Revisiting the past

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

If the labels are so deep as to be generational it seems difficult to see beyond them, yet that is what I hope to be able to do.

“Generational” or not, labels are labels. They all came from "somewhere" and were overlayed over whatever is happening, trying to describe it. And this is what labels do – try to find meaning, create a story about whatever is happening. We’ll explore thoughts a bit more later.

Eating Watermelon=Sensations (taste)

Sitting in front of computer= Sensations (sight, hearing)

Drinking= Sensations (tasting)

Super!

Cleaning=sensations,sounds, movement.

Driving a car= Sensations (sitting, moving hands and feet)

Sweeping=Sensations (moving)

Cooking=sensations (moving, tasting)

Some of these are not DE labels : moving, hands, feet. They are just labels pointing to DE, but not DE.

Let’s explore sensations and the labels around them a bit more…

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience –
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Some of these are not DE labels : moving, hands, feet. They are just labels pointing to DE, but not DE.

Let’s explore sensations and the labels around them a bit more…

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience –

a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

It seemed to me like touch sensation happende first, and then I processed it to recognize that it was cool. I am familiar with an experiment when if someone thinks they are about to be burned and then you touch them with a cold object, they feel it as burning hot.
But in this case it was sensation then cold.

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, you cannot know in the sense of experiencing it. Tall is relative to other things so without an object to measure against there is no relative tall or short anyway.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Well it seems like while sitting you can still feel gravity or weight pulling you downward. I have experienced the relative weightlessness of underwater, and this is not that. However that may just be ater the fact processing leading me to that conclusion.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

It is hard to say what the form is, with eyes closed. The canonical answer of course, should be no, but I do sense what I perceive of as my extremities, fingers and toes, and they seem to suggest a somewhat fungible boundary, even though where is unknown with eyes closed.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

I can feel my body, but I can't feel the body of the chair. But it's all one sensation.

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

I don't really feel like I "own" "my" body, so I will say "A Body"

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

Relatively speaking, I can distinguish the sensation of swallowing from that of touching something with a finger, so It feels like inside and outside, although scientists certainly make a compelling case for the digestive tract being outside the body.

In the Direct Experience with eyes closed I can't really tell inside from outside.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?
Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Sure, the body is a concept, it is fungible, It cannot exist without dependent origination, meaning it is connected to every other subatomic particle, and on a bio level is made up of much biomass such as bacteria that one cannot even claim to own.

However in normal everytay waking life, when I stub my toe it hurts, This is the experience of the body for me. I bruised my rigs and now when I breathe or move I feel pain. This is as real as "real life" gets. I enjoy and appreciate doing these exercise but they seem more like thought experiments. or sophistry. Maybe I am dense or slow :(

Thank you Rali
Love Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

It seemed to me like touch sensation happened first, and then I processed it to recognize that it was cool. I am familiar with an experiment when if someone thinks they are about to be burned and then you touch them with a cold object, they feel it as burning hot.
But in this case it was sensation then cold.

Yes, sensations happen and thought rushes to describe them. But LOOK are there "fingers" and a "can", or just a sensation? Do sensations have a location (with eyes closed/open) or the location is a label for sensations?
For example: Imagine a hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".

Where exactly did all of that happen?
Where was experience located?
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?
Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
Does anything actually have a location?
How would you know?
What would count as evidence of actual location?

Tall is relative to other things so without an object to measure against there is no relative tall or short anyway.

“Tall” in this case was meant as the length of the body, not tall vs short. Does the “body” has any dimensions or a “body” is a label for sensations in general?

Well it seems like while sitting you can still feel gravity or weight pulling you downward. I have experienced the relative weightlessness of underwater, and this is not that. However that may just be ater the fact processing leading me to that conclusion.

What is “gravity” in DE? How is “weight pulling you down” experienced in DE? Remember the cup of coffee example when you have to describe daily activities with DE labels…

I can feel my body, but I can't feel the body of the chair. But it's all one sensation.

So basically “body” and “chair” are describing (labels) the sensation (i.e. “body on chair”). Do you agree?
The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

Relatively speaking, I can distinguish the sensation of swallowing from that of touching something with a finger, so It feels like inside and outside, although scientists certainly make a compelling case for the digestive tract being outside the body.

Anything that is “relative” is thought content (that includes science), and we are not interested in that. We are only interested of what can be observed through the senses. Yes, these sensations feel differently but what determines one as “inside” and the other as “outside” without thought content? Is there intrinsic “inside-ness” or “outside-ness” in these two sensations? Just close your eyes and feel. Please IGNORE all thoughts and mental images of ‘fingers’ and ‘object’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed and notice what is actually present

However in normal everytay waking life, when I stub my toe it hurts, This is the experience of the body for me. I bruised my rigs and now when I breathe or move I feel pain. This is as real as "real life" gets.

Well nobody is promising that “painful” will ever stop. (I hope you read the “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU). We are just looking at what is behind the story "I feel pain". "Pain" (sensation) is here, but is there an "I" attached to it?
When pain appears ('unpleasant" sensation), there are usually thoughts how things should be different and the pain should not be here. But these are just thoughts. Do you see an entity attached to the sensation and the thought? What makes them a "me"? Is it fear that is protecting the "I" (remember fear/emotion=sensation +thought)? Is it the intensity of the pain? Next time instead of concentrating on exploring the desire for the pain to go away, try staying with the pain, welcoming it. Eventually belief in the truthfulness of a story "I am in pain" drops away. The story is way more enjoyable without a "me" and the fear that something can happen to this “me.” Once it’s clearly seen that there is no actual me, there is no place for the story to stick (to form an identity). Whatever happens feels okay. Even pain :)
Physical pain happens and is unavoidable, but mental pain, or suffering, is optional. Thoughts that tell the story about suffering are the suffering. Have a look, is physical pain and suffering the same? What is in the way of feeling love now (when pain is present)?

I enjoy and appreciate doing these exercise but they seem more like thought experiments. or sophistry. Maybe I am dense or slow :(

You are doing fine! Remember this is not a philosophical debate, we are just looking at what is here/now. Just checking the validity of the story that’s been going on for a long time. Just simple looking, nothing else. This looking allows thought to correct itself and self-organise around the DE.
Let’s say that you have lost your keys and you swear that you left them in your coat. You go to look and check all the pockets - the keys are not there. You swear they must be as that was the last place you remember them. You have a vivid memory of putting them there after you left the house. But when you check they are not there. At this point you can keep believing that the keys are in your pocket, or you can admit you were mistaken, right?
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Most of what I have to say I recognize as fictions, dredged up from past conditioning.

