Another guide please

[JonathanR]

Also Mark,

I do understand a reluctance to accept that 'self' exists only in thought if by this it would seem that the 'self' is being negated or denied. We are not denying or destroying anything. Has this idea been troubling you?

Regards,

Jon

[marka]

Hi Jon,
this:

I do understand a reluctance to accept that 'self' exists only in thought if by this it would seem that the 'self' is being negated or denied. We are not denying or destroying anything. Has this idea been troubling you?

you know, I think it has but in a subtle way. It's not like its been a prominent fear but it has been there in the background. Its the 'not knowing', the willingness just to go with it anyway.

How is it going with the sensation of reluctance? and the relaxing?

Still reluctant! Maybe linked to above.
Relaxing ...... I know if I do a long yoga session, or even a short one, then I will relax massively. Avoiding that as well - all part of the same reluctance I think.

However, your last two posts have helped tremendously, thanks for being there so much,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

When you say

. Its the 'not knowing', the willingness just to go with it anyway.

We are not here to persuade you of anything. It is for you to notice what's what. So if you mean, (as I think you do) that you are reluctant to accept the idea of 'self' as being only thoughts, I would say that is very sound. You shouldn't accept any idea that you can't check out yourself.

A few things come up immediately.

One is that we are not aiming to deny or contradict experience. We are not trying to 'get rid of self'. We are certainly not aiming to adopt new beliefs in any way shape or form. A person that adopts the notion ''self' is just thoughts' as a point of view or in a blind faith kind-of-way will not be seeing anything of value but instead thinking about it.

We are aiming to look for 'self' in order to discover something that has always been the case, just not noticed until now.. So we don't actually loose or give up anything.

In discovering that 'self' is no more than thoughts (about having a self) this is still not in any way 'getting rid of self'. Whatever 'self' has been experienced until now is almost certain to continue to manifest in experience, whether it is 'seen through' or not. Do you see why?

Thoughts are PART of experience taken as a whole. Just as the sensations of the real pumpkin are the direct stuff of experience, here and now, so too are the thoughts of the thought-pumpkin. Thoughts do actually happen. It's just the content, what thoughts say, that are suspect. We saw how thoughts could not be prevented from appearing, didn't we? Is there a 'self' that could stop the thought of 'self' from appearing?

If the thought 'me' appears, even though a 'self' doesn't make that thought appear, then do you see how such thoughts are highly likely to continue to pop up? Many peole imagine that somehow it is all about 'getting rid of self or getting rid of thoughts' and a spiritual moment or experience of 'getting rid' is sought as evidence of success at this ,. But actually it simply about noticing that 'self' is an impression created within thought. Always has been. Nothing actually changes. It is simply noticed that thought has always been assuming a 'self'. Does this make sense?

Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

So if you mean, (as I think you do) that you are reluctant to accept the idea of 'self' as being only thoughts, I would say that is very sound.

Yes. That is it.

We are aiming to look for 'self' in order to discover something that has always been the case, just not noticed until now.. So we don't actually loose or give up anything.

this helps clarify, thank you.

Whatever 'self' has been experienced until now is almost certain to continue to manifest in experience, whether it is 'seen through' or not. Do you see why?

Because self is just thoughts and thoughts will continue anyway.

Just as the sensations of the real pumpkin are the direct stuff of experience, here and now, so too are the thoughts of the thought-pumpkin. Thoughts do actually happen.

you seem to be saying that thoughts are the direct stuff of the thought experience. The thought experience is real (this is me just clarifying).

We saw how thoughts could not be prevented from appearing, didn't we? Is there a 'self' that could stop the thought of 'self' from appearing?

No, no self that could stop the thought of self appearing.

If the thought 'me' appears, even though a 'self' doesn't make that thought appear, then do you see how such thoughts are highly likely to continue to pop up?

highly likely because they do, as in habit, so would not likely change? Yes, I see this.

But actually it simply about noticing that 'self' is an impression created within thought. Always has been. Nothing actually changes. It is simply noticed that thought has always been assuming a 'self'. Does this make sense?

Yes, this makes sense, intellectually it makes perfect sense. And I'm trying to think this through, to link it to experience .... like the experience of the thought pumpkin and thought apple .... they were impressions created within thought.
Its just that I think I am waiting for something to happen and its this (from the above quote):
'It is simply noticed that thought has always been assuming a 'self''
as in I am expecting an experiential realisation of this.
Which may not be the case at all!

I will continue to work with this Jon, this dialogue is really helping.
Many thanks,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Whatever 'self' has been experienced until now is almost certain to continue to manifest in experience, whether it is 'seen through' or not. Do you see why?

