Looking for a final push

[Raweir]

So how do you know its there then?

I can see the thought, but there isn't anything there waiting for the thought to appear into it.

Other than existing – what can they actually do? Watch the hand reach for drink. See if it seamlessly does it or does it on command!

This blows my mind, especially with important choices when the thoughts are racing trying to figure out what to do, and then whatever happens would have happened, whatever the thoughts said.

It's difficult to conclude that thoughts make the body move, there's really no basis for it.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

I can see the thought, but there isn't anything there waiting for the thought to appear into it.

So before thought – there is nothing?

This blows my mind, especially with important choices when the thoughts are racing trying to figure out what to do, and then whatever happens would have happened, whatever the thoughts said.

Where is the separation? Doing happens, thinking happens, experiencing happens. BUT to what or who? Or does it just happen? Do you experience pre-ordained anything? Do you experience fate? Or are they just thoughts, beliefs and concepts? Fate, pre-ordained etc suggests something else and ‘you’ – in other words a separation. Do you see that thoughts separate – yes? Now out of thought – is there separation?

Try this:
Describe the experience of seeing step-by-step. In seeing, what is being experienced? What is happening when "seeing" is happening? What is doing the seeing? What is being seen? What does "seeing" consists of? Go into detail. Describe the actual, direct experience of seeing. Turn up that inner magnifying glass to observe what's happening in direct experience. Do you first perceive the object using some other sense, and then see it later? Can you find a dividing line between the object and the seeing of it? Or are the object and the seeing of it inseparable? Is there an entity called "you" experiencing the seeing? Can you find a dividing line between "you" and seeing? Or is there only seeing? What do you see about the thought, "I'm seeing that object"? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" the seeing and an object? Or is there just one experience of seeing, with no one as a seer. Look closely.
Try it with various sights e.g. out of the window at a distant view. See if you can find a way to separate the object from the seeing and the seeing from the seer. Where does one start and the other end?

It's difficult to conclude that thoughts make the body move, there's really no basis for it.

So – are you clear with this now? There is no controller of movement?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

So before thought – there is nothing?

Yes, but I would rather say that there is no such thing as 'before thought'. When there is no sound, there is silence, but silence is just what we call the non-existence of sound. So you could say 'before sound there is silence' but it's not like there is silence waiting for sounds to come.

Where is the separation? Doing happens, thinking happens, experiencing happens. BUT to what or who? Or does it just happen? Do you experience pre-ordained anything? Do you experience fate? Or are they just thoughts, beliefs and concepts? Fate, pre-ordained etc suggests something else and ‘you’ – in other words a separation. Do you see that thoughts separate – yes? Now out of thought – is there separation?

No I don't believe in destiny or any of that, I just meant that the conclusion being drawn is that thought has no impact on the actions of the body.

As for the separation, I don't really understand what it means, I don't see everything as one.

Try this:

Yeah there's not much to describe if I only take experience. It does feel like the object (a chimney) is 'there' and it's being seen from 'here', it feels like there is some distance, but then maybe the distance can be a part of the panorama too. It doesn't make sense to talk about seeing without that which is seen, seeing implies something which is seen, so they aren't separate. The same with a seer, there is no seer without seeing and seen.

So – are you clear with this now? There is no controller of movement?

I think so, maybe I need to get used to the idea, but I don't think there is anything else to point to.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

Yes, but I would rather say that there is no such thing as 'before thought'. When there is no sound, there is silence, but silence is just what we call the non-existence of sound. So you could say 'before sound there is silence' but it's not like there is silence waiting for sounds to come.

YES! Well seen.

No I don't believe in destiny or any of that, I just meant that the conclusion being drawn is that thought has no impact on the actions of the body.

Belief is a thought - what is experienced? So are you clear with this now? Anything unclear with this?

As for the separation, I don't really understand what it means, I don't see everything as one.

Yeah there's not much to describe if I only take experience. It does feel like the object (a chimney) is 'there' and it's being seen from 'here', it feels like there is some distance, but then maybe the distance can be a part of the panorama too. It doesn't make sense to talk about seeing without that which is seen, seeing implies something which is seen, so they aren't separate. The same with a seer, there is no seer without seeing and seen.

OK – you have looked at seeing and found no separation? Try hearing.

Sit comfortably near an open window and listen. Listen to all the sounds. How do you know they are there? What is your direct experience of ‘sound’? List your direct experience. Is it sensation again? Is it thought again? Look very closely. Which comes first the sensation or the thoughts? Look at how thoughts try and take over, try and label, try and explain, add story. Don’t pay attention to the thoughts just look at what they do, when they come in. See if you can catch the thought "those are birds’, or the habitual thought "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with this. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening?

Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you," doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I", hearing and a sound? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer. Look closely. Try it with various sounds. See if you can find a way to separate the sound from the hearing and the hearing from the hearer. Where does one start and the other end? Re look at the thought, "I'm hearing that sound". Does it describe your direct experience?

think so, maybe I need to get used to the idea, but I don't think there is anything else to point to.

Yes – keep re testing and verifying till you are clear. Keep looking for the controller.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

Hello

Belief is a thought - what is experienced? So are you clear with this now? Anything unclear with this?

I think I'm as clear as I'm going to be. There is no evidence that the body is commanded to move by thoughts and it moves without thought most of the time.

Try hearing.

Yeah the first thing I heard were cars and I saw the thought immediately label the sound, then a child shouted and thought labelled it again. Then an airplane.

But yes, I can't find a separate hearer, sound, and heard. And when I close my eyes and try to find a location of the sound, I can't find it. They're kind of like thoughts in that sense, they are just 'there' (or maybe 'here' is better).

"I'm hearing that sound". Does it describe your direct experience?

