The Gate

Nothing concrete to grasp onto without the mind coming back in and then it's over, seeing is gone.

Yes, the mind seems to give it reality. This is the illusion that thoughts generate.
No, it's not really finished. The seeing continues. It is just swamped by thought commentary. ..and of course it is often the thought images that we relate to instead of the 'pure' seeing.
In your daily life-ing, is there more noticing of what is story and what is actual ?
Is there less intense or less frequent emotional response to story ?
Is there more appreciation of that which used to be considered 'ordinary' ?
Is there more "going with the flow" and less attempting to control the outcome of every situation ?

love

vince

Hi Vince,

Nothing concrete to grasp onto without the mind coming back in and then it's over, seeing is gone.
Yes, the mind seems to give it reality. This is the illusion that thoughts generate.

In saying this is the illusion that thoughts generate - when walking life is just happening, walking through a garden and a thought comes in 'that's a beautiful flower' and although the thought is also life happening, the flower arose in pure seeing without the need of a thought description.

No, it's not really finished. The seeing continues. It is just swamped by thought commentary. ..and of course it is often the thought images that we relate to instead of the 'pure' seeing.

So when I single out an object or sound or smell everything else is still seen but attention has only one place it can be at a time whereas 'pure seeing' incorporates everything.

Do you find yourself 'pure' seeing more often now than relating to thought images?

In your daily life-ing, is there more noticing of what is story and what is actual ?

I lift my head and all of the room is there sights, sounds, smells - just there no need for a thought commentary, which comes anyway. In the moment that the head is raised it's all just there now. So that is what I would call actual. As I go about my day thought still runs the show but a thought will come now and then to not get caught up in it.

Is there less intense or less frequent emotional response to story ?

That is a hard question as some things will have emotional responses. That is certainly dependent on the story.

Is there more appreciation of that which used to be considered 'ordinary' ?

I haven't noticed there is. My life is pretty ordinary and I do appreciate simple things anyway but I don't think I have noticed an increase.

Is there more "going with the flow" and less attempting to control the outcome of every situation ?

I will say that I don't try to control the outcome of every situation but I do have some thoughts go around and around coming up with different scenarios that can't change the past anyway. Can catch them at it sometimes and sometimes they just disolve others will keep me awake at night.

kind regards
Dianne

walking through a garden and a thought comes in 'that's a beautiful flower'

Consider this; If 'pure' seeing was all that happened, would it be seen as beautiful ? ..or is beautiful a concept that has been conditioned to have a particular response ?
Now extend that to the aroma of the flower. If you were to smell it and the organisms preference for certain smells were to be satisfied, is that a conditioned reflex ?

So when I single out an object or sound or smell everything else is still seen but attention has only one place it can be at a time

Is it attention or the description of what attention rests on that can only be one at a time ? Try this; turn your head and look at what is off your left shoulder. Now smoothly scan around to the right shoulder without stopping. Just allow what is seen as you do this. There is no time to even label things, but they are seen.

Do you find yourself 'pure' seeing more often now than relating to thought images?

There is certainly more recognition that what is seen is this organism's interpretation. Frequently now, what is seen on investigation, turns out to be different to what was first seen. (e.g. the golf ball is rarely exactly where it thought it was, and often some considerable distance away)
So, rather than saying 'pure seeing' happens more often, it is more accurate to say that thought images are more frequently recognized for what they are.

As I go about my day thought still runs the show

By this, i take it that you mean that you are operating on automatic ?

but a thought will come now and then to not get caught up in it.

Is is ever appropriate to 'allow' thoughts to "run the show" ?

some things will have emotional responses. That is certainly dependent on the story.

Do we welcome pleasant emotional responses and resist unpleasant ones ?



love

vince

Hi Vince,

Have had an unexpectedly busy weekend and will get back to you with answers tomorrow.

regards
Dianne

Hi Vince,

dian wrote:
walking through a garden and a thought comes in 'that's a beautiful flower'
Consider this; If 'pure' seeing was all that happened, would it be seen as beautiful ? ..or is beautiful a concept that has been conditioned to have a particular response ?
Now extend that to the aroma of the flower. If you were to smell it and the organisms preference for certain smells were to be satisfied, is that a conditioned reflex ?

