Help!

[graceabounds]

Hope you are feeling a little better.
Excellent work here.

You are noticing the difference between direct experience and thought.

Raw experience:

No answer, just blankness. No darkness, just no answer.
It appears there is just fog/numbness happening. I don't find a "me" there just emptiness.

Thought rushing in:

It takes a lot to get to this point, and it vanishes quickly to be left with some identity and some not!

And this is it:

The fog is gone and has been replaced by numbness, and any thought comes from the ego and not trustworthy.

Yes! Not trustworthy! emptiness with no “me” there, until thought rushes in again…

If you were in a desert, dying of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts), or would you need to drink ‘real’ water?
Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you two options:
(1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written on it, and
(2) in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose to quench your thirst, the label or the water?
So, can the label ‘water’, which is actual/direct experience of thought, quench your thirst?
Labels are ‘real’ as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the label/thought is ABOUT is not ‘real’ and is NOT the direct experience of ‘content’.

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’ , what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Can you drop the story-layer completely, right now, and tell me: when all thought labels are ignored, what exactly remains?

Much love,
Becca

[Porky]

Hi Becca,
I'm feeling a little bit better. Thanks for asking,

If you were in a desert, dying of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts), or would you need to drink ‘real’ water?

I would have to drink real water.

Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you two options:
(1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written on it, and
(2) in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose to quench your thirst, the label or the water?

The water would definitely be my choice!

So, can the label ‘water’, which is actual/direct experience of thought, quench your thirst?

No, just the thought of water could not quench my thirst.

Labels are ‘real’ as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the label/thought is ABOUT is not ‘real’ and is NOT the direct experience of ‘content’.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’ , what is the actual experience?

Wrote the word green on a piece of paper. The actual experience is of letters written on a piece of paper
No color involved.

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Thought has entered the picture and unless the color is apparently visible, there is no color to experience. Not green or red.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red color)?

There is NO reality corresponding with the word written down. I have to think about it. If I look at a picture on the wall with that color in it, then I see or think the word, green.

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the color red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

It doesn't appear to me that the color green written or seen has any relation whatsoever with the color red. Because we have labelled these two colors as different from each other and this we are taught as children there couldn't possibly be any confusion between them.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

No, redness is not affected in any way.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels have no effect on what is real!

Can you drop the story-layer completely, right now, and tell me: when all thought labels are ignored, what exactly remains?

The only thing that remains is sensations in this case seeing.
Thanks, Porky

[graceabounds]

The labels have no effect on what is real!

Fantastic.
So what is the direct experience of ‘72’?
:)

And so we come to time…

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
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'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

-Becca

[Porky]

Aloha Becca,

So what is the direct experience of ‘72’?

If we just look at the number 72 written on a piece of paper, it means nothing.
If we put thought into it, then it becomes a different experience one of past and future.

but is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

Now seems to be just in this moment, not on a timeline. Any thoughts appear to be either in the past or future.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Usually, moment to moment goes unnoticed as "Time" slips by. Unless I think about it and say, "stay in the moment"
time drifts from past to future without any awareness.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

No

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

When I'm in the "present moment" it's as if time stands still, there is no moving.

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

It begins when I say something like "keep looking" then time stops briefly.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

The "now" lasts as long as I can stay in the moment with sensations not thought.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

It starts when I stay in the moment and ends usually with a thought.

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

It becomes the past when a thought enters my head.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

There is no actual experience of the past. It's a thought. And that thought is only in the "Now".

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

There appears to only be an actual experience of time when it's in the moment.
With thoughts they seem to only be either in the past or future never in the moment,
they don't appear to be actual experiences, just thoughts, not like sensations, ex. hearing and seeing.
My concentration must be very forced to stay in the present, otherwise I drift into the past or future with thoughts.

Thanks so much,
Porky

[graceabounds]

My concentration must be very forced to stay in the present, otherwise I drift into the past or future with thoughts.

Notice what is actually happening when you “drift.” Is drifting anything more than thought arising? Is there really a “you” going anywhere? or just thoughts about past and future showing up?

