die, there will be the corresponding emotional respond to this belief. When someone dies, we feel sad. So if you believe that seeing through the illusion of the self equals to death, then you automatically will experience sadness. Can you see this?

But this sadness comes from a false belief: that death is involved in this story.
But seeing through the self has NOTHING TO DO WITH DEATH.

Nothing dies! Not even the illusion of the self!
The illusion of the self WILL NOT STOP APPEARING.
The illusion of the self WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

So which one, did you actually SEARCHED for the thinker, and you SAW that there is no thinker inside the head, or you just believe without actually looking for it?

I’m not believing without actually looking, I believe I’m looking. But if I’m nothing how can I look? Just watching this cacophony of thought trying to undo itself.
I look and what I find is a thought that says “I think”. That’s not an entity, it’s a thought. But what is it that’s looking for the thinker? That’s the thought that comes next. Next thought: Looking is. Being is. Awareness is.

And what is it exactly that is feeling sad?

There is a tension in the heart area. There is a thought and it labels the tension sadness. At this moment the label is a mixture of sadness and anger. I can’t find anyone to feel sad/angry, and its very frustrating because there is someone looking for the one who is sad /angry.
Then who is that? So I look for the one who is looking for the one who is looking and can’t find that one either, but who is looking? The reflections are infinite and get nowhere. Nothing left. Openness. And it holds everything, because everything is here still.

So how many Forestfriends are there?

None. Just names given to thoughts.

Is there actually something there inside the body feeling sadness?
Where is this feeler exactly?

There is tension in the body, in the head and the chest. Looking for who is feeling this. There is awareness of body sensation. There is awareness of thought interpretation “sad’. Now, if I say “I am sad”, there is that fictitious being again. A fictitious being that resides nowhere.

The one that is feeling the sadness is the same one as the companion. These are not 2.
Both of them are just illusions. Can you see this?

Yes both of them are thought interpretations ascribed to something called ‘I’.

So if you believe that seeing through the illusion of the self equals to death, then you automatically will experience sadness. Can you see this?

Or if I believed that seeing through the illusion would make me realize that there is no death I would be happy? Both thoughts are there. Often I believe in the thought of the moment, sometimes I don’t. What is it that believes or does not believe? I’m not finding that either. Yes, I see how the belief that seeing through the illusion equals death might bring sadness. And I suppose that seeing that a belief is false will make it not so easy to believe afterwards.

Nothing dies! Not even the illusion of the self!
The illusion of the self WILL NOT STOP APPEARING.
The illusion of the self WILL NOT GO AWAY.

I have another belief. That if the illusion of self is seen through, the self WILL stop appearing. The illusion WILL go away. I’m wiling to look at that again too.

Thank you for your patience with my slowness. Mine is really thin.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

I look and what I find is a thought that says “I think”. That’s not an entity, it’s a thought. But what is it that’s looking for the thinker? That’s the thought that comes next. Next thought: Looking is. Being is. Awareness is.

Looking is, but awareness isn’t.

There isn’t an independently existing awareness. Actually, awareness is the bases of the illusion of the self. We will investigate this later.

I can’t find anyone to feel sad/angry, and its very frustrating because there is someone looking for the one who is sad /angry.

Is there a LOOKER?

That if the illusion of self is seen through, the self WILL stop appearing. The illusion WILL go away.

This is a very unrealistic belief. The illusion of the self WON’T stop appearing. The illusion will not stop. Not at all.
There will only be a recognition that it’s just an illusion.

Here is a youtube video about a visual illusion of 8 balls moving in a straight line, creating an illusion as if the balls were rotating in a circle. Let’s say that the illusion of the rotating circle is the self. Each ball represents the building blocks of the self (like thought label ‘I’, sensations, visual thoughts, etc). When looking happens, meaning that you follow only one ball, then it can be seen that these balls are not moving in a circle but in a straight line. But when not looking, the illusion of the circle (self) can show up again. However, upon each looking (focusing on once ball) it can be seen that there is no self (moving circle) there at all.

So the only thing that changes is that it can be seen that those balls are actually not rotating in a circle, the circle is just an illusion. But the illusion of the rotating circle still can arise, just as the illusion of the self.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7kwy3rN4k

Are you ready to go back to investigate thoughts?
If yes, then I will reply to your post written on 08 July.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Is there a LOOKER?

Looking is happening. Can't get a grip on the looker because it is a thought construct.
Awareness is one step back, aware of the act of looking, making looking the looker

Are you ready to go back to investigate thoughts?

Yes, please.Is there a LOOKER?

