To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

[Tintu]

Hi Key,

I am trying to understand the "rose" question. So as the rose, eventhough not understood can be recognized. There is a way of recognition of "rose" which can be communicated consistently and understood equally eventhough "rose" is not understood deeply. Similarly thought can be recognized eventhough it is not understood. But the means of recognizing thought for me is words and images. Is this the only means of recognition of thought?. Does all recognize thought only by words and images?. The problem with recognition of the thought compared to rose is clarity of recognition. A thought is clear,vague,muddy at various point in time . That leads to the question is there a way of consistently seeing it clearly. ( a rose could be recognized by smell, but a more easy approach would be to look at the visual properties of the rose. similarly can thought be recognized by other means than words and images or the only means to recognize thoughts are words and images?)

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hello Tintu,

Sorry I think i did n't make it clear.
The quirk is that when i think myself such as 'voice in my head' or 'inner-chatter thought 'appears' mostly as words .

There is no difference between words or thoughts…they are one and the same thing.
The word/thought ‘the’ is AE of thought. The thought/words “it’s a lovely clear sunny day today, and a perfect day for the beach” is AE of thought.

Thought appears saying that there a many words to that thought “it’s a lovely clear sunny day today, and a perfect day for the beach”, and that there are many letter to each word! 'Words' and 'letters' are a means of trying to describe a thought. A thought is indescribable.

When i hear or when someone else tell me a word, it appears mostly as images.

When you seemingly hear words from ‘others’, that is AE of sound and not AE of hearing other people’s words/thoughts. If there is no ‘you’ who is a separate self, how can there be ‘others’ who have separate selves? It is only thought that says the sound that is seemingly coming from another are verbalised thoughts.

I do not know whether words and images are the only means of recognizing a thought as thought. ofcourse i agree that what i am writing,what i have written and all these experiments involve huge amount of thoughts.

Again…words and thoughts are one and the same. And everything that you have ‘written’ is not a HUGE AMOUNT of thoughts…it is ALL thoughts.

I do not know much about a rose. I recognize a pattern of petals which i call as rose. And when the color is different the rose is known in variouse names (red, white, rose etc). when it looks like a rose (which i previously seen and remember) then i call the new flower a rose.

What part above that you wrote is not a thought?

What I was getting at, in getting you to write about a rose..is for you to see that the thought ‘rose’ arises and with that thought, other thoughts ABOUT a rose and what it is etc arises. Those thoughts are not the content of the original thought ‘rose’, they are thoughts ABOUT a rose that appear along/with the thought 'rose'. Thought does not have content. A thought is empty of content. Can you find an actual ‘fish’ in the word/thought/label ‘fish’? Can you find an actual “I” in the word/thought/label “I”?

There are two types of thoughts and it doesn’t matter in which ‘form’ a thought appears.

Go to a mirror and look into the mirror. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

What part above that you wrote is not a thought?

All part of it is thought.

What I was getting at, in getting you to write about a rose..is for you to see that the thought ‘rose’ arises and with that thought, other thoughts ABOUT a rose and what it is etc arises. Those thoughts are not the content of the original thought ‘rose’, they are thoughts ABOUT a rose that appear along/with the thought 'rose'. Thought does not have content. A thought is empty of content.

I understand it now.

Can you find an actual ‘fish’ in the word/thought/label ‘fish’? Can you find an actual “I” in the word/thought/label “I”?

There is no actual 'fish' in the word 'fish' or "I" in the word "I".

I will do the mirror experiment in a bit and report back. I did not hear a reply with respect to the experiment with "Attention".

I think in all this experiments, replies and questions, you are actually helping in a way that nobody has ever done for me.
There is a lot of unexpressed gratitude involved. Kay, Thanks for spending time and effort for reading and replying all the scattered, unorderly thoughts.

