stopbitingmytail

[iignite]

Hi dear Stacy - good afternoon here - 5.05 pm

took awhile to "understand" the task - here what came....

Bring up a thought about a character labeled "friend."
Then bring up a thought about a character labeled "stranger."
Compare these thoughts.

Is there a difference in these thoughts?

2 objects with a diffenent tag - yes, some difference.

Is there a true difference or is it just different content?

If I were to make a drawing of the sentences, it would be 2 circles: one white (content) one black (content) - 2 circles=no true difference...

Now, bring up a thought about a character labeled "friend."
After that, look at a thought about the character labelled "me.”

Is there a difference

?
here a strange inner occurance: in the thought about the friend "the arrow" (inner representation) goes out (to the friend) - whereas in the thought about character "me" the arrow points back (to "me") -
and yet, I can also see the sameness - boths being character-objects created by thought "out there"

Is there anything special about thoughts with the content "me-character?"

I would be lying if not - its still a feeling: neutral/strange objects are moving/hanging on a long loose robe, the "me-object" is on short tied robe -
and yet:. with the "friend-" and " me-" character beeing " out there" i feel like an empty shell left behind - not so bad.

I do not want to jump ahead of myself - the inner dialogs are deeply anchored/grooves ingrained - feels like happening in the throat - almost physical. Here understanding and Seeing are not "together"......
love from george

[Anastacia42]

My goodness! Please refer back to Colored Socks.

Isn't it funny? This exercise is exactly the same as the red/green exercise, but you found it more difficult.

"Friend" and "stranger" are nothing more than labels. They have no inherent meaning at all. That has to be learned.

Remember we don't care one bit about content of thought or the story.

We only care about Actual/Direct Experience

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling/Sensation
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising -the simple content-free fact that a thought arose NOT the story or cenvrontent - that's all make believe

the inner dialogs are deeply anchored/grooves ingrained - feels like happening in the throat - almost physical

Poppycock! That's all make believe! Can you LOOK and actually SEE this? No.

If you cannot separate made up stories from Actual Experience, this next exercise will also be difficult. Try to apply what I'm saying about Actual Experience versus made up stories to this pointer:


Actual/Direct Experience - Apple

Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise. Google for a picture of an apple.



When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought.

Actual experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

Have fun and let me know what you find out.

Remember that it is essential to be relaxed doing the exercises. Straining and stressing and thinking will prevent SEEING. You can't make thoughts go away. Just ignore them.

Much love,

[iignite]

Hi Stacy,

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.
What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

content of thoughts can describe "ideas about apple"/comparisons/abstracts which are not seen/tasted/smelled=thoughts within thougths at inf.
the eye sees immideate/ direct the colour/form of the apple - not "about" - for capturing the apple by seeing/smelling/tasting there is no "detour" needed through ideas/concepts/thoughts

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

For the "baby" there is no apple - only color/form impression - after naming-learning the thought about apple gets added.
"the thought/ the name is not the thing"

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

aspects of apple can be found - actual experiences are only that itself: the taste/the colour

However, is an apple actually known?

Apple (as such) cannot be known. Only the synthezied impressions of seeing/tasting/smelling (a manufactured thought product) lead to the conventional agreement to call this "apple".

Have fun and let me know what you find out

about "thought" and "content of thought" sounds almost like there is an "empty thought" and
the filling (content) (of course not) - but at the moment I detect the "thoughtyness" = conceptual = made up I stay away from it. I think, thats what you mean when you say we are not interested in the content but only detecting "thought" (as unreal)
thanks again
george

[Anastacia42]

Good morning,

There is no apple, only content of thought about the DE of seeing, tasting. touching.

George. you're right, and your answers all come from thinking. They sound like a Philosophy textbook. That isn't going to work here. It will not help you to SEE there is no self. Can you see that?

Keeping your replies short & simple can help.

Now tell me - LOOK - can you see how the story of a "self" is just like the story of an "apple?"

Loving,

[iignite]

Hi, Stacy,

George. you're right, and your answers all come from thinking. They sound like a Philosophy textbook. That isn't going to work here. It will not help you to SEE there is no self. Can you see that?

thanks god I am not a Philosopher and do not know any textbooks, but it seems I have such analytical mind and it´s not so easy to express in just simple terms - its just rambling along with what I want to say. "No apple - No self" would not be enough. And I do understand your reply, and I hope you not loosing patience...

Now tell me - LOOK - can you see how the story of a "self" is just like the story of an "apple?"

yes I can see that - a story is a story - empty
But I want to add - forgive me : there can be DE (of colour/shape) of apple, but not of self.

big sigh
george

[Anastacia42]

Good morning, George,

I'm not even beginning to lose patience. This can take weeks and months! It can take less, too. Have you read either "Gateless Gatecrashers" or "Liberation Unleashed," to read examples of people who did see no self? That might help you.

When you read those, look for the reply where you start reading their shift in awareness.

Something between long rambling answers and "no apple - no self," works. And sometimes "no apple - no self" is all it takes!

But I want to add - forgive me : there can be DE (of colour/shape) of apple, but not of self.