Thanks for the video. It's like my mind.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Here are my replies to your post written on 08 July.

The experience of thought in the head is a thought thinking it is in the head.

Can a thought think?
What can a thought do?

The word ‘I’ points to a thought. A thought that says it can interrupt another thought and
replace it with yet another thought. And location is where the thought thinks that it is. The location is here in this life form and not in that life form over there. That’s what the thought says.

All right. So thoughts ‘say’ that there is a location for thoughts, here in this life form and not in that life form over there. Now let’s see if there is an ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of location.

So close your eyes for a moment, and just observe how thoughts come and go.
Focus your attention for the location where thoughts are appearing. Ignore all thoughts that are talking about a location. Try to find the actual location.

Is there an ACTUAL location where thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?

The actual experience of thoughts having power is that they motivate action.

There is no AE of thoughts having power.

AE is: colour (image), sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought as a phenomenon, but not its content.

So what is the AE of ‘thought having power”? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Thought 1: “Let’s stand up and make some coffee”
Action: The body stand up, goes to the kitchen and starts making coffee.
Thought 2: “Thoughts have power, since they motivate action”.

When you look at experience directly, is there an ACTUAL LINK between thought 1 and the action?
Or only thought 2 makes that claim?

Thought calls up more thoughts and makes a ‘to do’ list. Then another thought comes in and says, “better get this written up now.” Body starts writing. So the thought isn’t the action, but the action is motivated by the thought.

Thought 1: “Better get this written up now”
Action: The body starts writing
Thought 2: “thought 1 isn’t the action, but the action is motived by thought 1”.

So thought 2 makes the claim that thought 1 motivated the action.
But does thought 2 know anything about the action or thought 1?
If you say yes, than it would mean that thoughts are entities who are aware, have will, have intention, are able to do things. But is this really so?

In experience, can a thought ACTUALLY DO anything?
Or only other thoughts ‘claim’ that thoughts can motivate action?

Is there an actual experience of thought motivating actions?
Can you see THE motivating action itself?
Or is it just a thought conclusion, without any actual experiential proof?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Can a thought think?

No

What can a thought do?

A thought can be.

Is there an ACTUAL location where thoughts appear?
Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?

No there is no actual location. And they appear by themselves, nothing I can see makes them appear.

So what is the AE of ‘thought having power”? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Thought having power is a thought content that thought has power.

When you look at experience directly, is there an ACTUAL LINK between thought 1 and the action?

I can’t actually find a link between thought and action. The content of the thought describes the action, but it seems to come after the action. The habit is to believe that thought precedes action, but I can’t observe this as the case.

Or only thought 2 makes that claim?

Thought 2 says, “I did that.

So thought 2 makes the claim that thought 1 motivated the action.
But does thought 2 know anything about the action or thought 1?
If you say yes, than it would mean that thoughts are entities who are aware, have will, have intention, are able to do things. But is this really so?

Even though thoughts aren’t entities who are aware, they sometimes come in sequences that relate to the same subject. In these sequences the content of a subsequent thought is related to the content of the previous thought.

In experience, can a thought ACTUALLY DO anything?
Or only other thoughts ‘claim’ that thoughts can motivate action?

Yes, I can see that thoughts themselves can do nothing. And it is also a thought that has the content, “I caused that.”

Is there an actual experience of thought motivating actions?

Thought: “Hand will pick up coaster.” Action follows: hand picks up coaster. Try again. Wait, where does the thought for the hand to pick up the coaster come from? Can’t find the source of that. It appears spontaneously. The thought for the test action arises without actual choice. But if someone said to me, “Pick up the box or the coaster.” I would think I was choosing one or the other. However, I can’t find the event of actually making the choice. It is as spontaneous as the non choice situation.

Can you see THE motivating action itself?

No, that’s what is elusive.

Or is it just a thought conclusion, without any actual experiential proof?

Right, there is no experiential proof for the event of choice. There is just the thought, “I am making a choice.” This is shaking my foundations. And the thinker reconstitutes itself over and over.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Thought: “Hand will pick up coaster.” Action follows: hand picks up coaster. Try again. Wait, where does the thought for the hand to pick up the coaster come from? Can’t find the source of that. It appears spontaneously. The thought for the test action arises without actual choice. But if someone said to me, “Pick up the box or the coaster.” I would think I was choosing one or the other. However, I can’t find the event of actually making the choice. It is as spontaneous as the non choice situation.

You did a nice looking :)

Even though thoughts aren’t entities who are aware, they sometimes come in sequences that relate to the same subject. In these sequences the content of a subsequent thought is related to the content of the previous thought.

