Harmonie

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

You said

I would say it is only our mind. Life is like it is... Our mind creates this difference, this duality.

You already have the answer to your question about the way to keep the 'gate' open.
You need to experience life through your sensory gates before any mental filtering. But it's easier to say than to be done. It requires practice and preserverance in your daily state of consciousness (drugs can't help you in that). Be patient, let's continue the inquiry.

And there where no more thoughts, only the experience of the sound. I “felt” the sound. It’s hard to describe but there was no more “me”, there was only the sound and the experience of the sound.

Yes, there was no hearer, just hearing happening. No seer, just seeing happening, no smeller, just smelling happening, ...

A resistance from the thoughts against the Truth. It is not possible to experience doubts... Truth is a completely different experience. It is a “real” experience,

Very well, as long as you have this distinction present you will embody awakening sooner than you think :-)

Did you experience an increased reactivity after the 'honeymoon' period of your awakening shift?
Have you done shadow work (emotional work) afterwards?

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.
So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply the image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply the smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply the sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply the taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply the sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply the thought (notice the thought not its content)

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all direct experience) and report back how you go.

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

Hi Atmajnani,

Did you experience an increased reactivity after the 'honeymoon' period of your awakening shift?

Maybe, but it was not obvious for me. It is 3 Years ago, I‘m not sure. But I think if it would be very obvious, than I would remember.

Have you done shadow work (emotional work) afterwards?

I‘m a emotional person. I try to do this every time. I also have a god relationship to my family and friends. And I‘m happy to have my own family. So there was no „big thing“ open. But after this experience it was much easier for me to feel inside of others. Maybe also because I knowed that we are „one“. There is always the feeling of „empathy“ with others. That bewares for much negative emotions and disputes.

I already tried this exercise today. It is very fascinating for me. But I will try it tomorrow again before I will answer.

Warmly
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

Nice to know. I suggest that we continue the inquiry to the various aspects of the self-illusion to check if something is still unclear, even if several other aspects are already obvious to you.

I will wait for your reply to the last exercise.

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

Hi Atmajnani,

To the exercise: When I label the things I do only with this categories, then it feels like “I” observe the things what happened from another point of view. After a while “I” get more into the experience and it’s less observation than experience. Hard to describe. I had one experience in the evening. I was sitting outside and it gets dark. It was warm and I was in the nature. I made this exercise. In this setting (less impressions) it was more easy for me than during the day. I closed my eyes an tried to feel my “doubts” and “resistance” against “loosing” myself. I felt some fear, but I couldn’t say witch kind of fear. Then I opened the eyes again and tried the exercise again and at this moment ist was very easy. It was like I’m in a flow. There was the experience, the label. Next experience. Next label. It felt like also the labelling is „to much“. There where only a few thought. I labeled them and went into the next experience. It feels very good. Very intensive. Very real and „free“.
It feels like this exercise is a „bridge“ from the „old“ way of thinking to the „new“ way of experience. Like „the mind needs some work, otherwise he starts to thinking“. So if you give him this work of labelling, that he’s happy. So you can be in the experience. This thought came after the experience. In the experience there wasn’t much thoughts. It think I was in this state of consciousness for nearly half an our (I had not really a feeling of time). Then I came back home and there I losed this state of consciousness after a while. I think because I was talking. And lose the concentration.

Warmly
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosh,

I closed my eyes an tried to feel my “doubts” and “resistance” against “loosing” myself. I felt some fear, but I couldn’t say witch kind of fear.

Next time you repeat this try to locate the sensation in the body that your mind labels as 'fear'. Then observe it closely, how it arises, its characteristics (is it a contraction/buzzing, heaviness/pressure, cold/warm, etc), and how it dissolves into nothingness. Just notice how sensations and thoughts are impermanent and interconnected. They arise from nothingness and dissolve into nothingness. Don't give attention to the content of thoughts. Give all your attention to body sensations.

It was like I’m in a flow. There was the experience, the label. Next experience. Next label. It felt like also the labelling is „too much“. There where only a few thoughts. I labeled them and went into the next experience. It feels very good. Very intensive. Very real and „free“.

Very good. Keep practicing this with regular contemplative walks or sittings in the nature. It's a 'natural meditation' that trains your consciousness to be present and quiet your mind.

Now try this slightly different exercise which examines the way in which the mind labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper.
This exercise is broken into 10 minute lots. For each 10 minute period pay attention to any body sensations (i.e. is there any tightening, or any relaxing?)

For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.
For example: I am sitting on a chair, I am hearing a clock ticking, I am looking at a computer screen, I am feeling hungry. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.

Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs. For example: sitting on a chair, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the clock. (Again, watch what is happening in the body.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:
1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

The second exercise feels truer. It was more like the exercise before. Only experience and labelling. It also was more direct. The first exercise needs much more time and so it was‘n‘t reall possible to go go directly into the next experience. So there where less experience and „moee mind“. That‘s what I mean with the second exercise was more directly.

2. What is here without labels?

I don’t understand this question.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

They don’t changes the experience itself. But the kind of feeling the experience changes with the kind of labelling. The view of the world, the experience changes.

4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

In the second exercise I had a feeling of “freedom” and I was very “grounded”. There were only a few thoughts. The time seems to pass away fast. It was like in a flow again. One after another. Very much experiences. There was “everything ok”. In the first experience I had a kind of stress. I was to slowly to write. With the “I” there came also much more thoughts. Like “there is a next experience”, “write this”, “should I write this or this”, the experiences feels more simultaneously. And the time seems to pass away very slowly and fast in once. The ten minutes “does’t” stop, but I was always stressed and had not enough time. That’s what my thoughts said, while I made this exercise. In the second exercise the thoughts said not much 😉

Warmly
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

Questions 2 and 3 use the term 'labels' referring to 'thoughts labelling direct experience'.

Now do this exercise to LOOK at the correlation between thoughts and reality.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or the other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

Hi Atmajnani,

What did you find when doing this exercise?

The exercise shows how wide the thoughts could lead you. The thoughts could bring you far away from the real experience. The thoughts evaluate and categorise things. They change the feeling of the experience. Not the experience itself but the way of thinking about it. It’s hard to see only the experience between the thoughts. And it’s more difficult to ignore them if they are trusted.

Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

No, the comment is not necessary for the game. The comment changes nothing. Probably there are different comments for the same game.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

The inner narration is absolutely not necessary for the play of life. That’s really a good comparison.

Warmly,
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

Now answer these questions:

1. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?

2. Can thought experience thought? Can thought experience anything? (Thought is so very overrated - by thought).

3. Does thought make any contact with other kinds of sense experience, such as sounds or sensations – or are they totally separate from each other?

For a moment take note of exactly what is being experienced in this moment: Notice all sound, all sensation, all smell, all taste, all colour. 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.

4. 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?

5. Observe thought closely. Try to determine what your next thought is going to be before it appears. Can you do this?
Isn’t a thought only known as it appears? In that case, can you possibly claim to be in control of the thinking process, the thoughts, choices or impulses that arise, unless you can somehow instigate them beforehand?

Sit quietly and pay close attention to your thoughts for 20 minutes. Notice that thoughts seem to pop out of nowhere and have no obvious cause. They are a total surprise and you can find no cause or reason for their appearance. It should be obvious you were not involved in any way in the creation of these thoughts.

6. Do you have unpleasant thoughts? Do you want to have them? If you had any control over thoughts, don’t you think you would choose not to think such thoughts at all? Wouldn’t you be able to choose never to have thoughts that seem to make you unhappy?

6. When we look very closely and precisely we come to see that “me” thoughts only refer to other “me” thoughts, not to an actual abiding “me.” Observe thoughts with precision. Can you ever find a ‘me’ within the “me” thoughts and feelings, or just a sense of me?

10. Pay attention to mental activity – to thoughts and images in the mind. Where are they arising? Are they inside something? Are they central to you, or are they peripheral? Do they leave any trace when they have gone?

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

1. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?

No, it is only in the thoughts.

2. Can thought experience thought? Can thought experience anything? (Thought is so very overrated - by thought).

No, thoughts can’t experience anything.

3. Does thought make any contact with other kinds of sense experience, such as sounds or sensations – or are they totally separate from each other?

They are totally separate from each other. Sometimes it seems as would the thought came after a special sense. But this are also only thoughts which tell this story. But never the thoughts change any sense or experience.

4. 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?

No it’s not continuous there are often a lot of minutes without thinking of “me”. For example while doing sport, having sex, watching a film … Only the thoughts generate this feeling of continuity. They fill the gaps.

5. Isn’t a thought only known as it appears? In that case, can you possibly claim to be in control of the thinking process, the thoughts, choices or impulses that arise, unless you can somehow instigate them beforehand?

No, I can’t say which thought comes next. It is not possible to control them.

6. Do you have unpleasant thoughts? Do you want to have them? If you had any control over thoughts, don’t you think you would choose not to think such thoughts at all? Wouldn’t you be able to choose never to have thoughts that seem to make you unhappy?

