Liberation

[graceabounds]

Maybe you could give a short comment on this “sensation” that happened in the department store in May?

Well, you describe it as a state. What we are looking for may have aspects of a feeling of freedom but seeing will always be available afterward. It is not a special state.

I notice the thought coming up like a little wave in my head. I feel it, and it goes away. It comes again...

Where in the head? How does it move?
Is it seen (visual) or heard?
Where does it come from and go to?

[MarRaim123]

Hi, Itry to do these and similar “exercises” several times a day. What helps me with emotions is that I now reduce the “complex event” to something “simple.” That is, a thought arises (“anger about a colleague”), and I reduce it to the perception of my heartbeat, my breathing... this works very well; I think the word “simple” was a little key. I can feel very clearly that it will still be quite a long process until my “brain” becomes sufficiently familiar with this other “world.” Best regards. Ina

[MarRaim123]

I don’t know where my reply went — I can see it under “Posts,” but not in our chat. I hope you’re receiving it.

Hi, Itry to do these and similar “exercises” several times a day. What helps me with emotions is that I now reduce the “complex event” to something “simple.” That is, a thought arises (“anger about a colleague”), and I reduce it to the perception of my heartbeat, my breathing... this works very well...

Also your answer was not in the chat:
- I notice the thought coming up like a little wave in my head. I feel it, and it goes away. It comes again...But depending on its importance, sometimes it’s weak, sometimes strong.

- Where in the head? How does it move?: No, it doesn’t move — it fills my whole head and comes on suddenly, like a “trigger,” similar to what is known from trauma states, bu — it shoots in and then it is away.

- Is it seen (visual) or heard?: It´s fel I think - I cant answer it by now, i feel that mostly, no visual, no hearing

- Where does it come from and go to?ChatGPT: like above

[graceabounds]

Hello Ina,

What helps me with emotions is that I now reduce the “complex event” to something “simple.” That is, a thought arises (“anger about a colleague”), and I reduce it to the perception of my heartbeat, my breathing... this works very well; I think the word “simple” was a little key. I can feel very clearly that it will still be quite a long process until my “brain” becomes sufficiently familiar with this other “world.”

There is a formula for this:
Thought + Sensation = Emotion
So to your example, what is the underlying thought about a colleague?
And about the sensations, the heartbeat, the breathing: what is here that suggests ‘anger.’? Is this ‘anger’ or just sensations?


Now about the thoughts: they come on suddenly, are experienced and go, you are seeing this.
Can you do anything to make a particular thought appear?
Are they able to be controlled in any way?

Is there a ‘me’ to be found in the thoughts or in the head?

-Becca

[MarRaim123]

So to your example, what is the underlying thought about a colleague? And about the sensations, the heartbeat, the breathing: what is here that suggests ‘anger.’? Is this ‘anger’ or just sensations?

They are just sensations. I have now gone through this with all kinds of emotions (anger, fear, impatience …) and have to say that I actually found real joy in it — in breaking this complex process down into its individual parts and staying with the bodily sensations.

Now about the thoughts: they come on suddenly, are experienced and go, you are seeing this. Can you do anything to make a particular thought appear? Are they able to be controlled in any way? Is there a ‘me’ to be found in the thoughts or in the head?

A thought can´t made bei "me", no, it comes and goes. There is no I seen in it.
What I did notice, however, is that the “search” for a self (“I”) doesn’t really come up in the exercise with the emotions. Is the practice of “breaking down” things the way toward that, or does it require a deeper kind of looking?

I “feel” my sense of self somewhere behind my eyes and tried to “break that down” as well, just like with the emotions. But since there are no bodily sensations here, this must surely be a different kind of approach.



Maybe one more question: Regarding the senses — I often try to simply “perceive” when I, for example, walk, drink, or look (similar to your exercise). But I find that I’m quickly thrown out of direct perception and have to bring myself back again and again in order to stay with it.

Is there a “me” to be found in the thoughts or in the head? (see above): Yes, like above. I "feel" a me and try to break it down to a feeling-sensation. It doesn´t really impress me to search for it...that´s interesting....

[graceabounds]

Many experience the ‘me’ as being centered in the head.

What I would like you to do is imagine a small apple centered in the head.
Before the apple disappears….
…imagine a canary centered in the head, tweeting away.
Before, the canary flies off (weird huh?)….
…imagine a 'me' centered in the head.

