Will Look Until Lost or Found

[Stultus]

Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?

I would have to say there is just being, happening as being.
Sorry for the delay in response - some life things getting hectic as Christmas approaches.
-Steve

[graceabounds]

Haha yes hectic here too.

Perfect opportunity to reflect on the metaphor of Santa as it relates to this inquiry.
Perhaps you believed in him when you were little. There was magic and joy, and love, and giving.
When you realized that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa? Ultimately was Santa actually lost?

If you have a lot of family and activity around, this holiday can be a wonderful opportunity to just relax into being and see what emerges.

Much love,
Becca

[Stultus]

When you realized that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa? Ultimately was Santa actually lost?

I don't recall when I realized Santa is not real. It comes to mind again that I access only the now and thoughts and memories (also thoughts) arising in the now.

If you have a lot of family and activity around, this holiday can be a wonderful opportunity to just relax into being and see what emerges.

I accept this undertaking. :)

[graceabounds]

It comes to mind again that I access only the now and thoughts and memories (also thoughts) arising in the now.

Is this a consistent experience? Would you say this has affected anything in everyday life?

If you have a lot of family and activity around, this holiday can be a wonderful opportunity to just relax into being and see what emerges.

I accept this undertaking. :)

Cannot wait to hear. Enjoy the holiday!

[Stultus]

Happy Holidays, Becca.

Is this a consistent experience? Would you say this has affected anything in everyday life?

It isn't a constant experience but the realisation frequently pops up now. It tends to "moderate" experience, to diffuse chains of thought (memory) that may have added non-present emotion to the present. Does that make sense?
I will pick up this correspondence in a day or two.
Thank you for everything you do. It is appreciated.
-Steve

[Stultus]

Hello, Becca.
Hope the holidays are going well for you.
This evening, attended a stage play of A Christmas Carol.
I attended the same last year, so watching it was bringing up memories of previous year.
How peculiar, witnessing the present, seeing memories arise, and the play about ghost of Christmas past, present and future.
-Steve

[graceabounds]

Hello!

Very very apt. :)

Memories arise along with other thoughts. Do memories belong to anyone? Is there self to be found to whom they arise?

-Becca

[Stultus]

Do memories belong to anyone? Is there self to be found to whom they arise?

I'm inclined to say no only because I don't find "self" in the memories, just memories/thoughts arising, coming to awareness.
There does, however, seem to be a "self" of sorts being referenced by the memories, being the thing in common between those memories that come to awareness - meaning I can ascribe the memories that arise as being related to "Steve" not to "Bob" or "Sue" and memories from the perspective of "Bob" or "Sue" don't seem to arise for me (in the present or "in the past" according to present memories that arise). That said, the novel Moby Dick is all written from the perspective of Ishmael, but that doesn't mean that the book has a Self, just that all of the passages within the book have an Ishmael-perspective in common with each other. (I don't know how coherently I've communicated that insight.)
Please note that I appear to be coming down with a cold. I may be somewhat out of commission for a day or two. I expect to keep with inquiry, though.
-Steve

[graceabounds]

Hello,

I can ascribe the memories that arise as being related to "Steve" not to "Bob" or "Sue" and memories from the perspective of "Bob" or "Sue" don't seem to arise for me

Yes. Here there is looking right at the mechanism of personalization. Memories are tied to the narrative of ‘Steve’ based on an association with a specific body and life story.

I'm inclined to say no only because I don't find "self" in the memories, just memories/thoughts arising, coming to awareness.

Yes it cannot be found! This is how to proceed… the ‘way out’ of the illusion of a separate self.

Thus progresses naturally some inquiry into time.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
Is there past or future outside of thought?

-Becca

[Stultus]

Hello Becca.
Not feeling too well today, but spent some time in looking on this.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

My sense is that "now" just is. It does not seem to have a beginning or end but just exists as if in suspension.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

It feels that "now" does seem to have at least some length (in time). This is a deduction, I think. If I think of time like a strip of film, and the "now" as a frame, then past and future would be frames prior to and after the "now" frame. That gives the impression that "now" should be still (like in the frame of a move strip), display no movement, because the thought is that movement requires time, involves additional frames. I definitely seem to experience movement, so that seems to entail there must be time of some sort. I only experience the present, but the present displays movement. I'm not sure how to reconcile apparent movement with experience of only the present.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

It all appears as just now. The "apparent past" is only ever referenced through memory, and the arising memory is present.

Is there past or future outside of thought?