The idea “I must force myself to stay in the present” is itself a thought, arising in the same immediacy you’re trying to stay in. Can you find any “you” apart from that thought?

Look now. Stay with only the raw seeing/hearing/sensation.
Where is the one who needs to stay present?

Without the story that “I must stay present,” is there any problem with thoughts moving?

[Porky]

Hi Becca,

Notice what is actually happening when you “drift.” Is drifting anything more than thought arising? Is there really a “you” going anywhere? or just thoughts about past and future showing up?

Drifting is just thoughts arising. It's getting lost in the past/future showing up uninvited. There is no "you" being in the present with sensations.

the idea “I must force myself to stay in the present” is itself a thought, arising in the same immediacy you’re trying to stay in. Can you find any “you” apart from that thought?

No

Look now. Stay with only the raw seeing/hearing/sensation.
Where is the one who needs to stay present?

There is no one there during sensations.

Without the story that “I must stay present,” is there any problem with thoughts moving?

I'm not sure if I understand this question.

[graceabounds]

Good, stay with that edge of not-sure. Don’t try to figure it out. Just look.

When a thought about past or future comes, does it actually disturb seeing, hearing, sensation? or does it just appear and vanish, like a sound or a bird passing by? Is there any problem at all without the extra story that it “shouldn’t” happen?

-Becca

[Porky]

Hi, Becca,

When a thought about past or future comes, does it actually disturb seeing, hearing, sensation?

Yes it does disturb sensations, as I get lost in the thought and that's what I experience.

or does it just appear and vanish, like a sound or a bird passing by?

Yes, the thought can also vanish as quickly as it appears based on how fast I recognize that it's a thought about the future or past.

Is there any problem at all without the extra story that it “shouldn’t” happen?

No there is no problem at all with just letting it occur and just looking at it.
If I don't want the story, all I have to say to myself keep looking and boom! I'm back in the present looking and hearing.

Thanks, Porky

[graceabounds]

See what just happened? The only “problem” was the thought saying this shouldn’t be happening. Without that extra layer, even drifting is just another appearance, no different than a bird call or a breeze.

Now look freshly:
When thought arises, does it need managing at all? or is it already appearing and disappearing on its own, without anyone there to do anything about it?

[Porky]

Now look freshly:
When thought arises, does it need managing at all? or is it already appearing and disappearing on its own, without anyone there to do anything about it?

When thoughts arise, usually I become aware of them, positive or negative, past or future.
If I don't mind them to just continue and bombard me, then no Managment is needed.
They usually appear on their own, yet sometimes they need a push to disappear.

[graceabounds]

So a thought appears. You say sometimes it “needs a push.”
Look closely: what exactly is pushing?

Before the push, the thought has already shown up.
After the push, the thought is already gone.
The whole idea that you managed it is itself just another thought, isn’t it?

So when you check directly, can you actually find a manager? Or is there only the flow: thought, disappearance, another thought?

Don’t answer conceptually. Watch the very next thought that comes. does it require anyone?

[Porky]

So a thought appears. You say sometimes it “needs a push.”
Look closely: what exactly is pushing?

I can tell you it's not Porky. There appears to be a watcher. Something that watches this human. His thoughts, actions are always being watched by? I'm not sure what to call it. Haven't always been aware of this witness, just recently. That is where the push comes from, and the thought disappears.

Before the push, the thought has already shown up.
After the push, the thought is already gone.
The whole idea that you managed it is itself just another thought, isn’t it?

Is it just another thought? Maybe it is. Telling me to just let it go or keep looking or OHM. Is OHM a thought?

So, when you check directly, can you actually find a manager? Or is there only the flow: thought, disappearance, another thought?

Yes, that sounds right! Only a flow, thought, disappearance. It does feel like I'm managing my thoughts, and then I get a feeling. This feeling is kind of a sense, that I'm not managing and that it just flows.

Don’t answer conceptually. Watch the very next thought that comes. does it require anyone?

No, thoughts don't require anyone. They just show up without a manager. That is my experience.

