Greetings!

[Anastacia42]

Excellent.

"Illusions" by Richard Bach would also be relevant. "Only a play" is illustrated there, as well.

Loving,

[Iconoclast]

"Doesn't "ethics" apply to all?"
Nope. This will be clearer to you when you SEE. Life is neutral & impartial. It just IS.

It seems a paradigm shift is necessary to "see" it.

[Iconoclast]

"Illusions" by Richard Bach would also be relevant. "Only a play" is illustrated there, as well.

Got it, tyvm.

[Anastacia42]

Yes, exactly. An all-encompassing paradigm shift.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, exactly. An all-encompassing paradigm shift.

Ahh!

[Iconoclast]

Yes, exactly. An all-encompassing paradigm shift.

Ahh!

[Iconoclast]

I listened to "Beginning Thinking" on Dropbox.
..
I trace the thoughts to the place where they begin and try to rest there.

I don't feel any rest there to be honest. Anyway still I will continue doing it.

Who knows...

[Anastacia42]

Okay, I'm going to suggest that you ONLY do the ones that feel restful, because if you are not resting, you will not SEE. You MUST be relaxed.

Loving,

[Iconoclast]

Ok, I see.

[Iconoclast]

"Every time something seems to be missing, the thought that perceives the missing thing always has an “I” in it!" (Greg, Gateless Gatecrashers)

This is so true!

Nowadays I do not think about "myself" as often and I feel far better.

This experience plus the statement above are such valuable pointers for me, to see "what" causes "suffering" on a daily basis.

[Iconoclast]

1. That “I” never existed is not to say that nothing exists, nor is it to say that Greg doesn’t exist. What it is saying is that Greg as perceived by the thinking mind does not exist. That Greg is only imaginary, a fabrication of mind that is no more real than the details of a memory.

2. True, conditions that give rise to a memory are real, but the content of the memory is not. In the same way, the content of the mental image, the promise of Greg is not real. Because the content of that mental image of Greg was promised to be real and to exist, and that content is now known to be illusory, it can be said that Greg does not exist. The promise was empty. “I” is an idea in the head, a mental concept, and that is all. So “I” only exists in so far as the idea exists.

(Greg, Gateless Gatecrashers)

I need to investigate more closely what these sentences really mean.

Re the first statement, it seems it is implied that there are two "Greg"s,

a. "Greg" without being thought.
b. Greg as being thought in the mind.

It seems it's implied here that (a) is real while (b) is unreal. Right?

What would remain from Greg without being thought, and would that be Greg? can it be named, or would naming be irrelevant since naming is in the past (memory)?

Re the second statement "conditions that give rise to a memory are real, but the content of the memory is not."

I couldn't grasp this completely. If conditions that give rise to a memory are real, how come the content of the memory is not real? What is meant by "real" here? DE??

Does the statement mean the conditions that give rise to a memory are "factual", but those facts are not part of our DE in this moment??

But even if they are not part of our DE, they would still be "real" as long as they reflect reality correctly, truthfully.

Smth might not be DE but its content might be empirically true.

I'd be very glad if you could clarify these points.

[Anastacia42]

Sure.

There is no "Greg" ' only content of thought, which is not "real." There's no "Greg" without thought.

"Real" is a slippery & misleading word. I avoid it.

If conditions that give rise to a memory are real, how come the content of the memory is not real? What is meant by "real" here? DE??

Does the statement mean the conditions that give rise to a memory are "factual", but those facts are not part of our DE in this moment??

Pretty much.

Direct Experience Now is (period!). "real" if you must use that word, but it's better without it.

Smth might not be DE but its content might be empirically true.

Not possible.

I'm not going to engage in all of thIs logic and definitions and analysis paralysis. Your SEEING is NOT THERE.

Stop this. It's USELESS.

Just. Simply. Look.

NO WORDS. LOOK.

Loving,

[Anastacia42]

Time first. Then Memory.


Time Exercise

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 only thoughts about ‘time’?

Loving,

[Anastacia42]

And yes...

This is so true!

Nowadays I do not think about "myself" as often and I feel far better.

This experience plus the statement above are such valuable pointers for me, to see "what" causes "suffering" on a daily basis.

Good.

Loving,

[Iconoclast]

"I'm not going to engage in all of thIs logic and definitions and
is NOT THERE.

'm not going to engage in all of thIs logic and definitions and analysis paralysis. Your SEEING is NOT THERE.

Stop this. It's USELESS.

Just. Simply. Look.

NO WORDS. LOOK."


Well, I need to acknowledge that İ have no awareness of the difference between what happens now and the memory of it two seconds later.

There is some difference for sure that everyone knows, or seems to know.

But other than that, what is different exactly? I'm asking this to myself.

Let me explore it much more closely:

What is real now. What is real about reality? :)