When walking there is sensations of movement, changing colours, smells, sounds all arising as pure seeing. Preferences for particular smells and sights are the organisms preferences from memories and habits. Flower and beautiful are just concepts. So the smells would be just what's noticed (in pure seeing) but no preference for that smell above any other.

dian wrote:
So when I single out an object or sound or smell everything else is still seen but attention has only one place it can be at a timeIs it attention or the description of what attention rests on that can only be one at a time ? Try this; turn your head and look at what is off your left shoulder. Now smoothly scan around to the right shoulder without stopping. Just allow what is seen as you do this. There is no time to even label things, but they are seen.

Its very hard to do even quickly without a couple of labels sneaking into the background. Its the labelling that can be only one at a time. The rest is sounds and sights all just there.

dian wrote:
As I go about my day thought still runs the show
By this, i take it that you mean that you are operating on automatic ?

Yes. Still do the small chuckle when thought arises to do so.

dian wrote:
but a thought will come now and then to not get caught up in it. Is is ever appropriate to 'allow' thoughts to "run the show" ?

In correcting maths tests I think thoughts would help come up with the right answers as memories of how to get to the answer. But I don't think they would be running the show then.

dian wrote:
some things will have emotional responses. That is certainly dependent on the story.Do we welcome pleasant emotional responses and resist unpleasant ones ?

Always welcome pleasant emotional responses.

Dianne, you seem clearly to recognize that the Self (or I) exists as a thought construct, and that this was always the case. Before, when you believed the content of the story of Dianne, the illusion was reinforced by the constant rationalizing of the mind. Thoughts ascribed everything that the concept of 'effect' contains to a concept of an I.
Is this accurate ?
Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

vince

walking through a garden and a thought comes in 'that's a beautiful flower'
Consider this; If 'pure' seeing was all that happened, would it be seen as beautiful ? ..or is beautiful a concept that has been conditioned to have a particular response ?
Now extend that to the aroma of the flower. If you were to smell it and the organisms preference for certain smells were to be satisfied, is that a conditioned reflex ?

When walking there is sensations of movement, changing colours, smells, sounds all arising as pure seeing. Preferences for particular smells and sights are the organisms preferences from memories and habits. Flower and beautiful are just concepts. So the smells would be just what's noticed (in pure seeing) but no preference for that smell above any other.

This paragraph was written in response to your sentences. What I should have done was put a question mark on the end. It's very intellectual. Me trying to grasp what you're saying and then putting it into my own words. The walking and noticing colours is not how I experience it.

Dianne, you seem clearly to recognize that the Self (or I) exists as a thought construct, and that this was always the case. Before, when you believed the content of the story of Dianne, the illusion was reinforced by the constant rationalizing of the mind. Thoughts ascribed everything that the concept of 'effect' contains to a concept of an I.
Is this accurate ?
Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

I looked at this question and realized I had no definite yes or no answer to it. So sat here to look for the self.
The mind is just thoughts coming and going on their own with no help from me although they do pertain to my life. It's a bit like a conveyer belt going around and every now and then I take a thought off and expand on it, worry over it, laugh at it, let it go on its way and it may come round again to be obsessed over some more especially if it pertains to family or anyone important to me. I don't get to choose which ones come or which one's stick around.
The brain seems to operate the body so a good place to reside would be in the brain. No one has ever found the self in the brain and the video where the sense of self was moved behind the body did not take anything out of the brain and put it behind the body. So it's not in the brain.

kind regards
Dianne

The walking and noticing colours is not how I experience it.

Have a walk again when it suites and report experiencing.

So it's not in the brain.

So, does it exist in any form other than as a story ?



love

vince

Hi Vince,

dian wrote: The walking and noticing colours is not how I experience it.
Have a walk again when it suites and report experiencing.

So I do notice colours and shapes when out walking it's just that I have readymade words for them. The words come slightly after. So I'm seeing a familiar shape and colour of trees, plants and flowers basically just walking and taking it all in. In saying it's familiar shapes is that where I'm losing it. Seeing should be new in each moment yet walking sensation and scenery on walk all is familiar and recognized.

dian wrote: So it's not in the brain.
So, does it exist in any form other than as a story ?

Not that I can see.

kind regards
Dianne

So, does it exist in any form other than as a story ?
Not that I can see.

Are you saying that a separate, actual Self may exist somewhere that you can't see ?

vince

Are you saying that a separate, actual Self may exist somewhere that you can't see ?

