Hi Vivien,
I spent a lot of time looking today and I think finally I began to see my error.
But what else is a thought if not an imagined sounds of words?
Yes, I see this now. Yesterday I was looking at thoughts as if they had their own substance. But they are just imagined sounds.
Look at this carefully. When thoughts arising, aren’t they ‘talking’ with the sound of the body (called Philip)?
Isn’t the voice of the body (how it sounds) is being imagined with every verbal thought?
Yes, there is an imagining of the body talking but the body is not talking. There is no actual experience being perceived.
Do you see that a verbal thought is nothing else than the imagined version of the sound/voice of the body? What else could it be?
Yes. I see this now.
There is either experience or the imagined version of experience. In the case of verbal thoughts, it’s the imagined version of the voice of the body. Ca you see this?
Yes I this now. A stumbling block I had with this for a while is it seemed that thoughts seemed to be about things that are arising. I see grass and I think of grass. And so I couldn't find what thoughts were referencing. I understood and could see they had this body's voice but there was no body speaking, I've could have never said the words I'm thinking, it's purely fantasy. What I came to realize from staying with this is that it's all purely fantasy. The description of grass is as much fantasy as the imagining of the sound of my voice.
What else a verbal thought could be, if not an imagined sound of the words spoken by the body?
Yes I see this now. Another stumbling block I had here is that while I can see the body speaks without cause, and there is nothing I can experientially do to make this body speak, it felt a lot more like "I am thinking." I had to sit on this for a long time before I had any insight at all. I could see that I can do nothing to cause a thought. The illusion that was eventually noticed is that since it's already a thought it was like another thought was "experiencing" it, or rather, referring to it the same way that normally a thought would refer to the direct experience of vibration/sound of talking. And so that illusory self, the thought referring to a thought, contained the thinking "I experienced that thought." The way it would normally state "I experienced warmth."
What I've been doing all day to ingrain this noticing is constantly be noticing the direct experience of hearing, and noticing that there is no sound while thinking, just the imagining of this body's voice.
Do you notice that when you are ‘talking to yourself’, meaning thoughts appearing, the vocal cords actually move, and there are subtle sensations in the throat because of this?
I have never noticed this before. It was quite hard to notice at all. First I just noticed it when I thought dramatic vowel changes, E-o-A, then slowly I seemed to notice just the tiniest tension in the throat when thinking was happening but it was very subtle. What was more noticeable was actually the movement of my eyes. This is something I've noticed before at sat with lots. My eyes move a lot when I think.
And since the sensation is real, it’s happening, and the sound of the body is very familiar, these two gives the impression of ‘I am being the body, and I am thinking”.
Yes thank you for including this. I never really put this together. The sensation in the throat and the movement of the eyes especially together added with the thinking makes it seem like the thinking is real. But the thinking is the imagined version of the real experience. I see that now. The sensations aren't causing me to think, they are simply arising, and then thoughts arise as well.
Listen to the sounds of birds. Or listen to some music. Then when the sound is not there, IMAGINE the sound of the music.
Isn’t it an imagined sound?
Also, close your eyes. And imagine the FEELING of a soft feather stroking your arm. Isn’t this an imagined sensation?
Then, imagine biting into a lemon. Is this an imagined taste?
Now image the smell of an orange. Isn’t it an imagined smell?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The self, well it feels silly saying the self because it's becoming quite obvious there is no self, but let's say - the way thought appears as self. Since the self cannot ever experience anything. Since a thought can only be a thought. Then to a thought those imaginings are as real as it gets. Thought has no idea what reality is. So thought can only imagine what it might be. Not even that, it just does thinking. And so it's experienced how thought describes the experience when it was really happening. It's just so far from the real thing. There is no experience in thought. Thought has never experienced anything. The imagining of experience has nothing to do with experience. It's a little surprising.
Another thing I've been doing through the day to notice that verbal thoughts are imagined sounds. Is to imagine a sound, like an elephant trumpeting. Then imagine the sound of myself talking, which is rather like a normal thought. And looking at what the similarities are and what I perceive to be the differences. This made it clear where I was misperceiving things. At first it seemed like the imagined sound was fake but the thoughts were real because they were thinking the imagined sound. Hahaha. The more I looked the more I could see thoughts had no more reality than an imagined elephant sound. Except for any body sensations that seem associated with the thoughts. What I eventually came to see is that there is no reality in thoughts. Period.