Stay with it…
…imagine it is completely transparent. See straight through it…
…imagine there not seeming to be a 'me' in the head anymore.

Give it a go, see what happens.

It doesn´t really impress me to search for it...that´s interesting....

Can you give more details about this?


And for the breaking down things, noticing while walking yes keep doing that, it is a practice of being with what is here, not what is fantasy.

I can give you an imaginary cookie - here you go!
Imagine that you take a cookie and eat it – really feel it happening - the sensations, texture, taste, sound.

If you have some cookies, eat one, if not, eat something else for the exercise (fruit), and compare: what is the difference between an imagined cookie and the real one that is experienced?

See if you can dive in the sensations of taste, smell.
Take your time to investigate how a real cookie smells and tastes, feels in the fingers and so on. Focus on sensations and perceiving, without naming it.
Then for a couple of minutes describe the taste and smell.
What does description have to do with actual experience?

Is sense of self referring to imaginary self or something that is experienced?
Is there a self/I in the experience?
What is found?

[MarRaim123]

What I would like you to do is imagine a small apple centered in the head.
Before the apple disappears….
…imagine a canary centered in the head, tweeting away.
Before, the canary flies off (weird huh?)….
…imagine a 'me' centered in the head. Stay with it…
…imagine it is completely transparent. See straight through it…
…imagine there not seeming to be a 'me' in the head anymore.

Yes, it works very well, no problem, it works also with the "I" - Interestingly, I don’t feel any desire for the “I” to disappear — it’s somehow very uninteresting to me. I’m absorbed in breaking down the emotions and somehow feel that the dissolution of the self comes as a secondary realization of that. Is that so, or should one still focus a lot on the self?



It doesn´t really impress me to search for it...that´s interesting....
Can you give more details about this?: See above


I can give you an imaginary cookie - here you go!
Imagine that you take a cookie and eat it – really feel it happening - the sensations, texture, taste, sound.

If you have some cookies, eat one, if not, eat something else for the exercise (fruit), and compare: what is the difference between an imagined cookie and the real one that is experienced?

See if you can dive in the sensations of taste, smell.
Take your time to investigate how a real cookie smells and tastes, feels in the fingers and so on. Focus on sensations and perceiving, without naming it.
Then for a couple of minutes describe the taste and smell.
What does description have to do with actual experience?

Is sense of self referring to imaginary self or something that is experienced?
Is there a self/I in the experience?
What is found?

The imaginary cookie evokes thoughts, maybe memories — but no real sensory impressions. With the real cookie, taste, smell, texture, the crunch while chewing are directly experienced. The difference is clear: one is imagination, the other direct perception.

When I focus on the real sensory experiences, thinking disappears for a moment, but only for a moment, I have to concentrate to get back to perception. Then only perception remains — taste, smell, texture, temperature. There is no person eating, only experiencing.
Description vs. actual experience:
The description always comes afterward — it happens in thought, while the experience itself is direct and immediate.
The “self” seems to exist in the thoughts about the experience (“I am eating the cookie”), not in the experience itself. In pure perception — in tasting, smelling, feeling — no “I” can be found. It simply happens.

When looking closely: no solid “I,” only perception, sensation, thought — a constant flow of experience. But the “I” appears as a concept, not as something that can actually be experienced, but as something that can be felt. I cant describe it in concret - The “I” appears as a feeling — something that cannot really be described. It’s more like a sensation or a kind of “buzzing” behind the eyes, or even a pure imagination located there. It’s nothing that can be felt among the sensory impressions.

[graceabounds]

Very good looking.

The “self” seems to exist in the thoughts about the experience

Yes. Without “seems’:
The self never existed in experience. It only ever appeared as thoughts about experience.

When I focus on the real sensory experiences, thinking disappears for a moment, but only for a moment, I have to concentrate to get back to perception.

Great.
What needs to concentrate to return to perception?

And can you let the buzzing or imagination behind the eyes be just a sensation, without giving it the name ‘I’?

There is no person eating, only experiencing.

Yes.
Now look:
Was there ever a person eating?

[MarRaim123]

What needs to concentrate to return to perception?
Nothing real needs to concentrate – only the thought of a “me” believes it has to do something, thats already clear.

