Looking for a guide.

[kdvoren]

Hi John. I hope your family emergency is resolving positively.
Thanks for your comprehensive response.
Suffering is felt only when experience is referenced to an "I". Without an "I" there is no suffering. just experience as it is.
"I" exists in and as a thought. When looked for, it is not found. Actually,"I" seems more like an illusion than a thought, in that it feels like it exists, but really doesn't. Suffering disappears when the "I" is seen through.
The timing of this topic (suffering) is pertinent, as suffering has been present.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Ken

You're doing a really great job so far, and you're remaining well focussed on direct experience.

I hope your family emergency is resolving positively.

It has resolved positively, thank you for caring :)

Suffering is felt only when experience is referenced to an "I". Without an "I" there is no suffering. just experience as it is.
"I" exists in and as a thought. When looked for, it is not found. Actually,"I" seems more like an illusion than a thought, in that it feels like it exists, but really doesn't. Suffering disappears when the "I" is seen through.
The timing of this topic (suffering) is pertinent, as suffering has been present.

Do you see that even the process of "looking" is not being done by anybody?

Suffering is showing up, and thoughts about "looking" are showing up, and looking for the "sufferer" is happening, and the lack of an "I"/"sufferer" is being noticed, and the suffering is disappearing.

This is not some magic trick that a somebody is doing. Experience is just being seen for what it truly is - without the veil that thought throws over it.

Do you see that even if the "looking" didn't happen, there was never someone suffering? Can you see that the suffering was NEVER there - even if the "looking" didn't happen? Can you see that the suffering was only ever in thought, and about an imagined thought-centre?

Finally, dis you have any choice about "looking" at the suffering? :)

[kdvoren]

Hi Ken

You're doing a really great job so far, and you're remaining well focussed on direct experience.

I hope your family emergency is resolving positively.

It has resolved positively, thank you for caring :)

Suffering is felt only when experience is referenced to an "I". Without an "I" there is no suffering. just experience as it is.
"I" exists in and as a thought. When looked for, it is not found. Actually,"I" seems more like an illusion than a thought, in that it feels like it exists, but really doesn't. Suffering disappears when the "I" is seen through.
The timing of this topic (suffering) is pertinent, as suffering has been present.

Do you see that even the process of "looking" is not being done by anybody?

Yes, Thanks for the reminder.

Suffering is showing up, and thoughts about "looking" are showing up, and looking for the "sufferer" is happening, and the lack of an "I"/"sufferer" is being noticed, and the suffering is disappearing.

Yes

This is not some magic trick that a somebody is doing. Experience is just being seen for what it truly is - without the veil that thought throws over it.

Do you see that even if the "looking" didn't happen, there was never someone suffering? Can you see that the suffering was NEVER there - even if the "looking" didn't happen? Can you see that the suffering was only ever in thought, and about an imagined thought-centre?

This one requires more investigation. Before the looking, there was a lot of suffering, even though it didn't belong to anybody, even though it disappeared after nobody was found. The suffering was intense, even though intensity doesn't validate reality.

Finally, dis you have any choice about "looking" at the suffering? :)

Can choices be made without anybody making them?

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Ken

Can choices be made without anybody making them?

You tell me. Take a look at direct experience and tell me whether there is even such a thing as choice, or whether "choice" is something that thought makes up about things that happen.

A thought pops up which says "I feel like a cup of coffee" and making a cup of coffee happens. Was there really a "choice" about anything?

[Empty Mirror]

A thought springs up which says "Should I have tea or coffee?" and a thought springs up that says "I think I would prefer coffee".

Was there a thinker of those thoughts? Was there really a choice for anybody? Was there even a choice about the thought "Should I have tea or coffee?"?

What wasn't "Milo" offered?

What decided to offer only tea or coffee as the "choices"? What had any "choice" about coffee being "chosen"?

[kdvoren]

Very busy, and will respond soon.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Ken

Take a look at this link for information on how to use the quote function http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660 .

It may decrease the levels of frustration that show up when you reply ;)

[kdvoren]

Hi Ken

Take a look at this link for information on how to use the quote function http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660 .

It may decrease the levels of frustration that show up when you reply ;)

Thanks John. I actually figured this out just recently.

[kdvoren]

Hi Ken

Can choices be made without anybody making them?

You tell me. Take a look at direct experience and tell me whether there is even such a thing as choice, or whether "choice" is something that thought makes up about things that happen.

A thought pops up which says "I feel like a cup of coffee" and making a cup of coffee happens. Was there really a "choice" about anything?

No, choices only appear if they belong to somebody. The I thinks it makes choices.
Many references to "The I' are showing up in thinking. It feels like somebody is choosing to language it that way to release identification with the I. But maybe that's just happening. Again, it feels like somebody wants to get through somebodyness. Maybe that's just happening. When the "I" is referred to, instead of being thought of as the subject of the experience, then that identity is seen, and vanishes in the emptiness.
Note: There was another post before this one.

[kdvoren]

A thought springs up which says "Should I have tea or coffee?" and a thought springs up that says "I think I would prefer coffee".

Was there a thinker of those thoughts? Was there really a choice for anybody? Was there even a choice about the thought "Should I have tea or coffee?"?

No, No, No.

What wasn't "Milo" offered?

???

What decided to offer only tea or coffee as the "choices"? What had any "choice" about coffee being "chosen"?