How do you know that they are related to the same subject without another thought saying that they are related?

Thought 1: Take out toothbrush
Thought 2: Take out toothpaste
Thought 3: put toothpaste on toothbrush
Thought 4: Turn water on
Thought 5: Start brushing my teeth
Thought 6: The previous thoughts are all related to the same subject of ‘washing my teeth’.

Go through these thoughts one-by-one, and investigate by LOOKING if there is anything that is actually linking them.

Can you find an ACTUAL relationship between them?

Does thought 6 know anything about thought 1 or thought 2?
Does thought 6 sees or knows about a relationship around the same subject between thought 1 and 5?

Is there REALLY a relationship between those thoughts or only thoughts suggest so?
Does thought 5 knows that it’s about the same subject as thought 1 or 2?


If thought 6 would never arise would there be any knowledge about those thoughts relating to the same subject?

Thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Here is an exercise which points out the difference between direct experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Verbal thought with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual thought of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing visual thought?
Is the content of the visual thought (the cup) ‘real’?

Both verbal and visual thoughts are real only as arising thoughts (as ‘containers’), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However, their contents, what are they about are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?


Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

Let me know how it goes.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien
The house guest situation is taking up a lot of time that was free before, so I will need another day to respond.
I've been ruminating on the questions all day and started writing, but I'm not ready to post my answers, such as they are.

[Vivien]

Hi,

That's all right. Thank you for letting me known.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[Forestfriend]

How do you know that they are related to the same subject without another thought saying that they are related?

I can’t. Subject is a thought. Related is a thought. Any discussion about thinking is going to require thought, and I can only be with the thought I am with at the present moment. Same with objects, I can’t experience anything more than the present state of an object without thought. It’s only thought that tells me that this is the same room I came into an hour ago. The thoughts are not related. They are doing a commentary on action that ever-precedes them.
When there is continuity in the action, a series of thoughts might be punctuated by a thought that contains commentary on the continuity. It’s still only thought.

Can you find an ACTUAL relationship between them?

If the process of thinking is the only actual thing about thinking, and not the content of the thought, then there can’t be an actual relationship between thought contents, because they aren’t actual to begin with. When the thoughts are about actions, like teeth brushing there is commentary on something actual, but it is the action that has relation to its sequences, not the commentary.
I guess philosophers have been arguing about this stuff for centuries, and I’m not one of them. I’m really out of my depth.
Just looking at my own experience, I don’t find that I can know anything except that something exists here and now, anything else is thought saying one thing and then another.

Does thought 6 know anything about thought 1 or thought 2?

Thought 6 is just the content of a thought, not an entity. It can’t know anything, yet it’s commenting about 1 and 2..Assuming they ever happened which is only described by the content of thought 6. Immediately, “What about memory!” Comes up, but memory is a present thought content, I can't know if memory describes something actual.

Does thought 6 sees or knows about a relationship around the same subject between thought 1 and 5?

Thought 6 claims to remember the teeth cleaning process. Claims to know there were other thoughts about the teeth cleaning process. As to knowing about a relationship, I don’t know what it means really for thoughts to have a relationship, except to say they are describing the same subject, but as to what thought came before, that is only the word content of the present thought.

Is there REALLY a relationship between those thoughts or only thoughts suggest so?

It is only thought. A relationship between thought is a thought.

Does thought 5 knows that it’s about the same subject as thought 1 or 2?

Thought 5 is nothing more than its own content. It doesn’t go farther than that.

If thought 6 would never arise would there be any knowledge about those thoughts relating to the same subject?

No

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

If I watch thought and look at the content of it I have physical reactions and emotions that follow. Then I have thoughts that comment on the reactions and label them painful or pleasurable. If I look at thought as only a container, there is more of a bemused emptiness. When I try to find a relationship between putting toothpaste on a toothbrush and turning on the water, I feel like my head is in a vice.

So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Yes. Especially since the same felt sensations get labeled with different labels at different times.

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?

No

Can you pour tea into it?

No

Can you drink from it?

No

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?

Just an image.

Is there an appearing visual thought?

Yes

Is the content of the visual thought (the cup) ‘real’?

No

Both verbal and visual thoughts are real only as arising thoughts (as ‘containers’), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However, their contents, what are they about are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?
Yes

Let me know how it goes.

Whatever is happening as a verb form in the moment is happening. The thoughts about anything else, past, future, analysis, labeling of emotion, likes, dislikes, are imaginary thought content drawing on a huge stored encyclopedia of thought that claims to be memory. Smell of bleach from washer, happening. Sound of music happening. Kid’s music is driving me crazy: imagination.