No forgiveness needed. You did not do anything wrong. (Not that there is a "you" to do anything wrong. :) )

Here is an exercise that may help you get out of this habit of over-thinking things:

Finding the Gap

This exercise has a dual purpose. Firstly, to become aware of each and every though as they appear. Secondly, the careful looking for the gap is an example of how carefully to look when looking for the ‘separate self’.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts:

First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day.

Close your eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.

Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts:

Looking how they come and go, and

Observing the short gap between them.

Noticing how the current thought is passing.

And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes. Stay relaxed. Step back and observe.

Loving,

[iignite]

Hi Stacy,
Needed time for your Suggestionen......
Sometimes thoughts not "orderly" coming and going, more like a soup, stired unstired, hundreds of peas..,but yes, the continuum has empty spaces n between, and most of them I am not really Interested in, but "biographical" ones come strongly with "I", and observing lost in identifying......that just as aside
In nonintentional relaxed , almost "daydreaming" state its all moving slow enough to observe , I can sense the gaps.....

Love george

[Anastacia42]

Good afternoon,

Very good.

the careful looking for the gap is an example of how carefully to look when looking for the ‘separate self’.

So, in the same way...

For a moment take note of exactly what is being experienced in this moment: Notice all sound, all sensation, all smell, all taste, all color. Notice how you're making absolutely no effort to be aware of them. And notice that you're not making them happen. You're not conducting the orchestra of experience that you're aware of. And notice that thought is exactly the same as the rest of experience. You're effortlessly aware of it, but you're not orchestrating it. You're not even orchestrating the thoughts which say that you're able to
orchestrate thoughts.

Can you see this?

The story of "me’ can seem to have continuity.

Is it really continuous? Or are there simply isolated thoughts that never can truly touch each other, some of them claiming that there's one continuous story?

What is seen when you look in the way you looked to find the gap?

Loving,

[iignite]

good evening here, Hi Stacy,

Notice how you're making absolutely no effort to be aware of them...

yes, I sense, that socalled awareness is just like "on-ness" - it comes all in randomly without choosing/selecting - effortlessly.
no need to switch on looking/hearing etc...

Is it really continuous? Or are there simply isolated thoughts that never can truly touch each other, some of them claiming that there's one continuous story?

No, only imagined continuity - the gap feels also like Void and each thought comes and goes disconnected out of this void

The story of "me’ can seem to have continuity.

In a way its (the "I") presupposed, in that sense or belief it seems continues. As a thought it has the same substance as any thought= none.

What is seen when you look in the way you looked to find the gap?

lot of "space"=void
But I need to say this: reporting about all this feels far away from when its "happening" or sensed. what a dilemma!

with a Hello and good night from here
george

[Anastacia42]

Hi George,

Good, yes. Lots of space & hopefully a sense of ease.

But I need to say this: reporting about all this feels far away from when its "happening" or sensed. what a dilemma!

It is possible to report *and* stay connected to the clarity of noticing the simple happenings. I have some recorded pointers in my Dropbox that might help with this.

If you will PM me (for privacy) an email address (little envelope icon in the top right corner), I'll share those with you.

Loving

[iignite]

Hi Stacy,

looking forward.....

talking/sharing about experiencing creates unease, but to a certain degree and purpose it seems unavoidable. There always will be "the dilemma": f.e. who experiences "the void" - its just not possible or falsifying....who the heck is there, when there is "nothingness"! this is not a philosophical question, but my bothering question...

enough for today
love from george

[Anastacia42]

Hi George

Your not going to like this, maybe, but . . .

who the heck is there, when there is "nothingness"

George, not only is this squarely in the realm of philosophy, it will be seen as meaningless once you can SEE no self. You will laugh at the idea that this ever seemed important.

EVERYTHING having to do with the content of thought is made up, meaningless & irrelevant. Ignore it as much as possible.

The way to see is to focus on Direct/Actual Experiencing of the 5 senses on this moment. Note that thoughts arise, but do not believe them. Ignore the stories they tell including the myth of any "who."

I can write about this all day long, but it must be SEEN. Thinking will never show you the truth. It can't. It's part of the myth of self.

There's only life life-ing - no 'who."

Awareness aware-ing. Again, no "who."

Did you PM an email address? If not, I can post those pointers from the transcript, but it's much more fun to hear it.

Loving, (...ING...see?)

[iignite]

yes, Stacy,
I follow what you say - totally "agree" - leaving the "contents" aside....

only to say, that I can see that experiencing and reporting (verbing) can happen without "I"-"me" beeing involved .

Thank you for dropped link -
george

[Anastacia42]

Great.

Have you listened to the Introduction?

Tried any of the pointers?

I realize only the odd numbered ones made it, but the rest are in the written transcript.

Last me know how these go for you.

Loving,

[iignite]

Yes, Stacy,
I spend quite some time with Stephen - today I rather read the transcripts - and some of the tracks...
but: no resonance with him/this - I do not feel arrogance or smartassish, but I felt like in the wrong movie with this.
LU and you are more "to the point".....! (I leave out the harsh judgements, which flooded my mind today and come back to the short clear exchanges)

There's only life life-ing - no 'who."
Awareness aware-ing. Again, no "who."

the reason, why I am here (on LU) is , that I somehow know this to be true and yet this knowing is mostly not present, not actual - often refering back to past experience....

thank you from george