Yes, sensations happen and thought rushes to describe them. But LOOK are there "fingers" and a "can", or just a sensation? Do sensations have a location (with eyes closed/open) or the location is a label for sensations?

I't's all part of a process, no separate sensations or location, however, seemingly perceived as fingers and a can.

For example: Imagine a hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".

Yes it's all one sensation, but it's conditioned by a story or an interpretation. This is what my mind does, and what I hope to see beyond, to experience the now without the conditioning.

Where exactly did all of that happen

?

In a sense it all happened in the mind.

Where was experience located?

In the mind, but experienced as a body part, the sensation coming through the hands
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?You could say the experience occurred in the thumb but was experienced in the pain center of the brain?

Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?

Also, the images are being processed in the brain/mind, but story of science says that it is actually happening somewhere in timespace, and the localized person perceives it as happening to him, ie me, if it were to happen.

Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?

There is not even a here and now. It's just a label for this happening. But seemingly, I am going through this story of the self where all these bad and or painful or good and pleasurable things are happening.

Does anything actually have a location?

Yes and no. No in the absolute sense which is outside of spacetime, yes in the story, which is where I'm writing this post from!

How would you know?

No way to know, but sitting here I perceive what i have been conditioned to think\feel is distance.

What would count as evidence of actual location?

Even the most sophisticated tools of science can't really pin that one down. However, subjectively I feel like im "here."

“Tall” in this case was meant as the length of the body, not tall vs short. Does the “body” has any dimensions or a “body” is a label for sensations in general?

The dimensions of the body are always perceived as changeable. So the body has no absolute dimensions. Also, in DE it all just seems like a void.

What is “gravity” in DE? How is “weight pulling you down” experienced in DE? Remember the cup of coffee example when you have to describe daily activities with DE labels…

You could say that gravity is
Sensations=touch, feeing.

So basically “body” and “chair” are describing (labels) the sensation (i.e. “body on chair”). Do you agree?
The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

I agree that body and chair are labels for sensation. Yes it is all thought pointing to sensation. But I only experience the thoughts pointing to sensations. I can't just experience the sensations separate from thoughts.
This is reminding me a bit of Neuro-Linguistic programming, whereby changing the thoughts and labels can change your experience of reality/self. It has it's usefulness.

Anything that is “relative” is thought content (that includes science), and we are not interested in that. We are only interested of what can be observed through the senses. Yes, these sensations feel differently but what determines one as “inside” and the other as “outside” without thought content? Is there intrinsic “inside-ness” or “outside-ness” in these two sensations? Just close your eyes and feel. Please IGNORE all thoughts and mental images of ‘fingers’ and ‘object’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed and notice what is actually present

Ok I did it. There is only sensation if you discount thoughts. Sensation of pressure. no inside or outside with eyes closed.

Well nobody is promising that “painful” will ever stop. (I hope you read the “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU). We are just looking at what is behind the story "I feel pain". "Pain" (sensation) is here, but is there an "I" attached to it?

One of the practices I have done is Sadhu nail boards, and also Ice baths. The narrative around these is to help one see that the pain doesn't define or control ones inner state, they are just sensations. So I am not really complaining about experiencing pain, just that it feels like there is a me that it's happening to.

When pain appears ('unpleasant" sensation), there are usually thoughts how things should be different and the pain should not be here. But these are just thoughts. Do you see an entity attached to the sensation and the thought? What makes them a "me"? Is it fear that is protecting the "I" (remember fear/emotion=sensation +thought)? Is it the intensity of the pain? Next time instead of concentrating on exploring the desire for the pain to go away, try staying with the pain, welcoming it. Eventually belief in the truthfulness of a story "I am in pain" drops away. The story is way more enjoyable without a "me" and the fear that something can happen to this “me.” Once it’s clearly seen that there is no actual me, there is no place for the story to stick (to form an identity). Whatever happens feels okay. Even pain :)

Yes, I understand, pain doesn't hurt, it's just pain. Sometimes it is experienced as pleasureable. It's all just a happening. But the sense of me, even though i see it as part of that happening, seems to condition everything else, and it seems real.

Physical pain happens and is unavoidable, but mental pain, or suffering, is optional. Thoughts that tell the story about suffering are the suffering. Have a look, is physical pain and suffering the same? What is in the way of feeling love now (when pain is present)?

Physical pain and suffering are quite different. In fact in my case it's not usually physical pain that precedes or generates suffering. It is usually emotional attachment to stories from childhood, emotional pain, psychic pain etc.
Luckily in this body-mind lifestream I've not has the misfortune of experiencing catastrophic chronic physical pain, like people who experience life altering war wounds for example. One wonders if the desire and ability to seek would be altered if one became disabled in that way.

For the present I will continue to look at Direct Experience and feeling the sensations.

Thank You again Rali for your attention and time. Sorry If I'm slow to respond, I look forward to waking up to your message but then it seems to take me a while to process the questions and I don't just want to reply extemporaneously and turn it into a kind of dialogue without the proper amount of reflection.
Love,
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Thank You again Rali for your attention and time. Sorry If I'm slow to respond, I look forward to waking up to your message but then it seems to take me a while to process the questions and I don't just want to reply extemporaneously and turn it into a kind of dialogue without the proper amount of reflection.

No rush, what is important are the consistency and the intensity (staying with the questions) - no distractions for the “magic” to work :). And it’s my pleasure guiding you!

Most of what I have to say I recognize as fictions, dredged up from past conditioning.

Well done for recognising this!

I't's all part of a process, no separate sensations or location, however, seemingly perceived as fingers and a can.

Very good looking!

In a sense it all happened in the mind.

In the mind, but experienced as a body part, the sensation coming through the hands
Was experience of pain located in the thumb? You could say the experience occurred in the thumb but was experienced in the pain center of the brain?

What are “brain” and “mind” in DE? Can you see them, describe them by directly looking at them? Can you see all this that you described above, or is it all a nice story (scientific or not)?

Yes and no. No in the absolute sense which is outside of spacetime, yes in the story, which is where I'm writing this post from!

But is the story correct? For the story to self-correct, its truthfulness has to be seen through DE. No story comes close to DE, DE is indescribable – you can’t describe the taste of chocolate to someone who hasn’t tried it. However some stories come closer to DE then others (like DE labels). Language is an important tool for communication, and this is the concession that needs to be made. BUT!!! There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion – the one is seen as something that just looks like something else and the other is believed to be truth. So yes we keep using the same labels in day to day communications but their empty nature is seen.