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hi Tintu,

I do not know much about a rose. I recognize a pattern of petals which i call as rose. And when the color is different the rose is known in variouse names (red, white, rose etc). when it looks like a rose (which i previously seen and remember) then i call the new flower a rose.

What part above that you wrote is not a thought?

All part of it is thought.

Yes! :)

What I was getting at, in getting you to write about a rose..is for you to see that the thought ‘rose’ arises and with that thought, other thoughts ABOUT a rose and what it is etc arises. Those thoughts are not the content of the original thought ‘rose’, they are thoughts ABOUT a rose that appear along/with the thought 'rose'. Thought does not have content. A thought is empty of content.

I understand it now.

Terrific :)

Can you find an actual ‘fish’ in the word/thought/label ‘fish’? Can you find an actual “I” in the word/thought/label “I”?

There is no actual 'fish' in the word 'fish' or "I" in the word "I".

Exactly! All thoughts are inherently empty of any type of content.

I will do the mirror experiment in a bit and report back. I did not hear a reply with respect to the experiment with "Attention".

Once you have done the mirror experiment, I will then respond to the “attention” exercise. It was important that any confusion about thought was cleared up first.

I think in all this experiments, replies and questions, you are actually helping in a way that nobody has ever done for me.
There is a lot of unexpressed gratitude involved. Kay, Thanks for spending time and effort for reading and replying all the scattered, unorderly thoughts.

Oh thank you, Tintu! It is my pleasure to be able to point and to give what was given to me.

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

Go to a mirror and look into the mirror. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

There is no knowledge that there must be legs inherent in the mirror image (The mirror only showed till the knee). Thought infers that it is not seen due to the distance of the body from the mirror.

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hellol Tintu,

There is no knowledge that there must be legs inherent in the mirror image (The mirror only showed till the knee). Thought infers that it is not seen due to the distance of the body from the mirror.

Yes, so thought suggests/infers that there must be legs and that they aren't seen because of distance, or the mirror not being big enough to include the legs. So stand in front of the mirror again and notice how a 'mental' image of legs appears. It can be quick and subtle...but see if you can notice it. Let me know how you go.

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

So stand in front of the mirror again and notice how a 'mental' image of legs appears. It can be quick and subtle...but see if you can notice it. Let me know how you go.

I tried to see on multiple occasions if I can notice a quick and subtle mental image of the missing 'part'. But I did not notice any mental projection of the missing 'part'. I do notice a mental image of the body when I think about the body, but that is similar to a mental image of any other object (not an accurate one, it is like looking at the face in the mirror and noticing that the mental image I had about my face and the actual face I see in the mirror is not exactly same)

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hi Tintu,

So stand in front of the mirror again and notice how a 'mental' image of legs appears. It can be quick and subtle...but see if you can notice it. Let me know how you go.

I tried to see on multiple occasions if I can notice a quick and subtle mental image of the missing 'part'. But I did not notice any mental projection of the missing 'part'. I do notice a mental image of the body when I think about the body, but that is similar to a mental image of any other object (not an accurate one, it is like looking at the face in the mirror and noticing that the mental image I had about my face and the actual face I see in the mirror is not exactly same)

That’s okay. There might come a time when you see a thought inferring something and see a ‘mental’ image of it appearing simultaneously. It is not a ‘whole’ image…it is like when you are asked to visualise a tree in the mind’s eye. That image isn’t like the ‘visual’ image of a tree but enough definition so you know it’s a tree.

Okay, so going back to the focus-attention exercise.

Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Attention switches from one to another, from sound to thoughts to sensation without any involvement from me.

it moves by itself. even trying to force attention on something is also of not much help (almost like keeping an ua ninterested kid in classroom with a cane).
This is also true for inattention, it also not possible to willfully not attend something.
I cannot not understand what is heard etc.

Great. So you clearly saw that you could not move focus/attention?

Is thought in control of attention?