And can you let the buzzing or imagination behind the eyes be just a sensation, without giving it the name ‘I’?
Yes. With seeing this as a sensation, I have no problem.
However, this also raises further questions for me: I “imagine” in such situations a picture that suggests a stable, solid framework – namely the experience itself and the physically felt reactions – and around this, filling it out, holograms that are transient. Yes, of course, that is also just a thought, clearly, but this is my current perception, and the “holograms” = thoughts disappear while the “framework” remains. I also feel the real sensations, the sensory impressions too… yet the image still appears in parallel.

An important question: I notice that I don’t really have a problem separating actual perception from thoughts when there are strong feelings that are also very physically felt. But when it is just pure thoughts, without much representation on the sensory level, it becomes somewhat more difficult for me. Then it can quite well happen that I cannot find an anchor to guide back to real sensing, but instead jump from one thought to another – until some trigger by chance brings it back to actual sensation.

A second aspect is that in very stressful moments, total automaticity returns, i.e., there is no anchor here to bring the focus back to pure sensing soon. Instead, one gets lost in the thoughts and their associated bodily sensations. My question: Does this have to do with training in neutral situations, where the brain learns to shift focus – and exactly in these neutral, not overly stressful situations, one trains for it to succeed? Which then leads to it being easier to reappear even in stressful moments, when it is gone again. Similar to training a dog, which also starts in a low-stimulus environment – not immediately where the dog is emotionally overregulated? Or is it different?

What I notice is that in these moments it also doesn’t matter whether the “I” exists or does not exist; I simply function “as always” – or it just happens “as always”…



Was there ever a person eating?
No. There was only the experience of taste, movement, chewing – but no separate person doing it. ...When the focus is directed on it, it is clearly perceived; when it is not, everything returns to “as usual”… automatic.

[graceabounds]

The brain, being predictive, runs background simulations constantly. It paints scaffolding around perception: contextual guesses, expectations. This is totally fine. The key thing is: can you see that the scaffolding isn’t mistaken for what is? If the imagined framework is just seen as an echo or overlay, its no problem.

But when it is just pure thoughts, without much representation on the sensory level, it becomes somewhat more difficult for me. Then it can quite well happen that I cannot find an anchor to guide back to real sensing, but instead jump from one thought to another – until some trigger by chance brings it back to actual sensation.

When you’re caught in pure thought with no sensory intensity don’t try to escape. Instead, pause and ask “What is thought doing right now?”
Not what it’s about. Just what is it doing?
Is it fantasizing? Comparing? Rehearsing? Worrying? Is there any problem if that movement is just seen as a passing image, no owner, no meaning, no self attached?


Regarding the dog training analogy, yes. Practice in neutral, gentle moments. Let the nervous system learn what clarity feels like without pressure. Then, under stress, the body will start to recognize that pattern again, even if only for a second. That’s enough.

Stress is not an enemy. It’s just a more intense test of identification. So trust that the nervous system is slowly rewiring to not take the bait. :)


When you’re lost in thought next time, can you stop and feel what the body is doing right then? without fixing, labeling, or changing anything?

Just feel the body while the thought moves. Let me know what happens when you do.

[MarRaim123]

When you’re lost in thought next time, can you stop and feel what the body is doing right then? without fixing, labeling, or changing anything?

Today, while shopping, I found myself lost in thought again. Quite automatically, my attention suddenly went to my legs feeling the ground, to my hands touching something… I suspect this is a learning effect that will gradually become more intense and automatic over time.

Perhaps a further note: in all these processes, the “I” is currently not an issue. That is, for these exercises, it doesn’t matter whether the “I” exists or not… You said that this is fine, and the awareness of the non-existent “I” arises spontaneously, without any effort, as these exercises and states are intensified.

That means I’m simply “practicing,” and on this level, nothing is really happening or changing concerning teh "I". There is no awareness that the “I” is absent, but also no thought that it could be otherwise — it’s simply not relevant at the moment.

Just feel the body while the thought moves. Let me know what happens when you do.. This exercise isn’t so easy – because at the moment when many thoughts are present, the body awareness can be briefly forgotten, and the connection to the body is temporarily lost.

[graceabounds]

Hi Ina,

To answer by way of an exercise:

The following exercise is designed to let you ‘feel’ the difference between actual experience and imagined experience.

Close your eyes and imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine the spoons form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Look and feel at the imaginary spoon for a while.
Then open your eyes …

Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or did it never exist?