But I only experience the thoughts pointing to sensations. I can't just experience the sensations separate from thoughts.

Of course. The separation is done by thoughts. Even the isolation of thoughts vs sensation is an illusion, it is just THIS/whatever IS happening

What is “gravity” in DE? How is “weight pulling you down” experienced in DE? Remember the cup of coffee example when you have to describe daily activities with DE labels…

You could say that gravity is
Sensations=touch, feeing.

weight pulling you down = sensation

Yes, I understand, pain doesn't hurt, it's just pain. Sometimes it is experienced as pleasurable. It's all just a happening. But the sense of me, even though i see it as part of that happening, seems to condition everything else, and it seems real.

Even the most sophisticated tools of science can't really pin that one down. However, subjectively I feel like im "here."

You didn’t answer my question… Do you see an entity attached to the sensation?
You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys analogy. But feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. This is why we may find ourselves coming back to your expectations at the start and at the end.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING/SENSING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

What are “brain” and “mind” in DE? Can you see them, describe them by directly looking at them? Can you see all this that you described above, or is it all a nice story (scientific or not)?

Brain and mind are just labels...for a story that is one of the most deeply rooted, the personal sense of separation reinforced by years of school and enculturation. There is a story about dissecting pig brains, weighing brains, the number of folds in a brain signifying intelligence, etc. But in direct experience the most I can say is there is a sensation=pressure in the region of the eyes. That't as close as I can get to brain. Mind on the other hand seems to encompass more things, and having had seeming experiences of connecting with the big mind of the universe itself, that story is more complicated. Years of meditation also seem to reinforce the story as well. In my story I always separate brain and mind, brain being the physical location that generates the personal experience and mind experiencing it.

But is the story correct? For the story to self-correct, its truthfulness has to be seen through DE. No story comes close to DE, DE is indescribable – you can’t describe the taste of chocolate to someone who hasn’t tried it. However some stories come closer to DE then others (like DE labels). Language is an important tool for communication, and this is the concession that needs to be made. BUT!!! There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion – the one is seen as something that just looks like something else and the other is believed to be truth. So yes we keep using the same labels in day to day communications but their empty nature is seen.

I am trying to separate illusion from delusion. It seems like the me is both an illusion and a delusion. An illusion that I believe in. It seems like I've been trying to exorcise beliefs about most things, for example karma, reincarnation and free will, things I used to take for granted as givens, and yet belief in a self seems like the most fundamental belief.

But I only experience the thoughts pointing to sensations. I can't just experience the sensations separate from thoughts.
Of course. The separation is done by thoughts. Even the isolation of thoughts vs sensation is an illusion, it is just THIS/whatever IS happening
What is “gravity” in DE? How is “weight pulling you down” experienced in DE? Remember the cup of coffee example when you have to describe daily activities with DE labels…
You could say that gravity is
Sensations=touch, feeing.
weight pulling you down = sensation

You didn’t answer my question… Do you see an entity attached to the sensation?

I don't see any entity, however I seem to "believe" in one.

You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys analogy. But feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. This is why we may find ourselves coming back to your expectations at the start and at the end.

Yes! See above. I believe in a separate self. It seems like the core belief.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING/SENSING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?

It seems to have a location in the body. The body holds or contains the sense of self, from the brain in the head to the tips of my toes, it feels like a me. I know we discussed that there are no boundaries where the self starts and ends

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

There is no definite size or shape. It is an idea.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

It seems to be the place where thoughts arise. Also feelings and sensations are processed.

If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

It is something like a habit, or a vibration, but one that I'm addicted to. I don't know of another reality except during altered states or unexpected peak experiences.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

The sense of self seems to attach itself to everything with thoughts. Labeling, judging categorizing etc....

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

All of the above, but also stories. The sense of self is mostly a story.

What is found?

Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Brain and mind are just labels...

Very good!

It seems to have a location in the body. The body holds or contains the sense of self, from the brain in the head to the tips of my toes, it feels like a me. I know we discussed that there are no boundaries where the self starts and ends

OK…we already saw that the “body” is just a label for sensations with no location. So how can a label/a word hold and contain a self? This can happen only in the realm of thoughts :)

It seems to be the place where thoughts arise. Also feelings and sensations are processed.

Where is this place exactly? Please describe this "factory"

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

All of the above, but also stories. The sense of self is mostly a story.

So it can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched? Please describe the taste of self, I’m quite curious about this? And the other sense descriptions… I agree that is only a story :)

I don't see any entity, however I seem to "believe" in one.

Yes! See above. I believe in a separate self.

“You” seem to believe that you are the believer and thinker of thoughts so let’s explore this…
For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?
Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed?
Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?
Please no bulk answers!
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Code: Select all

Hi Peter
Brain and mind are just labels...
Very good!
It seems to have a location in the body. The body holds or contains the sense of self, from the brain in the head to the tips of my toes, it feels like a me. I know we discussed that there are no boundaries where the self starts and ends
OK…we already saw that the “body” is just a label for sensations with no location. So how can a label/a word hold and contain a self? This can happen only in the realm of thoughts :)

If the self exists only in thought, why does it continue to feel so real. I have literally been looking and doing inquiry for 40 years. I remember discovering Zen and MU koan at the age of 18 at uni, and have been doing some form of it ever since. And in spite of many many mystical, transcendent, peak and or non-ordinary experiences, the baseline that I keep reverting to is this sense of self, a sort of waking dream state. At this point I’ve kind of accepted that it is what it is, yet the sense of inquiry persists.

It seems to be the place where thoughts arise. Also feelings and sensations are processed.
Where is this place exactly? Please describe this "factory"
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
All of the above, but also stories. The sense of self is mostly a story.

The place where dreams and thoughts are born seems like a non physical place, so yes it’s just imaginary. But the story making factory still exists and still continues to keep my head in the tigers mouth, so to say.

So it can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched? Please describe the taste of self, I’m quite curious about this? And the other sense descriptions… I agree that is only a story :)

Taste of self is like the other tastes, all the tastes appearing in this bodymind…sweet, sour, bitter, etc….When I taste anything it feels like me tasting.

I don't see any entity, however I seem to "believe" in one.
Yes! See above. I believe in a separate self.

“You” seem to believe that you are the believer and thinker of thoughts so let’s explore this…
For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?

No, it is just a thought. Recognition happens a moment later, a kind of attachment to the thought

Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?