In the beginning I was thinking, what is attention, what does it mean to attend?, is it a form of thought saying I need to attend.
it seems to me that attention as in hearing, where thoughts are listened to is different from thinking.

What is it that is listening to thoughts? Are thoughts actually heard or are there just thoughts about thoughts being heard?

Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work, or while you are cooking, or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But really there is no music playing - no one singing, and no guitarist. It's just thought about sound.

As trying forcefully to attend something does not work (the act of trying to listen hard actually hinders listening, the best listening happens when the listener is absent (completely immersed in what is heard)).

Yes, the idea of a listener in that moment is absent. And then out of the blue, the idea of there being an “I” who is listening appears. Did that change what was being heard at all? Was a ‘listener’ needed for the listening to happen?

but interest and attention are seemingly connected. where there is interest attention happens.

If listening happens without an “I” and it is only a thought that pops up after and says “I was listening to………”, where is the “I” that is interested in something?

Without thought, how is it known that “interest and attention are seemingly connected”? Without thought how is this known?

Do you have a choice in what you are aware of? Let’s have another look and look carefully to see if you can find a connection between interest and focus/attention.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black:-

Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

I will go through the questions and answer one by one.

If listening happens without an “I” and it is only a thought that pops up after and says “I was listening to………”, where is the “I” that is interested in something?

I have one question regarding "interest". I considered it as a fundamental thing in life. maybe when a strong belief in "I" was present, The prominent paradigm was that "the more interests you have, the more happiness in life".
After a while it it seemed as if "reading/seeing movies/playing games/programming/spirituality/travelling" etc are a way to escape from 'me' (for if I have questioned 'me' probably it would not have survived). These activities help to forget myself and I called that happiness (lack of loneliness?).
even though the 'interest' was/is the core of my belief, I never ventured to question it deeply. and now following your question, I am asking myself, what is interest?
(is it pleasure (do I find what is pleasurable to me as Interest)? is the pleasure thought created or physical?
or is it that the pleasure is created by the satisfaction of ego(as in winning a game, solving a problem)).
That naturally drifts to another question, what is pleasure?. is it physical sensation or thought created? (can I see the essence of it)
is it possible that there really is a natural interest to something without "I"?. or is it that the whole thing is created by thought? (such as a toddler when given a specific food like it or not even though the "I" is not yet present). so I am thinking, can there be a natural interest without an I?. I have to admit that I am a bit perplexed by it :-).


Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

No Tintu, we are not having a discussion on each question. This exploration is not a discussion, it is about me pointing and you looking to see if you can a separate self anywhere. Had you done the LOOKING on the questions I had given you in the first place, you would have found your own answer instead of writing to me about being perplexed. What exactly is it that is perplexed? This exploration is about LOOKING to see if you can find a separate self or a separate anything for that matter...not discussing something as a means to keep a belief.

So please go back and answer all the questions...and PLEASE LOOK, instead of just writing with thoughts.

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for the Reply. There was a thought which was saying "I had a bad day at the office" :-).

Great. So you clearly saw that you could not move focus/attention?

Yes. I have a thought which says maybe you should try again, but then the thought is not "mine" either.

What is it that is listening to thoughts? Are thoughts actually heard or are there just thoughts about thoughts being heard?

There is no "me" listening to thoughts. on hearing the sounds, thought infer it as thoughts and thoughts interpret the heard "thought". so it is thought about thoughts.

Yes, the idea of a listener in that moment is absent. And then out of the blue, the idea of there being an “I” who is listening appears. Did that change what was being heard at all? Was a ‘listener’ needed for the listening to happen?

it did not change what is being heard. the experience is that since attention switches from what is being heard to the thought ("I" am listening) the hearing is more complete when listening without the thought "I am listening", but "I" have no control of that either. No, a listener is not required to do the hearing.

If listening happens without an “I” and it is only a thought that pops up after and says “I was listening to………”, where is the “I” that is interested in something?