I don't appear to experience anything outside of thought or perception, and it is always present thought or perception that is experienced. There seems to be a wide divide between what was previously (and currently through habit) believed and what is actually experienced.
-Steve

[Stultus]

Today I seem as confused by the concept of time as yesterday. With thoughts and perceptions that arise, they appear in movement - even the word "arise" suggests movement. I experience only the Now (experiencing current perceptions and thoughts) yet I experience motion, which suggests the passage of time.
Perhaps I am misthinking things. The thought arises that if limited only to "now" without past or future then I should be experiencing a lack of motion. But there is *never* a lack of motion. Even looking at the still frame of a film, the lack of motion is only conceptual - the field of perception, the cellular construct of my eyes, the light that brings the image to my eyes, the particles that comprise it all, all these are in motion even when regarding a still image. And of course those are all just concepts - just thoughts - I don't experience these directly just think of perceptions as happening that way. In experience, the experiencing of experience seems never still, even if the contents of experience seem to be still. I think *nothing* is ever still. The expectation that the awareness of only now would eliminate motion seems false. Experiencially, there is *never* a lack of motion even in the apparent absence of time, regardless of my expectation (and expectation, too, is just another thought arising).
-Steve

[graceabounds]

:)
Let’s see if we can clear some of this up.

It feels that "now" does seem to have at least some length (in time). This is a deduction, I think. If I think of time like a strip of film, and the "now" as a frame, then past and future would be frames prior to and after the "now" frame. That gives the impression that "now" should be still (like in the frame of a move strip), display no movement, because the thought is that movement requires time, involves additional frames.

Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in direct experience things are just happening. Including movement, like the falling of a leaf. Is an explanation needed for things to happen?

Is there past or future outside of thought?

I don't appear to experience anything outside of thought or perception, and it is always present thought or perception that is experienced.

Perception (seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, hearing) is experienced now. There is a distinction however between thought and thought content. Thoughts arising are experienced now. The content of thoughts—their meaning or story—exists only conceptually. Not reality.

I definitely seem to experience movement, so that seems to entail there must be time of some sort. I only experience the present, but the present displays movement. I'm not sure how to reconcile apparent movement with experience of only the present.

By focusing on what is seen or sensed directly rather than interpretations or labels.

Watch some clouds tomorrow perhaps.
Is movement happening in time or simply seen now?
Any experience of one moment giving way to the next?
Can you find a past or future cloud or are all clouds only present in this moment?
Without a thought about time, what is actually experienced?

-Becca

[graceabounds]

In experience, the experiencing of experience seems never still,

It isn’t. It just is existence, the dance of existence. And to come back round to the point, it doesn’t require a you thinking about itto continue to occur naturally and spontaneously.

[Stultus]

I posted last night but I don't see it here now. Luckily I saved a copy of the text, so here is what I posted:
...
Hello Becca.
Still sick today, so no cloud watching, but I did lie on the coach and examine watching my dog sleeping.

Is movement happening in time or simply seen now?

I would say now that the movement simply seen now appears to be used by thought to conceptualise there being time. But the movement just is, and it is just the now that is experienced.

Any experience of one moment giving way to the next?

None. There is no boundaries or markers to the present moment and no sense of it giving way or being replaced by the next. There is just the present moment and what appears a flow of activity within the moment.

Can you find a past or future cloud or are all clouds only present in this moment?

I experience only what is in this moment. What are considered past or future events or moments are only present thoughts appearing of past or future events.

Without a thought about time, what is actually experienced?

I experience only a moving/active present. Occasionally thoughts arise with content associated via thought with the content of current experience or the content of previous thought (in a chain of thoughts).
Awareness seems centred on the present, the content of thoughts seems to spread out along lines of association. But the thoughts themselves are present.
Happy New Year, by the way.
Thanks for all this.
-Steve

[Stultus]

Hello Becca.
Happy New Year!
There is something you wrote previously that rose to mind today as it isn't exactly in sync with what I seem to experience.

Perception (seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, hearing) is experienced now. There is a distinction however between thought and thought content. Thoughts arising are experienced now. The content of thoughts—their meaning or story—exists only conceptually. Not reality.

It is true that many thoughts that arise feel like this - especially if they involve discernible internal dialog. There are other thoughts, however - memories, specifically - that seem a bit different. There are flashes of memory that it are literally as if I am momentarily re-experiencing something. Similarly there are flashes of daydream - and dreams, too - that feel the same as experiencing something. These memories or imaginings are in ways different from perceptions - they are often discontinuous with previous events, seem perhaps not as focused, seem less "solid", perhaps don't make sense (usually in thinking about them in retrospect) - but they do seem closer to perceptions (as they are experienced as perceptions - image, feeling, hearing) than to thoughts. To look at them and say "Not reality" feels like a conceptual overlay. It feels like it is thinking that is distinguishing these flashes of memory, dream, etc. from "real" perceptions. If these memories, dreams, etc. are considered just thoughts, then it could be said that perceptions, too, could be considered at type of thought. Am I misunderstanding something?
I think labelling experiential content as perceptions, thoughts, real, unreal, etc. may be useful for trying to clarify thought on the experience, but that labelling, too, may be a thinking trap. Ultimately, they *all* seem just "arisings" in awareness.
-Steve