Again, no, it is all one operation, thought and thinker are the same, it seems. Of course I could parse this question differently and give the opposite answer. It doesn’t matter what I say.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Also, I tried it both ways…some thoughts seem to float in, from nowhere, but if I try to direct the thoughts, for example by thinking of a pink elephant, then it also appears.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

It seems I can choose to believe in some thoughts more than others.? Maybe not tho have them, but to cling to them?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

As in the case of the pink elephant, sort of? I know thats probably the “wrong” answer, but I might be doing the experiment wrong.

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed?

No one or no thing is producing or ordering these thoughts. They are all just floating around in the neverwhen.

Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Nowhere, nowhere, still seems structured, as in a dream, though this may be just a semantic understing of the meaning or structured, in the way randomness can be seen as structured in a fractal. Sorry, overintellectualizing the question again I guess.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?

Thought about being a baby in the Creche looking up at a mobile.
Thoughts about the rug on the floor
Thoughts about sheets flapping in the wind
Thoughts about the ordering of these sentences
Thoughts about fingers typing on keyboard

They seem to arise spontaneously and you cannot order their appearance, but it seems I have to groom them to be able to write these sentences.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.

Arrgh....all of these questions seem to have answers that depend on how you interpret the meaning of the questions. If I read a poem I can recite it back in my mind.....
When I let my thoughts just drift it seems like stream of consciousness randomness.
So, depends I guess.
The canonical non-duality answer is probably No, it's all just happening in the not-two ness.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Again, yes and no, It seems like I can attempt to structure my thoughts, and or also let them drift.

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?
Please no bulk answers!

No, thoughts can't really be true, they are just thoughts, but as you said previously, some thoughts are closer to truth than others, for example thoughts labeling direct experience.

When I don't think about what I am, it just happens. So I am just happening, I guess...a verb not a noun. Or I have been conditioned by listening to so many hours of non-duality speakers to frame it this way :)

I almost don't know what I think and what I've been conditioned to think anymore, but of course all thoughts are conditioned to some degree.

I will continue pondering these thoughts when I am in the audience of a famous Kirtan singer tonight. Submitting for now. Thank You

Love.
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
You’re doing great! Thank you for your determination!

If the self exists only in thought, why does it continue to feel so real. I have literally been looking and doing inquiry for 40 years. I remember discovering Zen and MU koan at the age of 18 at uni, and have been doing some form of it ever since. And in spite of many many mystical, transcendent, peak and or non-ordinary experiences, the baseline that I keep reverting to is this sense of self, a sort of waking dream state. At this point I’ve kind of accepted that it is what it is, yet the sense of inquiry persists.

Yes!! Illusions can be seen as that even after the truth behind them is known. Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?


Delusion is not knowing that an illusion is not what it really is. When you say “it is believed to be true” – is there anything that is outside of thoughts and believes them, gets stuck in thoughts? Or are there just more thoughts about believing?
Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

Taste of self is like the other tastes, all the tastes appearing in this bodymind…sweet, sour, bitter, etc….When I taste anything it feels like me tasting.

That is not the taste of self, that is what is tasted at the moment – “sweet, sour, bitter”. The taste of self would be if the self can split itself into self and not self and lick itself :)))) So what is the tast of self - salty maybe????
Similarly with the other senses…

Again, no, it is all one operation, thought and thinker are the same, it seems.

Are there a thought and thinker, or just thinking (verb)? Are there any solid thoughts floating around? In what? Describe what you SEE.

Arrgh....all of these questions seem to have answers that depend on how you interpret the meaning of the questions. If I read a poem I can recite it back in my mind.....

They seem to arise spontaneously and you cannot order their appearance, but it seems I have to groom them to be able to write these sentences.

Are “you” “grooming” them, or is it just more thoughts about previous thoughts? LOOK!
If you are doing it how exactly are you doing it? Describe the mechanics of it. Are you using any tools?
When you recite a poem are you creating it or is it just thoughts about previous experience (e.g. reading the poem)? What are memories?

Also, I tried it both ways…some thoughts seem to float in, from nowhere, but if I try to direct the thoughts, for example by thinking of a pink elephant, then it also appears.

Did you plan to think of a pink elephant or it just popped like the other thoughts, when thinking about thinking? If I ask you not to think of pink elephants, what happens?
If I asked you to picture an apple, did you choose that thought, or did it come unbidden into the mind?
But let’s test the hypothesis that you are the one that has brought the imagined apple to the forefront of the mind as an image…that you have imagined the apple, that you thought that thought.

What process did you have to put into place in order to imagine the apple?
Describe in detail, the process by which you create a thought or an image. You have been doing it all your life apparently - so you must know exactly how you do it. So how do you do it? How do you create a thought, how do you create an image? Describe to me, step-by-step how you did this.
Where did you go to retrieve the thought/image of the apple in order to become aware of it? Is there a storage container hidden somewhere that contains all thoughts and images from which you can then retrieve particular thoughts and images? How then do you bring it from the container to the front of the mind in order to become aware of it?
Did you have anything to do with creating the image of the apple, or it simply appeared?

Think of a 2-digit number. Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.

It seems I can choose to believe in some thoughts more than others.? Maybe not tho have them, but to cling to them?

Again, is there an entity outside of thoughts that believes them or are there just sequences of thoughts that usually fire together (conditioning) paired with thoughts about believing the thoughts and clinging to them? How exactly this entity "clings" to the thoughts? LOOK!

Again, yes and no, It seems like I can attempt to structure my thoughts, and or also let them drift.

How exactly are you doing the choosing? Or it just happens on its own and thought describes it as you made a choice? Is there an entity (a mini me) that sits in a comfortable armchair and picks up the thoughts, looks at them and decides which one goes where? Or if they appear in certain sequence or randomly? You should be able to describe this if you are really in control and doing it

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

When I don't think about what I am, it just happens. So I am just happening, I guess...a verb not a noun.

The question was what you are when you don’t think about what you are.

The canonical non-duality answer is probably No, it's all just happening in the not-two ness.

We are not interested in non-dual answers, but what you actually see at the moment! In fact, please forget what you’ve learned so far (teachings in non-duality) because it comes in the way! And that is why we agreed to leave them behind
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Yes!! Illusions can be seen as that even after the truth behind them is known. Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?
Image

It is an interesting idea, believing in something that doesn't really exist. I feel like this dialog process is a crowbar that is prying off a little of the belief.

Delusion is not knowing that an illusion is not what it really is. When you say “it is believed to be true” – is there anything that is outside of thoughts and believes them, gets stuck in thoughts? Or are there just more thoughts about believing?