[/quote
Nothing. Nothing.

Note: Two posts were made before this one.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Ken

You tell me. Take a look at direct experience and tell me whether there is even such a thing as choice, or whether "choice" is something that thought makes up about things that happen.

A thought pops up which says "I feel like a cup of coffee" and making a cup of coffee happens. Was there really a "choice" about anything?

No, choices only appear if they belong to somebody. The I thinks it makes choices.

There is no "I" to think anything. There is only a thought that says that there is an "I" that makes a choice. You've already discovered that you are not the thinker of thoughts, now can you find an I anywhere that could be thinking that it makes choices?

Many references to "The I' are showing up in thinking.

That's because thought is self-referencing. Thought refers to the "I" thought.

It feels like somebody is choosing to language it that way to release identification with the I.

But nothing can release identification with the "I" because the "I" is just a thought, and there is nothing that is trapped by that thought.

There is just the "I" thought and other thoughts that refer to it.

But maybe that's just happening. Again, it feels like somebody wants to get through somebodyness. Maybe that's just happening.

When you say it "feels like" what you actually mean is that thoughts about something having to let go of something show, up and feelings of frustration show up.

Is there really anything that is trapped, or anything that needs to let go of anything? Please check this with direct experience carefully before answering.

When the "I" is referred to, instead of being thought of as the subject of the experience, then that identity is seen, and vanishes in the emptiness.

So what you're really saying is that when there is a clear looking at direct experience, the "I" vanishes.

Note: There was another post before this one.

Ok, I've read all of the posts on the thread. You will be able to see whether everything that you intended to post appears on the thread.

A thought springs up which says "Should I have tea or coffee?" and a thought springs up that says "I think I would prefer coffee".

Was there a thinker of those thoughts? Was there really a choice for anybody? Was there even a choice about the thought "Should I have tea or coffee?"?

No, No, No.

Ok well then you have answered the question that you posed earlier. There is no choice, so there was never a need for a chooser.

What wasn't "Milo" offered?

???

I was trying to point out that even what you think of as free will and free choice is not really "free" because it is limited to what thought offers up. Thought only offered two options. It only offered tea or coffee. Why did thought not say "should I have tea, or coffee, or Milo, or water, or Coca-Cola, or milk, or Chai, etc, etc".

So the choice was not "free" it was limited to two options that popped up in thought - without any choice or thinker.

What decided to offer only tea or coffee as the "choices"? What had any "choice" about coffee being "chosen"?

Nothing. Nothing.

So your question about whether "choices can be made without anybody making" them is answered, hasn't it.

There are no choices. Choices are just something that thought says happen.

Note: Two posts were made before this one.

Please check the thread to make sure that you have answered all of the questions, and that all of what you wanted to post is showing on the thread.

Also, you can use the "preview" button before you post if you are using the full editor. It can help you to see what your post will look like when it is posted :)

[kdvoren]

This is indeed a quick reply. My immediate reaction to the last couple of exchanges is frustration, annoyance, and even boredom. The topic of free will was interesting at the beginning, seems tedious now. I thought I was in a good mood...maybe I'm not. I'll revisit this later, though I don't really even want to.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Ken

This is indeed a quick reply. My immediate reaction to the last couple of exchanges is frustration, annoyance, and even boredom. The topic of free will was interesting at the beginning, seems tedious now. I thought I was in a good mood...maybe I'm not. I'll revisit this later, though I don't really even want to.

Frustration, annoyance, and boredom are in the domain of thought only. I suggest that you take a very close look at the direct experience of "frustration", "annoyance", and "boredom", and see whether they exist anywhere but in thought.

We were addressing the topic of free will because you asked about it, and because it's a very important one. You asked the question "Can choices be made without anybody making them?"

Instead of answering the question, I got you to go through the process that we've just been through, so that you could see FOR YOURSELF that there is no such thing as "choice".

There is just whatever happens.

I asked you two questions in my previous post. Please answer them if you revisit this later. Or if you would prefer a different guide, please let me know, and I'll find one to take over your thread.

[kdvoren]

I've been really angry lately. There is much anger present.
I will revisit this later. This will be revisited later.
Thanks John

[kdvoren]

Hi Ken

You're doing a really great job so far, and you're remaining well focussed on direct experience.

I hope your family emergency is resolving positively.

It has resolved positively, thank you for caring :)

Suffering is felt only when experience is referenced to an "I". Without an "I" there is no suffering. just experience as it is.
"I" exists in and as a thought. When looked for, it is not found. Actually,"I" seems more like an illusion than a thought, in that it feels like it exists, but really doesn't. Suffering disappears when the "I" is seen through.
The timing of this topic (suffering) is pertinent, as suffering has been present.

Do you see that even the process of "looking" is not being done by anybody?

Yes. Good point. Sometimes I think the looker is I.

Suffering is showing up, and thoughts about "looking" are showing up, and looking for the "sufferer" is happening, and the lack of an "I"/"sufferer" is being noticed, and the suffering is disappearing.

This is not some magic trick that a somebody is doing. Experience is just being seen for what it truly is - without the veil that thought throws over it.

Do you see that even if the "looking" didn't happen, there was never someone suffering? Can you see that the suffering was NEVER there - even if the "looking" didn't happen? Can you see that the suffering was only ever in thought, and about an imagined thought-centre?

Finally, dis you have any choice about "looking" at the suffering? :)