Notice that there was no boom and no bright flashes of light when the imaginary spoon was no longer imagined. Remember this, the shift to seeing through the illusion of a separate self is not going to be any more than this, it is just a dropping of a belief – the belief is the glue that holds the illusion together.

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.
Now open your eyes …

Is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are the image of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing the same thing differ?

Now close your eyes again and bring your attention to the image of “me”, the separate individual entity. Spend some time exploring this, and then answer the following question:
Is it an image or is it an actual entity?

The questions are really just there for you to consider as you do the exercise, I do not need detailed answers to each one, just some reflections on how the exercise went for you, or if you have any questions or need any clarification.


And now tell me: WHO is lost in thought? Does the I that was not an issue only arise when thought is present?

What’s happening right now?
Not the story. Not the explanation. Just sensation. Can you describe what the body is doing this very second?

[MarRaim123]

When I imagined holding the spoon, it felt quite real. I could picture its shape, size, and even how heavy or cold it might be. But when I opened my eyes, there was no spoon. It was only an image.

When I hold a real spoon, I can feel the difference. The real spoon has weight, a cool surface, and texture. The imagined spoon was just a thought. — the mind makes the pictures, but the body feels the truth.

When I looked at the image of “me,” it was the same. The “I” also seemed to be just a thought or image, not something I could actually find. When thinking stops for a moment, the “I” disappears too — only awareness and simple sensations remain.

Right now, the body is breathing, sitting, maybe moving a little. There are sounds, maybe warmth or pressure, but no story — only what is happening right now. But the mind often keeps creating images in parallel — I can dive beneath them by focusing on real experience, but it’s not automatic yet. For example, the past two days at work were very stressful, going from one appointment to the next, and only in the evening did I become aware that there is something else — namely my practice and the change in how I perceive the world. On such days, I notice that both still feel like parallel worlds, and there is no bridge between them yet. The wish would be to maintain this perception even during stressful everyday life....

[graceabounds]

Hi Ina,

When thinking stops for a moment, the “I” disappears too — only awareness and simple sensations remain.

Yes. So if ‘you’ exists only with/as thought…
When you are not thinking, are you missing?

Are any of these thoughts yours? I believe earlier in this conversation it was seen that there is no controller or generating the thoughts themselves, so…

Look right here at the root, as you did with the spoon…
Does the self reify with thought or is it always never there?

Does there need to be a bridge? Who would be maintaining a perception? Thought?

It will even out in time, there will still be periods of activity and periods of quiet, but only thought splits life, what IS, into ‘daily life’ and ‘practice’. What we are looking for will be obvious, there will be no need to strain for the seeing of it underneath everything.

But for now, we look and practice…. :)
keep going!

Much love,
Becca

[MarRaim123]

When you are not thinking, are you missing?
When thinking stops, the sense of “I” seems to dissolve for a moment. Only awareness and raw sensations remain. In that state, the “I” is not missing — it simply isn’t present in the usual way that arises with thought. Then it appears...and so on...

Are any of these thoughts yours? Most of the thoughts do not feel like consciously generated “mine.” They arise and pass on their own, without a creator.

Does the self reify with thought or is it always never there?
The self does not solidify with thought. It appears that what we call the self is more like a temporary pattern of attention and identification. Without thought, it is never fixed, never truly “there” in the way we usually imagine it. It’s kind of a strange feeling that comes up when I think about it… it fills the body. By now, I can quickly return to simply feeling, and then for those moments, it disappears again. I’ve heard that if I stay more in the present-moment feeling, it becomes completely irrelevant whether the sense of “I” is there or not… that’s why I try not to think about it too much. But I somehow feel that I don’t reach awareness enough, that I spend too much of the day on autopilot… I’m thinking about how I can increase my awareness, how I can spend more time in it, in the real world…

Does there need to be a bridge? Who would be maintaining a perception? Thought? No bridge is necessary, no, but what is needed is time — time to remain more in awareness, less in autopilot…
...Perception arises and continues naturally; it does not require thought to maintain it. Thought only creates the illusion of separation and the division between “practice” and “daily life.”

What’s happening right now?
Even in periods of thinking or activity, there is always underlying awareness. Right now, the body is breathing, there are subtle sensations, a flow of attention, and a sense of being present — without story or interpretation.