No



Bye for now
Dianne

Are you saying that a separate, actual Self may exist somewhere that you can't see ?
No

Ok Dianne, let's summarise;
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) "Describe your experience of the illusion of separate self, how it arises/disappears. Is that process always the same, or does it vary, and if so, how?"

3) How does it feel to see that there is no actual, separate Self ? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

love

vince

Hi Vince,

It may take a while to answer these questions so will get back to you when I can.

kind regards
Dianne

HI Vince

I have answered these questions quite a few times over the weeks and always deleted so today sat down to try again.

2) "Describe your experience of the illusion of separate self, how it arises/disappears.

My experience of the illusion of the separate self is - the smoke from the mosquito coil has attracted attention, the coil was burning before didn't need a name or an observation to be there. The separate self provides a label and an opinion of the smoke being annoying when it comes toward me. Without the opinion and the label all is the same but not involving a self. The wind is blowing now and attention goes there. Labeling of the wind blowing trees and images of tree's blowing in the wind appear - I want to say in the mind but I don't think that's quite true as it implies in my head when in fact the images are just somewhere in space. The attention goes to the sound of birds and back to wind blowing, a hand reaches out to move the mosquito coil so it doesn't blow smoke in my face no thought to do so until hand already reaching. A noise of a rooster is heard, nothing needed to notice the rooster its already done but naming occurs as a thought. There is a truckload of things happening as I sit and write and all is noticed until thought stops at one thing. I try to catch it in the act but thoughts are very elusive when they are watched. To me the illusion of the separate self is the thoughts that attach to things and an opinion that comes so closely after experience to be thought to be of relevance to experience. A necessary part of what is happening. The disappearing of the separate self is before the thoughts come in between thoughts there is no separate self.

5) Describe decision,
Sitting out here writing I would think is a decision I made but it's just thoughts suggesting or maybe not even that. It actually just happened maybe habitual. A warm sunny day and I want to be outside but where the original idea came from I don't know.

Describe intention,
I intend to go and wash the dishes now just comes as I write it down. I may get up and do it or not. Intention in the form of a thought doesn't have much power at all. A plan to do something tomorrow is I think an intention which comes as a thought and may or may not be carried out. So intention doesn't seem to be in my power.

I notice that thoughts just come although they pertain to my life so feel like they are mine but I don't bring them. I noticed one day that words spoken were the same - the chickens were hanging around the back door and until I had said "shoo", "shoo" I didn't realize I was going to say it. I want to catch myself doing that at other times when in conversation (with humans not chickens) but not so easy then, conversation moves along quickly back and forward with not a lot of opportunity to notice. Maybe this is irrelevant and I'm just intellectualising instead of looking.

kind regards
Dianne

I have answered these questions quite a few times over the weeks and always deleted so today sat down to try again.

Dianne, There are no right or wrong answers to the questions. In fact i am more interested in your experiencing as you consider them than the actual answers. An unedited rant reveals more for us to work with than a carefully worded response.

...The disappearing of the separate self is before the thoughts come in between thoughts there is no separate self.

So you can see quite clearly how opinions (thoughts) create the story of Dianne ?
That was a good experiential narrative of the coming and going of the story.
Can you recognize the positive value of the story for describing or communicating experience. For navigating daily living ?
Can you differentiate between useful story and story that results in suffering ?

...where the original idea came from I don't know.

Good noticing. Here, there is a sense of wonder at what arises (when it is considered).

So intention doesn't seem to be in my power.

Yes, they arise from the same mystery as decisions do.

so feel like they (thoughts) are mine but I don't bring them.

Yes, many years of conditioning will keep them feeling like they are yours. This may or may not change over time, but it seems that although they "feel" like they are yours, you don't actually claim ownership of them. Behaving as if they are yours is a useful way to interact with 'others'.

I want to catch myself doing that at other times when in conversation (with humans not chickens) but not so easy then,

Yes, but even though you get lost in the content of thought, the moment when you recognize that this is happening, there is also the realization that you are not identified with them. That is you know that these are conditioned reflexes and not a 'you'. Is this the case ?

Maybe this is irrelevant and I'm just intellectualizing instead of looking.

No no. You are a good looker, and it is relevant. Of course, conceptualizing (intellectualizing) is necessary for you to tell me about it.

Dianne, please consider the questions in this post, as well as; 3) How does it feel to see that there is no actual, separate Self ? What is the difference from before you started at LU ? Please report from the past few weeks.

love

vince