Yes, I see, believing is just more thoughts, a story about believing in something. There is no separate belief from thoughts.

Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

Noone is making a decision. It's just happening. It is s similar phenomena, the willing suspension of disbelief in the movie and the truly believing in a separate life that you own and control. It is a story about believing in the story. I agree.....but.....

Taste of self is like the other tastes, all the tastes appearing in this bodymind…sweet, sour, bitter, etc….When I taste anything it feels like me tasting.
That is not the taste of self, that is what is tasted at the moment – “sweet, sour, bitter”. The taste of self would be if the self can split itself into self and not self and lick itself :)))) So what is the tast of self - salty maybe????
Similarly with the other senses…

Haha, Yes the physical body tastes salty, sometimes, mostly. I was sort of joking about the taste of self using taste to represent the sense of "me-ness."

Again, no, it is all one operation, thought and thinker are the same, it seems.

Are there a thought and thinker, or just thinking (verb)? Are there any solid thoughts floating around? In what? Describe what you SEE.

The thinker feels like the one having the thoughts...however since it is all a story in the "mind-of-g_d", neither the thinker nor the thoughts can be real. They are all part of a Kanisza triangle of the mind.

Arrgh....all of these questions seem to have answers that depend on how you interpret the meaning of the questions. If I read a poem I can recite it back in my mind.....
They seem to arise spontaneously and you cannot order their appearance, but it seems I have to groom them to be able to write these sentences.

Are “you” “grooming” them, or is it just more thoughts about previous thoughts? LOOK!
If you are doing it how exactly are you doing it? Describe the mechanics of it. Are you using any tools?

Thoughts about thoughts are what i mean by grooming them, like ordering them after they occur. Like writing this sentence, it makes better sense if ordered correctly. The tools are also imaginary thoughts that arise spontaneously.

When you recite a poem are you creating it or is it just thoughts about previous experience (e.g. reading the poem)? What are memories?

Reciting it isnt creating it, it is just reading, aloud or in your head. But maybe creating the poem is different, you can feel closer to the source of the poem, the deep unconscious where ideas seem to come from.

Also, I tried it both ways…some thoughts seem to float in, from nowhere, but if I try to direct the thoughts, for example by thinking of a pink elephant, then it also appears.

Did you plan to think of a pink elephant or it just popped like the other thoughts, when thinking about thinking? If I ask you not to think of pink elephants, what happens?

The pink elephant popped in when i was trying to think of an analogy for controlling thoughts. I have heard it used as an example for how you can control anothers thoughts through not so subliminal suggestion. But I didn't originate the idea and upon reflection it arose as part of the process that is ocurring naturally.

If I asked you to picture an apple, did you choose that thought, or did it come unbidden into the mind?
But let’s test the hypothesis that you are the one that has brought the imagined apple to the forefront of the mind as an image…that you have imagined the apple, that you thought that thought.

When I picture the apple in my mind, I am responding to the suggestion you planted. So I wouldn't exactly say unbidden.

What process did you have to put into place in order to imagine the apple?

No process It just appears.

Describe in detail, the process by which you create a thought or an image. You have been doing it all your life apparently - so you must know exactly how you do it. So how do you do it? How do you create a thought, how do you create an image? Describe to me, step-by-step how you did this.

This is like asking how you breathe. There are physiological mechanisms involved, but you don't have to learn them. IT comes on it's own. Thoughts are the same.

Where did you go to retrieve the thought/image of the apple in order to become aware of it? Is there a storage container hidden somewhere that contains all thoughts and images from which you can then retrieve particular thoughts and images? How then do you bring it from the container to the front of the mind in order to become aware of it?

It feels like I'm going into the space in my forehead to retreive something, like a printer in the head. But this is just a story too. There's no place to go to get thoughts. In a way at this moment I see the thinking process the same as the breathing process. There is noone in control of it. Another deep belief I see I've held is that one can learn to control thoughts, or let go of thoughts, through meditation and concentration. I just realized that that is a belief as well, and beliefs are all stories.

Did you have anything to do with creating the image of the apple, or it simply appeared?

You had more to do with the apple thought. You suggested it! Are you even real? :)

Think of a 2-digit number. Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.

I have a favorite 2 digit number. It is a number in magic. But that is a story from the past too. It comes up though. The stories keep coming and are indistinguishable from reality.

It seems I can choose to believe in some thoughts more than others.? Maybe not tho have them, but to cling to them?

Again, is there an entity outside of thoughts that believes them or are there just sequences of thoughts that usually fire together (conditioning) paired with thoughts about believing the thoughts and clinging to them? How exactly this entity "clings" to the thoughts? LOOK!

The thoughts are the entity itself. Indistinguishable from me.

Again, yes and no, It seems like I can attempt to structure my thoughts, and or also let them drift.

How exactly are you doing the choosing? Or it just happens on its own and thought describes it as you made a choice? Is there an entity (a mini me) that sits in a comfortable armchair and picks up the thoughts, looks at them and decides which one goes where? Or if they appear in certain sequence or randomly? You should be able to describe this if you are really in control and doing it

There is no mini-me. There is no homonculus.
There is a story about neurons firing, sense perceptions through the headset of timespace, etc...but you're helping me see that even the most sophisticated stroy about reality is still just a story.

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

When I don't think about what I am, it just happens. So I am just happening, I guess...a verb not a noun.

The question was what you are when you don’t think about what you are.

I'm just an idea in the mind of the universe, so to speak.

The canonical non-duality answer is probably No, it's all just happening in the not-two ness.

We are not interested in non-dual answers, but what you actually see at the moment! In fact, please forget what you’ve learned so far (teachings in non-duality) because it comes in the way! And that is why we agreed to leave them behind

I will try to start fresh, after all all the non-duality pointings are a story too. :) Many Thanks.
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
I can see you are starting to enjoy LOOKING! ;)

Noone is making a decision. It's just happening. It is s similar phenomena, the willing suspension of disbelief in the movie and the truly believing in a separate life that you own and control. It is a story about believing in the story. I agree.....but.....

What?? More thoughts about “BUT”? :))

Haha, Yes the physical body tastes salty, sometimes, mostly. I was sort of joking about the taste of self using taste to represent the sense of "me-ness."

Hmm let me remind you that “physical body” is a label for sensations, smells, tastes, and colours. So how can a word taste salty? I’m sorry to be pedantic but that is the only way old beliefs can be corrected.

When you recite a poem are you creating it or is it just thoughts about previous experience (e.g. reading the poem)? What are memories?