Because self is just thoughts and thoughts will continue anyway.

Yes.

Just as the sensations of the real pumpkin are the direct stuff of experience, here and now, so too are the thoughts of the thought-pumpkin. Thoughts do actually happen.

you seem to be saying that thoughts are the direct stuff of the thought experience. The thought experience is real (this is me just clarifying).

The appearing of thoughts is quite real. Like the appearing of clouds in the sky. To be clear, I am saying that if we take 'experience' as a whole. then to be accurate about it, seeing, hearing, etc, are part direct experience as a whole and the appearance and disappearance of thoughts is also part of experience as whole. The commentary ABOUT experience that is supplied by thought is simply a commentary. This content is not what is actually happening in immediate experience though there are stories all about what is supposed to be happening, including 'self'.

Yes, this makes sense, intellectually it makes perfect sense. And I'm trying to think this through, to link it to experience

I'll devise or find a few exercises to assist. It can only be 'seen', not 'worked out' in thought.

like the experience of the thought pumpkin and thought apple .... they were impressions created within thought.

That's more like it. But best to repeat anything like this directly NOW rather than rely on the corridors of memory to provide clarity.

Its just that I think I am waiting for something to happen and its this (from the above quote):
'It is simply noticed that thought has always been assuming a 'self''
as in I am expecting an experiential realisation of this.
Which may not be the case at all!

Good to notice. Expectation is a kind of belief, isn't it? A theory about the way things should happen. Is waiting a good idea?

Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

Good day Jon,

Is waiting a good idea?

no, may never happen, may be waiting for ever, also, not necessarily linked the actual reality, now, which is actually happening.

The commentary ABOUT experience that is supplied by thought is simply a commentary. This content is not what is actually happening in immediate experience though there are stories all about what is supposed to be happening, including 'self'.

Yes, because the commentary is about this 'self', how good or bad they are perceived to be doing etc., how and what others are judged as doing etc.

I'll devise or find a few exercises to assist.

yes please,

take care,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

OK, Let's now concentrate attention on exercises.

Sit down comfortably somewhere and begin to notice what is heard. Perhaps quiet breathing? Perhaps sounds nearby and one or two further away?

Is there 'a person' 'doing hearing' or is there just hearing?

Is there an experience of 'ears hearing' or would you say there is the hearing alone?

Is there a thought 'I hear'? Or 'it's me hearing'? Something like that?

Now, with eyes closed, focus on a more distant sound, a car going by outside perhaps or some voices? Is it possible to find an edge or division between 'you' and the sound experienced? Is there a 'hearer' and a 'sound being heard' or is this experience seamless?

Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

Hello Jon,

I did this today, the hearing exercise.

Is there 'a person' 'doing hearing' or is there just hearing?

just hearing. I looked for the 'hearer', no one doing hearing.

Is there an experience of 'ears hearing' or would you say there is the hearing alone?

just hearing alone - surprised me - no ears hearing.

Is there a thought 'I hear'? Or 'it's me hearing'? Something like that?

Only once, when I listened to my breathing - thought was ' I am listening to my breathing'.

Is it possible to find an edge or division between 'you' and the sound experienced? Is there a 'hearer' and a 'sound being heard' or is this experience seamless?

No edge, no division. A seamless experience - sounds all around.

thanks,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

just hearing. I looked for the 'hearer', no one doing hearing.

Good.

just hearing alone - surprised me - no ears hearing.

Yup. Good. Can 'ears' be found 'doing hearing' or is 'ears hearing' a kind of afterthought, commentary, announcement added on by thought?

Is there a thought 'I hear'? Or 'it's me hearing'? Something like that?

Only once, when I listened to my breathing - thought was ' I am listening to my breathing'.

And was that thought a sort of added-on comment on the actual experience of hearing?
Did a 'self' materialise to 'do the listening' at any stage. Was an arrival of a 'me' noticed or did listening just happen with the comment 'I am listening' popping up as a thought?

No edge, no division. A seamless experience - sounds all around.

Good.

Jon.

[marka]

Can 'ears' be found 'doing hearing' or is 'ears hearing' a kind of afterthought, commentary, announcement added on by thought?
I have not considered this before. This is strange, it is ears that have the physical mechanics for hearing. But I can only agree with you - hearing happens, thought adds on, comments on what is happening.
And was that thought a sort of added-on comment on the actual experience of hearing?
Yes, most definitely was, hearing had/was happening anyway, regardless of the comment.
Did a 'self' materialise to 'do the listening' at any stage. Was an arrival of a 'me' noticed or did listening just happen with the comment 'I am listening' popping up as a thought?
No self materialising, no arrival of a me, listening happened and the comment occurred as thought.