[graceabounds]

There appears to be a watcher. Something that watches this human. His thoughts, actions are always being watched by? I'm not sure what to call it. Haven't always been aware of this witness, just recently.

What you’re describing — this “watcher,” “witness,” or “observer” — is a very common stage in deeper looking. It can feel like there’s something separate from the thoughts, sensations, and actions, something quietly aware of them all. For many people, it shows up after enough investigation into thoughts and identity: when the sense of “I am the body-mind” loosens a bit, there can arise this sense of an observing presence.

But here’s the interesting part: when we look closely, the “watcher” itself is just another appearance.

Let’s test this experientially:
Right now, there are thoughts, sensations, maybe sounds.
There is also the sense of something “aware of” them.
But can you actually find this watcher as a separate thing?
Where is it located? Does it have a shape, a boundary, a color, a sound?
Is there any direct evidence of a separate entity doing the watching, or is there just knowing happening… without an owner?

Can this “watcher” itself be watched?
If you notice the feeling of “I am the observer,” isn’t that also just another arising? something showing up in awareness?

(If it can be seen, then it’s not the ultimate seer.)

Yes, that sounds right! Only a flow, thought, disappearance. It does feel like I'm managing my thoughts, and then I get a feeling. This feeling is kind of a sense, that I'm not managing and that it just flows.

It does. Just flow. No do-er needed. The manager has always been an overlay, an illusion.

Much love,
Becca

[Porky]

Hi Becca,

But can you actually find this watcher as a separate thing?

Not really a separate thing, just part of the whole awareness thing going on!
I can feel the watcher when I'm experiencing all sensations plus thought.
When the thought comes in, I am very aware of this witness.

Where is it located?

At first it seems to be behind my eyes. Then the rest of my body goes numb and the sense of something behind my eyes is seeing and hearing.

Does it have a shape, a boundary, a color, a sound?

No, it has no shape or color but it seems like a boundary, until I begin feeling it then it expands like an energy arising from my body without a boundary.

Is there any direct evidence of a separate entity doing the watching, or is there just knowing happening… without an owner?

It seems like it's just a knowing happening. I'm not sensing an owner. It also can be brought to my attention if I think? about it. More and more it just shows up.

Can this “watcher” itself be watched?

Yes, If I can sense it does that count as being watched by me or is it my consciousness experiencing its presence?

If you notice the feeling of “I am the observer,” isn’t that also just another arising? something showing up in awareness?

It doesn't feel like me. The observer maybe a part of me, yet it seems more aware than I am usually. Ordinary sensations seem to more without thought when the observer takes over, except for OHMs which also seem to take me out of thought.

Thanks, and have a great day!
Porky

[graceabounds]

This is beautiful looking Porky, you’re describing a very subtle, transitional stage in seeing through the sense of self. The fact that you can sense this “watcher,” that it has no shape or color, expands without boundary, and yet feels like “just knowing happening”, this is pointing right up to the edge of identification itself.

At first, the watcher seems located “behind the eyes,” but when felt into, it expands, as though it’s not bound to a point. This is a strong clue: the sense of a “location” is just another habit of mind, not something real.

It seems like it's just a knowing happening. I'm not sensing an owner.

Yes. There’s only knowing. Awareness. No watcher separate from what’s known. The “watcher” isn’t doing anything! it’s not managing thoughts, not deciding sensations. It’s just another name for awareness noticing itself.

Right now, close your eyes for a moment.
Notice sensations, sounds, thoughts. Let them appear and disappear.
Now, turn attention toward what you’ve been calling “the watcher.”
Where does awareness begin? Where does it end?
Sit until it expands again like yesterday… boundary-less, without edges.
Is there a “you” that has awareness?
Or is there JUST THIS, and everything — thoughts, sensations, sounds, even the sense of a watcher — appears within it?

If you sit with that, there’s often this subtle “flip” where the watcher isn’t “behind the eyes” anymore. Instead, there’s only this, and the watcher, the body, the sounds, and the thoughts are all inside this.

Let me know how it goes.

Much love.