Reciting it isnt creating it, it is just reading, aloud or in your head. But maybe creating the poem is different, you can feel closer to the source of the poem, the deep unconscious where ideas seem to come from.

You had more to do with the apple thought. You suggested it! Are you even real? :)

What is the difference between “creating” and “reading” in DE?
What happens actually when “I” write something and “you” read it? There is seeing and interpreting/labelling of that seeing into “meaning”, right? In a way the interpretation is the creation of meaning. What labels mean to me could be different from what they mean to you and they can also mean different things in different times.
Otherwise, “apple” was just an example, you can experiment with “anything” else…

This is like asking how you breathe. There are physiological mechanisms involved, but you don't have to learn them. IT comes on it's own. Thoughts are the same.

There is still too much story. Try to refrain from stories and stick to what is actually here! What are “physiological mechanisms” in DE?

I have a favorite 2 digit number. It is a number in magic. But that is a story from the past too. It comes up though. The stories keep coming and are indistinguishable from reality.

Exactly! Why is it “your favourite”? Is it because it shows more often than others?

It feels like I'm going into the space in my forehead to retreive something, like a printer in the head. But this is just a story too. There's no place to go to get thoughts. In a way at this moment I see the thinking process the same as the breathing process. There is noone in control of it. Another deep belief I see I've held is that one can learn to control thoughts, or let go of thoughts, through meditation and concentration. I just realized that that is a belief as well, and beliefs are all stories.

What is "forehead" in DE? I hope you would say a sensation :). Do sensations have a location or the location is a label – “hand”, “head”?
Let’s follow this up with the following experiments which look at the belief that thoughts and mental images are coming from the head, somewhere around the forehead; therefore thoughts are stored in the head. This not only seems to solidify the idea that you are the thinker of thought, but that your consciousness in also stored there, and that what you are resides in a body.

When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one place we feel the ‘sense of self’ resides, or rather, the sensation that is labelled as ‘forehead’ is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead) + thoughts about a forehead, right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

Furthermore, it's also believed that 'visual sights' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the mental image or idea 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another sense of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Noone is making a decision. It's just happening. It is s similar phenomena, the willing suspension of disbelief in the movie and the truly believing in a separate life that you own and control. It is a story about believing in the story. I agree.....but.....

What?? More thoughts about “BUT”? :))

The but is a big but....I see that it's all a story and all kind of a metaphor for this thing that is happening without anyone doing anything, however, the me-ness, selfing. separation, whatever you want to call it, insists that it is the base reality, and I can't seem to shake it.

Haha, Yes the physical body tastes salty, sometimes, mostly. I was sort of joking about the taste of self using taste to represent the sense of "me-ness."

Hmm let me remind you that “physical body” is a label for sensations, smells, tastes, and colours. So how can a word taste salty? I’m sorry to be pedantic but that is the only way old beliefs can be corrected.

Physical body feels real, sensations feel real. This is part of the but. Thought stories, labels, belief, they are all converging into this sense of a self that makes up the me ness.
It's not the words that taste, or the thoughts, it's just the experience itself, comprised of all the senses, experiences, thoughts and feelings, inseparably.

When you recite a poem are you creating it or is it just thoughts about previous experience (e.g. reading the poem)? What are memories?

Reciting it isnt creating it, it is just reading, aloud or in your head. But maybe creating the poem is different, you can feel closer to the source of the poem, the deep unconscious where ideas seem to come from.

Memories are also just sensation thoughts occuring in the now. But as if it were virtual reality it seems like there is a past that happened.

You had more to do with the apple thought. You suggested it! Are you even real? :)

What is the difference between “creating” and “reading” in DE?

Creating seems to happen in thoughts, reading is also thoughts but connectred to a sensation of seeing the words on the page.

What happens actually when “I” write something and “you” read it? There is seeing and interpreting/labelling of that seeing into “meaning”, right? In a way the interpretation is the creation of meaning. What labels mean to me could be different from what they mean to you and they can also mean different things in different times.
Otherwise, “apple” was just an example, you can experiment with “anything” else…

Meaning is just thinking thoughts as well. Nothing real. However there is no way to stop thoughts or disidentify with them.

This is like asking how you breathe. There are physiological mechanisms involved, but you don't have to learn them. IT comes on it's own. Thoughts are the same.

There is still too much story. Try to refrain from stories and stick to what is actually here! What are “physiological mechanisms” in DE?

Right...more thoughts and labels. A story about a world filled with science and meaning and processes.

I have a favorite 2 digit number. It is a number in magic. But that is a story from the past too. It comes up though. The stories keep coming and are indistinguishable from reality.

Exactly! Why is it “your favourite”? Is it because it shows more often than others?

I have attached meaning to those numbers. Sort of another belief. I am starting to identify belief I never recognized as beliefs before, which is a nice surprise.

It feels like I'm going into the space in my forehead to retreive something, like a printer in the head. But this is just a story too. There's no place to go to get thoughts. In a way at this moment I see the thinking process the same as the breathing process. There is noone in control of it. Another deep belief I see I've held is that one can learn to control thoughts, or let go of thoughts, through meditation and concentration. I just realized that that is a belief as well, and beliefs are all stories.

What is "forehead" in DE? I hope you would say a sensation :). Do sensations have a location or the location is a label – “hand”, “head”?
Let’s follow this up with the following experiments which look at the belief that thoughts and mental images are coming from the head, somewhere around the forehead; therefore thoughts are stored in the head. This not only seems to solidify the idea that you are the thinker of thought, but that your consciousness in also stored there, and that what you are resides in a body.

I have been fascinated by the headless way, but it always seems to me to be just a trick, to ignore what seems obvious, the sensations of a physical body and head.

When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one place we feel the ‘sense of self’ resides, or rather, the sensation that is labelled as ‘forehead’ is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?

A sensation of tension, and a seeing of the edges of the nose, sometimes hairs,

A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead) + thoughts about a forehead, right?[/color]

Yes, exactly. The sensation of looking out of these eyes is one of the oldest ones I seem to remember. Memories also equal thoughts.

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

Mostly feelings come from sensations, but they are quickly labeled by thoughts. Thoughts that arise from nowhere, or from associations, more thoughts.

Can a thought come from a mental image?

I don't know anything anymore. Probably not.

Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?

In imagination about anatomy there is a forehead. In direct experience it can't really be found, but when looking in the mirror, ie direct experience of seeing, yes it seems to be there.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?

When I bang my head into the wall it hurts where my forehead is supposed to be.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?

Me is becoming sort of abstract at this point, but again it may be semantics. It cant be found except indirectly, as thoughts, labels, sensations, ideas, dreams stories.