There is no "I" who is interested. there is a thought which says "This is something I am interested or not interested".

Without thought, how is it known that “interest and attention are seemingly connected”? Without thought how is this known?

Without thought, there is no way to associate interest and attention. "I" am interested in something or not interested in something seems to be a thought construction.

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hello Tintu,

Nice looking. Is there any questions arising with regards to being perplexed, or were the questions answered through the looking?

Love, Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

while questioning "Interest" yesterday, there was some resistance (feeling of sadness). I always believed that interest is a cornerstone.believed in doing what "I" like to do instead of what "I" do not like to do. "I" felt a bit down when that belief is shaken up. when I see that it is all "my" thinking instead of "a fact". but when you asked, "who is perplexed?" I recognized that that too was a thought, yet strong enough to indulge and evoke some emotions (more thoughts). These thoughts :-).

Thanks
Tintu

[forgetmenot]

Hey Tintu,

while questioning "Interest" yesterday, there was some resistance (feeling of sadness). I always believed that interest is a cornerstone.believed in doing what "I" like to do instead of what "I" do not like to do. "I" felt a bit down when that belief is shaken up. when I see that it is all "my" thinking instead of "a fact". but when you asked, "who is perplexed?" I recognized that that too was a thought, yet strong enough to indulge and evoke some emotions (more thoughts). These thoughts :-).

Thank you for sharing this with me. Yes, as beliefs come up to be questioned and explored, emotions will appear. Sadness, anger, resentment, fear, anxiety, resistance and so on. This is normal. If they become intense or repetitive..let me know and we can look at them together. However, you can look for yourself if you can find anyone who these emotions are happening to, and to investigate if 'sadness', for example is actually known. Emotions are simply thought + sensation which thought then labels as emotions.

Resistance is impossible, how can what already is be resisted? It is only an appearing thought that says “I am resisting ………”. The idea that there is a ‘you’ who will now be forced into focussing on what is not interesting, is just that...an idea. First, where is this ‘you’ and second…is there a you who is in control of what you are aware of or interested in?

Absolutely nothing is, or can be resisted as it is already happening! Let’s say, for example, you feel resistance when doing the dishes. It doesn’t matter if SEEMING resistance shows up or not…the dishes are still getting done! There is only thought that appears saying “I shouldn’t have to do this” or “I don’t like doing this” or whatever thought is saying. Without thought, how would it be known that what is happening, shouldn’t be happening?

The label 'resistance' is AE of thought and not AE of resistance
Sensation (contraction) labelled as 'resistance' is AE of sensation and not AE of resistance
Image labelled 'me/body/I' is AE of colour and not AE of a person who is resisting
The thoughts ABOUT resistance are AE of thought and not AE of resistance.

So what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT resistance, but is resistance actually known?

So, going back to the other questions you didn’t answer, please look at them and answer the questions, as these pointers will help you to see more clearly about interest and to see if there is anyone who is controlling what is being focussed upon etc.

So…do you have a choice in what you are aware of? Let’s have another look and look carefully to see if you can find a connection between interest and focus/attention.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black:-

Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Kay

[Tintu]

Hi Kay,

Without thought, how would it be known that what is happening, shouldn’t be happening?

It cannot be known without thought.

So what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT resistance, but is resistance actually known?

resistance is actually not known.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black:-

I was moving a finger in a certain way to see the relationship between thinking and doing something.
during this, at one point it occurred to me that, there is a thought about moving a finger, the finger moves.
and suddenly a thought popped up, "where am I between the thinking and moving the finger". it is simply not there.
The "I", "I" was thinking about was just thoughts in my head.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black:-

Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?

There is no choice in this.

Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?

There is no choice about being aware of all these events.

Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?

No

Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?

No.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

There is nothing "I" can choose. Things appears or awareness happens and then "I" take credit for it. basically in all this
"I" is only in thoughts and all else is happening mysteriously.

Thanks
Tintu