Yes, of course. Just as the visual thought of an apple can be there, and when it’s there then the visual thought is happening, but there is never a real apple in real life.
I know this isn't a question but I have a question. So the visual thought of an apple is there. Meaning the instantaneous and simultaneous knowing of the thought as it is arising, not separate from the thought but the thought being pure experience in and of itself.
What is that?
You agree it's a direct experience? a direct experience of illusion. If it's a verbal thought then it's the illusion of the body speaking with some throat sensations. But that illusion is perceived. Not by something separate from the illusion, I understand that I was seeing it as a thought and then a perceiver of a thought before. Maybe I'm still missing something here or maybe I'm getting theoretical.
You say there are the 5 senses + the imagined/thought version of them.
Is mental activity just another sense, so to speak. Or something different. Or does it not even matter, there is simply the experience of thoughtness.
Yes. But is this something you clearly see experientially, or is this just understood with logical thinking?
This was experienced. Very clearly last night and a quite a few times today. It seems so shocking that instantly it's unseen. As it's seen experientially the thought that precedes it is usually "I have never experienced anything" and as soon as that arises it's just. Well thoughts are so far from reality. Completely disconnected. They have not even the closest inkling of resemblance to the truth of what arises. It's shocking. And for a brief moment when that is still being experienced the thought of "I" returns, and it just seems to have no importance for the first few thoughts. Because "I" relies only on nonexperience. The "I" can only refer to imagination. and direct experience has no I. It is only the experience as its arising with no one or nothing perceiving that experience. Seems crazy. It's funny that it seems crazy because I've read so many books that say just that but I completely misunderstood them. There is literally no I. Just needs to be experienced I guess.
Yes. And this needs to be seen many times to really sink in.
Yes. I can see that it gets easier to see it each time I see it but it still has not fully sunk in.
But isn’t the experience of warmth = knowing of warmth?
Isn’t knowing or aware-ing just a different word for experience?
There is just a sensation as I drink tea. That sensation has no knower, it is simply felt as a sensation. Thought arises and calls it warmth. The word warmth has nothing to do with the experience. I can see language has nothing to do with experience. Just more thoughts pointing at other thoughts. I just keep noticing how disassociated words/thoughts are from reality. Maybe I drank tea and had a similar sensation several times until the word warmth associated itself to that sensation. so now when that abstract feeling arises the word warmth appears. But that word has nothing to do with the experience. Even descriptions cannot describe an experience. All these thoughts are just shadows of the experience that they refer to.
Anyway. To answer your question with your words. The sensation we call warmth, is known, in the sense that it is experienced. The word "known" sort of implies that there is a knower when I use it. But in the sense that it is known experientially, yes. The sensation of warmth is the knowing of the sensation of warmth which is the awareness of the sensation which is the experience of the sensation which is the existence of the sensation.
And when there are thoughts, then Philip is experiencing?
The answer is no. The self never experiences. With or without thoughts. When there are thoughts, then there are thoughts about Philip experiencing. Without thoughts there are no thoughts of Philip experiencing. Either way self does not experience reality. But when there are thoughts about Philip experiencing there is an illusion of Philip experiencing, the thought story now includes those thoughts with "now Philip experienced this". But like I keep noticing. I have never experienced anything. Including these thoughts.
Is there a sensation without the knowing of it?
Is there a thought without the knowing of it?
I see where I went wrong yesterday. Sensation is the knowing of sensation. It's simultaneously felt and known as one happening. Same with thoughts. There is no awareness of a thought. But the thought is known by its existence. Existence is knowing.
Can a sensation be separated from the knowing of it?
Can a thought be separated from the knowing of it?
No. If a sensation or a thought could be not known then it would not exist.
Are there actually 2 things happening there: sensation + knowing / aware-ing, or thought + knowing / awaring?
Or there is just one happening but described in two different ways ‘sensation + knowing’, or ‘thought and being aware of it’?
One thing happening. There cannot be thought and separately the awareness of it. Or sensation and the awareness of it. The thought or sensation cannot be separated from the experience of it perceptually. There is only thought arising.
Yes. But is this awareness something separate from the thought itself? Or the thought is already the awareness of it?
I see where I was confused yesterday. There is no "I" aware of the thought. Thought is already the awareness of thought.
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
No
Isn’t the presence of a thought, ALREADY the knowing of it?
Isn’t knowing inherent in the thought or in a sensation, or a sound?
Yes.
Thank you for your thoroughness and continuing patience. I really appreciate it.
Gracefully and with love,
Philip