[marka]

Hi Jon,
oops! Pressed the wrong button .... should look like this:

Can 'ears' be found 'doing hearing' or is 'ears hearing' a kind of afterthought, commentary, announcement added on by thought?

I have not considered this before. This is strange, it is ears that have the physical mechanics for hearing. But I can only agree with you - hearing happens, thought adds on, comments on what is happening.

And was that thought a sort of added-on comment on the actual experience of hearing?

Yes, most definitely was, hearing had/was happening anyway, regardless of the comment.

Did a 'self' materialise to 'do the listening' at any stage. Was an arrival of a 'me' noticed or did listening just happen with the comment 'I am listening' popping up as a thought?

No self materialising, no arrival of a me, listening happened and the comment occurred as thought.

Thank you for such great questions, it's really making me look and find surprising things - all of the above is surprising!

Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

I have not considered this before. This is strange, it is ears that have the physical mechanics for hearing. But I can only agree with you - hearing happens, thought adds on, comments on what is happening.

Great. And this can be extended,can't it? For example, is there a direct experience of 'eyes seeing' or is there simply seeing? Can a 'tongue' be found 'doing tasting' or is it just the sensation that is experienced?

No self materialising, no arrival of a me, listening happened and the comment occurred as thought.

Thank you for such great questions, it's really making me look and find surprising things - all of the above is surprising!

You are most welcome and yes, it really is quite mysterious and interesting, isn't it?

A comment occurred as a thought. The thought suggested that 'I am listening'. This idea is the content of the thought, what the thought is about, isn't it? Conventionally it is assumed without question that there really is a 'self' that is 'doing the listening', So what is going on?

Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

Hi Jon, hope you are well.

Been 'sitting with' this bit today:

The thought suggested that 'I am listening'. This idea is the content of the thought, what the thought is about, isn't it?

Yes, what the thought is about.

Conventionally it is assumed without question that there really is a 'self' that is 'doing the listening', So what is going on?

That is a question - what indeed?!
Well, first, there is evidence to show that 'I' or 'me' is simply the content of thoughts.
Next there is hearing which occurs automatically, without effort. The same with seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling.
(Although, I have noticed that it seems to take effort to really notice that this just happens!)
Also, thoughts occur automatically without effort.

As to how this is occurring, I have no idea! It's certainly not by any 'me'!

thanks,
Mark

[JonathanR]

Hi Mark,

I'm well, thanks.

Well, first, there is evidence to show that 'I' or 'me' is simply the content of thoughts.
Next there is hearing which occurs automatically, without effort. The same with seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling.
(Although, I have noticed that it seems to take effort to really notice that this just happens!)
Also, thoughts occur automatically without effort.

As to how this is occurring, I have no idea! It's certainly not by any 'me'!

It's good to notice that 'I' is the content of a story created in thought.
Good to see that the senses are simply happening and good to see that thoughts occur automatically.

What you say about this seeming to take effort...look at the possibility that even this idea is only a thought, along the lines of 'it's taking me effort to do this'. It's an irony that whilst this thought is believed there will tend to be the perception of a 'me' that is having to 'make effort', isn't it? It's almost funny when this bubble suddenly pops.

Notice that the moment it is seen that there is no 'self'' that could be 'doing hearing' or 'making hearing happen' all shred of effort tends to vanish too?

As to how this is occurring, I have no idea! It's certainly not by any 'me'!

Very good.

So now that no 'self' can be found, either in sensation or in the realm of thought (other than as the idea of a 'self'), is it possibe to find the 'doer'? Conventionally it is assumed that the 'self' is responsible for 'doing' all manner of things and 'making things happen', taking decisions, making choices, excercising free will. So what is going on? How do decisions happen?

Best wishes,

Jon.

[marka]

Hi Jon,

It's an irony that whilst this thought is believed there will tend to be the perception of a 'me' that is having to 'make effort', isn't it? It's almost funny when this bubble suddenly pops.

Hmm. Sometimes, of late, I have just really relaxed and then it is effortless .
That said, not sure I could state that 'the bubble has suddenly popped.' It's like I have times when there is simply no effort made and instead a relaxing into hearing, or seeing, or moving.

So now that no 'self' can be found, either in sensation or in the realm of thought (other than as the idea of a 'self'), is it possibe to find the 'doer'?

OK. I will look for this.

So what is going on? How do decisions happen?

I don't know. I have been noticing a bit today - like the decision that got me all indecisive! What was going on there? I don't know ... it seemed like a 'self' was having indecision ..... but I cannot say that I actually found that self.
To be honest, not sure entirely where to look!

thanks,
Mark