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?[/color]

Well other than the above, not really.

Furthermore, it's also believed that 'visual sights' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the mental image or idea 'of the eyes' appear with it.

There is a story that once long ago I saw the entire universe without eyes. Then the attention narrowed down to these physical sensations of the things we mostly agree are eyes, and another story from science that they receive photons that are processed in the brain......all more stories.....I don't even know what is real anymore.

So another sense of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Yes, agreed. But this is an agreement made whilst suspending beliefs about science, evolution, objective reality itself.

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?

In a relativistic sense. Colors aren't real, they are just perceived according to the spectrum of wavelength of light. Or something like that.

Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Wow, no. But it is making me a little sick to my stomach to think about these concessions I am making.


Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
It's just a thought label.

Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?
It is labeled as eyes. So me is just a label too???

I am just going to submit bc I am going to bed, thank you for the interesting dialogue.

Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

The but is a big but....I see that it's all a story and all kind of a metaphor for this thing that is happening without anyone doing anything, however, the me-ness, selfing. separation, whatever you want to call it, insists that it is the base reality, and I can't seem to shake it.

What is that, which can’t shake the thought story? Just look, what is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?
Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality?
Do you believe that there is an I that can wake up or be awake?
What is it that could be awake?
What is it that awakening could happen TO?
Is there someone separate form life, waiting to wake up to reality?
Is there someone who needs to let go of conceptualization/selfing/separation?
Or letting go happens on its own effortlessly, when the futility of trying to grasp what is with thoughts is recognized?

Physical body feels real, sensations feel real. This is part of the but. Thought stories, labels, belief, they are all converging into this sense of a self that makes up the me ness.

They can’t be both real – sensations and “physical body”. Just LOOK and see which one is real and which one is an illusion. Once it is seen, the truth is known even if the illusion does not disappear. The most important thing is to know which one is truth and which one is an illusion. So which is which? LOOK!

Meaning is just thinking thoughts as well. Nothing real. However there is no way to stop thoughts or disidentify with them.

What is that that identifies with thoughts?? Please describe it characteristics! Or is just more thoughts about identifying with thoughts:)

A sensation of tension, and a seeing of the edges of the nose, sometimes hairs,

Is there a “nose” and “hairs” or just seeing with labels “nose” and “hairs”?
In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. It’s like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.



Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing (verb). Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?

In imagination about anatomy there is a forehead. In direct experience it can't really be found, but when looking in the mirror, ie direct experience of seeing, yes it seems to be there.

When I bang my head into the wall it hurts where my forehead is supposed to be.

I think you need to remind yourself the example with the cup of coffee where you had to describe daily activities with DE labels

Looking in the mirror = seeing (colours)
Bang my head = sensation

Do sensations have a location or the location is a label? Location needs a reference point so please look and tell me where exactly is the reference point for “up”, “down”, “left”, “right”, etc? LOOK carefully here

Yes, agreed. But this is an agreement made whilst suspending beliefs about science, evolution, objective reality itself.

Isn’t this the point of this inquiry – to explore all beliefs so they can be corrected, seen to be not really rooted in reality?!

Wow, no. But it is making me a little sick to my stomach to think about these concessions I am making.

Resistance and fear (emotions = sensations + thoughts) are just tools for protecting the imaginary self from harm. But just look and see if this protection is really necessary. Where is this self that needs to be protected? Set aside the thought and stay with the pure sensation... What happens?
They (fear or resistance) become a very useful tool for discovering beliefs which truthfulness needs to be examined . So every time there is resistance just check what belief is there and see if DE "says" the same.

It is labeled as eyes. So me is just a label too???

Exactly! The difference is that some labels point to existing “stuff” like “chair”, others are labels that is used for communication but cannot be found as a thing (e.g. country); the third is an imaginary character, a word that points to something that isn't real – like “I”/”me”, Santa, Superman, etc.
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

The but is a big but....I see that it's all a story and all kind of a metaphor for this thing that is happening without anyone doing anything, however, the me-ness, selfing. separation, whatever you want to call it, insists that it is the base reality, and I can't seem to shake it.

What is that, which can’t shake the thought story? Just look, what is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?

Seems like more thoughts trying to shake the thought story, a story about a story. And thoughts trying to figure it out. I watched a kid in class who's "on the spectrum" going over something he blurted out, in his head, over and over and over....he couldn't put it down or let it go, and I realized I'm really no different than him, only my obsessive thought is that I'm a "me"

Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality?

Not really...but seemingly there is!

Do you believe that there is an I that can wake up or be awake?

At this point I don't really believe in a separate self, however the story of the separate self feels real.

What is it that could be awake?

Awakeness, which is already awake. Even that is saying too much. Yet the thoughtstream in the head feels like it is in a dream.

What is it that awakening could happen TO?

Again, nothing. But there is a story of a big pop, an aha moment, a satori, etc. In hindsight experiencing those things became a fetter or a hindrance. So the thoughts are stuck in dread, anticipation, waiting.

Is there someone separate form life, waiting to wake up to reality?

I understand that theoretically nothing, noone can be separate. It is all dependent origination, inseparableness. But it is conceptual and not Direct Experience.

Is there someone who needs to let go of conceptualization/selfing/separation?

It all goes back to the same point. I know it's a rope, yet it appears as a snake, even after it has been seen as a rope. :(

Or letting go happens on its own effortlessly, when the futility of trying to grasp what is with thoughts is recognized?

Yes! that seems to make sense. The efforting doesn't work, yet effortlessness seems like trying to make another effort to not make an effort.

Physical body feels real, sensations feel real. This is part of the but. Thought stories, labels, belief, they are all converging into this sense of a self that makes up the me ness.

They can’t be both real – sensations and “physical body”. Just LOOK and see which one is real and which one is an illusion. Once it is seen, the truth is known even if the illusion does not disappear. The most important thing is to know which one is truth and which one is an illusion. So which is which? LOOK!

.
I really don't understand..why can't both be real? The sensations are sometimes seeming to come from the physical body. Tiredness, itchiness, even some types of pain.

Meaning is just thinking thoughts as well. Nothing real. However there is no way to stop thoughts or disidentify with them.

What is that that identifies with thoughts?? Please describe it characteristics! Or is just more thoughts about identifying with thoughts:)

Yes I concede there is no "thing" to identify with thoughts. No me.....only thoughts about one. And Yet, for all intents and purposes me is happening. Maybe in the futility of trying to understand, process or grok this, something will emerge.