Yes, there is no option to “don’t think” this thoughts. They came and then they are there. You can think that you don’t want to think them, but not more. I think a lot of people try (consciously or not consciously) try to do things the whole day (smartphone for example) to think not so much.

7. Can you ever find a ‘me’ within the “me” thoughts and feelings, or just a sense of me?

No, the „me“ is only in the thoughts not in the experience or sense. If there are no „me thoughts“ there is no „me“. It is not continuous, the me comes and goes with the me thoughts. Only the thoughts tell the story of a continuous „me“.

8. Where are they arising? Are they inside something? Are they central to you, or are they peripheral? Do they leave any trace when they have gone?

They are not central to me. More peripheral. They don‘t appear in the experience. They don‘t appear in the ‚real‘ world. It‘s more like in the example with the soccer game. They comment and add to the experiences and senses. They don’t change the experience itself, but they change the view of seeing and feeling the experience. They evaluate, categorise and comment the experiences.It is more like a „sound in the head“. Talking all the time. There is no trace when they go. Often only the next thought appears. And thoughts which tell you „something about the thoughts“. Telling you that they are real, that they are continuous, that one thought comes after another, that you able to control them, telling you the story of „yourself“.

Warmly,
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

Very good observations.
Now let's LOOK at decisions, choices and control.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts – examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over?
Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Who or what chose which hand, the left or right hand, for the exercise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

Hi Atmajnani,

How is the movement controlled?

Good question. By nobody?!

Does a thought control it?

There are thoughts. Thoughts which say “turn”, “turn not”, “turn now”. But they aren’t related with the movement. They say: “We control the movement”, but they aren’t able to. They comment the movement. Before, while and after. And let it look like “you and your thoughts control the hand”.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No, there is no controller. The movement comes and goes. Like the senses and the thoughts.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

Without “me”. The decision comes from the “body?” by itself. That sounds crazy.

Who or what chose which hand, the left or right hand, for the exercise?

There was no “question” and no “decision”. It was clear I will took this hand (the left on).

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

No.

Warmly,
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

Very good noting.

Now imagine for a moment a scene, a little water stream which is tumbling down a hillside gully, not far from its source. It has been raining and so the level of the stream of water is quite high. Consider in your mind's eye, if you can, how it flows to the right over a little rock (where, had the level been lower, it would probably have gone around the rock), then the flow goes to the left over a tree bow, and then slows a little in a broader place, before splashing over a small cascade into a pool, and so on down the mountain side.

Does it choose any of its directions?

Is there a separate entity different from the water deposited in it, the rocks, the depressions in the ground etc?

Is it even the same entity moment by moment, or more the product of weather conditions and water, like an ever-changing pattern?

1. Can you find anywhere where 'Laubfrosch' autonomously intervenes into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements, that is not a part of the overall flow?

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg; what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch, and describe to me what happens. There are environmental factors, there are colour preferences (but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?), practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose (eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look hip and cool for that person!) etc.
Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life? Can you find someone somewhere in direct experience?

3. Can anything be found for which 'Laubfrosch' is absolutely responsible – if so, responsible to what and for what?

Warmly,
Atmajnani

[Laubfrosch]

Hello Atmajnani,

Does it choose any of its directions?

No. It is forced this way by the landscape, the level and so on.

Is there a separate entity different from the water deposited in it, the rocks, the depressions in the ground etc?

No.

Is it even the same entity moment by moment, or more the product of weather conditions and water, like an ever-changing pattern?

The second.

1. Can you find anywhere where 'Laubfrosch' autonomously intervenes into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements, that is not a part of the overall flow?

I found no example.

2.Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life? Can you find someone somewhere in direct experience?

When „I“ choose my cloth I open the cupboard and look which weather is, what I‘m going to do today, and which colors and pattern looks good together. The first two things are forced by the „outside conditions“. The third by a „inner preference“. From where comes this preference. I think there where a lot of experiences and a learnings and together they let us prefer things. There is not really a decision, because there is no process of decision which observe all this experiences. Is more a „knowing“ who said „take this“. So there is not really a person it is more like an instinct.

3. Can anything be found for which 'Laubfrosch' is absolutely responsible – if so, responsible to what and for what?

I think not.

Warmly,
Laubfrosch

[atmajnani]

Hi Laubfrosch,

The third by a „inner preference“. From where comes this preference?

Preferences arise from conditioning (conscious and unconscious) which again is created by all elements of Life (epigenetic conditioning, family conditioning, social conditioning, etc).

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.
Here's what’s needed - a chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice
Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks swiftly. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves?
If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?
Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Warmly,
Atmajnani