A sensation of tension, and a seeing of the edges of the nose, sometimes hairs,

Is there a “nose” and “hairs” or just seeing with labels “nose” and “hairs”?
In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. It’s like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.

I love this metaphor and pointing. It makes sense. In altered states the reality that there is really no time and space makes it make sense. But in the ordinary dreamstate of waking life, the default baseline experience of going through life with hopes and dreams, experiencing the joyful and sorroful mysteries, the self continues to identify as the self.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing (verb). Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?

Feels like you're talking about a kind of virtual reality. I see it, but don't understand?

In imagination about anatomy there is a forehead. In direct experience it can't really be found, but when looking in the mirror, ie direct experience of seeing, yes it seems to be there.

The headless way talks about this a lot. Is it a paradox? Seen and unseen? I'm really not understanding. It "seems" real that there is a head, hands, sensations coming from these extremities. They are felt, as sensations, especially when they are touched.

When I bang my head into the wall it hurts where my forehead is supposed to be.

I think you need to remind yourself the example with the cup of coffee where you had to describe daily activities with DE labels

Looking in the mirror = seeing (colours)
Bang my head = sensation

Literally and metaphorically banging my head against the wall right now.
Sensation-feeling/ labeled as pain and frustration.

Do sensations have a location or the location is a label? Location needs a reference point so please look and tell me where exactly is the reference point for “up”, “down”, “left”, “right”, etc? LOOK carefully here

Location is a label. There is only here. No other place, even though the sensation of traveling, ie moving, seems to happen. It is also processed or felt in Direct Experience as sensation.

Yes, agreed. But this is an agreement made whilst suspending beliefs about science, evolution, objective reality itself.

Isn’t this the point of this inquiry – to explore all beliefs so they can be corrected, seen to be not really rooted in reality?!

Yes, agreed. I am trying to let go of all beliefs, whether true or false. They can always be restored if found to be necessary or helpful. I just want to see reality.

Wow, no. But it is making me a little sick to my stomach to think about these concessions I am making.

Resistance and fear (emotions = sensations + thoughts) are just tools for protecting the imaginary self from harm. But just look and see if this protection is really necessary. Where is this self that needs to be protected? Set aside the thought and stay with the pure sensation... What happens?
They (fear or resistance) become a very useful tool for discovering beliefs which truthfulness needs to be examined . So every time there is resistance just check what belief is there and see if DE "says" the same.

Resistance and fear. Yes...seems to be my primary reality. I will check and look at what they are pointing to.

It is labeled as eyes. So me is just a label too???

Exactly! The difference is that some labels point to existing “stuff” like “chair”, others are labels that is used for communication but cannot be found as a thing (e.g. country); the third is an imaginary character, a word that points to something that isn't real – like “I”/”me”, Santa, Superman, etc.

The person is a label making machine. Sitting here writing this, keyboard clicking, thoughts happening by themselves.
Sorry for any errors or omissions. Bell is going to ring and I will submit so I don't forget!
Thanks again for all your help.
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Seems like more thoughts trying to shake the thought story, a story about a story. And thoughts trying to figure it out.

I really don't understand ...why can't both be real? The sensations are sometimes seeming to come from the physical body. Tiredness, itchiness, even some types of pain.

And Yet, for all intents and purposes me is happening. Maybe in the futility of trying to understand, process or grok this, something will emerge.

Yes!!! Thoughts are self-organising. Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “my world,” the totality of my experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. When you have two opposing views (i.e. view of reality) you have to keep checking their validity. What we are used to do is to check if a new idea fits with the rest of our beliefs and disregard it if it doesn’t (confirmation bias). This method saves energy so it was used for a really long time. Now we’ve added a second method for dealing with opposing concepts – to check with our senses which one truly describes what is happening. The “stubbornness” comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming your view/belief system of reality. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens. I’ve basically introduced a powerful virus-thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to be reorganised around the experience :)

Being lost in the head can be fun, but most often it is not. Realizing the empty nature of all concepts frees the mind. Holding on to ideas creates limitation, boundaries, opinions, differences, and even wars.

Not really...but seemingly there is!

Yes, agreed. I am trying to let go of all beliefs, whether true or false. They can always be restored if found to be necessary or helpful. I just want to see reality.

You are seeing it but thoughts says otherwise :) Remember seems like = thought content as nothing is seems like in DE – it’s either here or not!!! Thoughts say the darndest things that is why they need to be constantly examined

I love this metaphor and pointing. It makes sense. In altered states the reality that there is really no time and space makes it make sense. But in the ordinary dreamstate of waking life, the default baseline experience of going through life with hopes and dreams, experiencing the joyful and sorroful mysteries, the self continues to identify as the self.

"Crossing the gate" is only a beginning, not an end. You have not crossed the Gate of happy ever after; no, the Gate is a tiny first step, a very important one, but not a final one by any means. Crossing the Gate is only a step over a line—an imagined one at that. Nothing changed, but everything looks different. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all the "mess", to settle in and adjust.
When someone we know dies, it takes time for that to "sink in". It's not that we don't believe that the person has died. It is just they are still part of our lives - we open the wardrobe and their clothes are still there, we walk in the park and we remember when we used to do it together. It takes time to readjust our lives to living without them. That process of “sinking in” can be observed in many other situations – like being diagnosed with a life changing disease, losing a job that we had for a long time etc. Even though the change is sudden and quick, it can be perceived as a long process – it can feel as though something is still sinking in, or hasn’t yet sunk in.

The point applies equally to habitual patterns of thought and activity, which similarly reflect how our lives are organised. When the established patterns of a life are disturbed, thought cannot adapt to all of this in an instant, simply by revising all of our old beliefs. Much of the old organisation lingers on, in the guise of a world that we continue to experience and in habitual patterns of thought and activity that our surroundings continue to elicit. That very much applies to seeing the illusion of an “I” - it’s quite a sudden change with a relatively long process of adapting to this change. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning.

To “deal” with this, question everything, and little by little you will notice changes in everyday life: less judgment, more openness; less thinking, more appreciation; less story, more being; less structure, more flow. You will notice that some habitual thoughts no longer arise. The story changes in a way that allows more space for simply being.
There might still be expectations, confusion, and doubt. That’s quite normal at this stage. You may be swaying between “I get it” and “I don’t get it.” You may be thinking that this is not enough, that some experiences need to happen, that you should be happy and blissful all the time. When these thoughts arise, bring the focus to what is present here now. Just THIS. And look again: what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?

Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

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

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing 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.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. 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.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

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 an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.
Love
Rali