No, it's funny to even think of sound as an object.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

I think I'm as clear as I'm going to be. There is no evidence that the body is commanded to move by thoughts and it moves without thought most of the time.

Is there still a time when thought does make movement? Shall we look at it?

But yes, I can't find a separate hearer, sound, and heard. And when I close my eyes and try to find a location of the sound, I can't find it. They're kind of like thoughts in that sense, they are just 'there' (or maybe 'here' is better).

Well seen! Now you get the idea – have a play around with taste, smell and touch. What do you notice? Found any separation yet outside of thought?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

Hello

Is there still a time when thought does make movement? Shall we look at it?

There is just a problem accepting that thought doesn't cause anything.

Well seen! Now you get the idea – have a play around with taste, smell and touch. What do you notice? Found any separation yet outside of thought?

Hmmm, these three seem to have location more than the others. Smells feel like they are in the nose, tastes in the mouth and touches at the touching place.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

There is just a problem accepting that thought doesn't cause anything.

For who or what? What cant accept? Thought? Do you see this thought? Can accepting be any more controlled than anything else? Who or what is there to do any accepting?

OK – so you said earlier that most movement was done automatically – yes? So when isn’t it? Pick one movement doesn’t matter what it is. Watch it like a cat watches a mouse hole. When does the command thought come in before, during or after? Just because there is a thought there – does it actually cause the movement? (Referring back to the lift again).

If thought controlled movement would there be any autopilot?

Hmmm, these three seem to have location more than the others. Smells feel like they are in the nose, tastes in the mouth and touches at the touching place.

Shut your eyes when you test them. Is the location still there? Or is there just sensation with thought saying ‘here’ or ‘inside’ etc. How much is memory playing a part in labelling here? Have a look.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

For who or what? What cant accept? Thought? Do you see this thought? Can accepting be any more controlled than anything else? Who or what is there to do any accepting?

Yeah it must be just a thought of non-acceptance.

OK – so you said earlier that most movement was done automatically – yes? So when isn’t it? Pick one movement doesn’t matter what it is. Watch it like a cat watches a mouse hole. When does the command thought come in before, during or after? Just because there is a thought there – does it actually cause the movement? (Referring back to the lift again).

No there is nothing suggesting that thought causes the movement. So the thoughts are going to keep coming claiming everything regardless. There is just an expectation that the thoughts that claim movement would stop, as if the voice in the lift was turned off.

If thought controlled movement would there be any autopilot?

No, and usually the sensation of autopilot is to be involved in deep thought/daydreaming about something different than the task, so thoughts about the task can't be present.

Shut your eyes when you test them. Is the location still there? Or is there just sensation with thought saying ‘here’ or ‘inside’ etc. How much is memory playing a part in labelling here? Have a look.

Yeah it's memory labeling the location, just seems much more prevalent than the other two.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

Yeah it must be just a thought of non-acceptance.

Must be? Did you check?

No there is nothing suggesting that thought causes the movement. So the thoughts are going to keep coming claiming everything regardless. There is just an expectation that the thoughts that claim movement would stop, as if the voice in the lift was turned off.

Can you see that expectation clearly now? We pick up some lovely ideas about what and how things are supposed to be – thoughts collect them with a nice story of what life will be like when ….. etc. Can you see that? Thoughts swing from past to future in a blink of an eye – this one would be a future thought! But what is actually experienced here – do you experience thoughts coming up again and again claiming movement? And yet there is another thought saying this should stop! LOL.

Yeah it's memory labeling the location, just seems much more prevalent than the other two.

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed. Feel the Direct Experience of sitting there. Notice thoughts thinking, labelling and explaining. Notice memory too. Notice sensations experiencing. Notice the sensation of bottom on chair – what is that – a thought? Notice the ‘me’ ‘mine labels e.g. this is my bottom – but look closely at that sensation labelling – is it yours, or just coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. Is it the thought that wants to own? How many sensations do you notice? 2? One bottom sensation, and one chair sensation? How is that possible? Where does one sensation end and another begin? Locate that line. Can you feel that line? Or is that thought? Can you sense that line – or is that thought explaining the sensation?

Eyes closed. Turn your attention to your skin. Do you have Direct Experience of it being outside?

Do we experience sensations or do we experience sensing? For us to experience a sensation it would have to be independently walking around. Do you experience a sensation inside another sensation? Do you experience a perception inside another perception? A sensation inside a perception, a perception inside a sensation? Do you experience a body in the world and a mind in the body? How can a body be in the world and a mind in a body? Do you experience a thought inside a perception or a sensation? How can you experience a thought inside a body or inside the world? Experience has no inside or outside – it is just experience seamlessly experiencing.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

Must be? Did you check?

Yeah, thoughts come saying that it can't be true that thought doesn't control movements, that is the non-acceptance, only thought can accept or not, but then, acceptance is thought-based anyway.

Can you see that expectation clearly now? We pick up some lovely ideas about what and how things are supposed to be – thoughts collect them with a nice story of what life will be like when ….. etc. Can you see that? Thoughts swing from past to future in a blink of an eye – this one would be a future thought! But what is actually experienced here – do you experience thoughts coming up again and again claiming movement? And yet there is another thought saying this should stop! LOL.

Yeah big time, there are expectation thoughts all day long about this and how it will make things better. But to be honest, I don't see how anything can change now, thoughts come and go not doing/affecting anything, the body moves and thought claims the movements of the body and thought thinks that it can affect the body, the belief in this is just more thoughts, so the belief can't be changed, and yet, people go on youtube and write blogs claiming that awakening changed their lives and they 'died before they died' (which sounds so dramatic and transcendent).

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed ....

No I can't separate the sensation of the bottom from the sensation of the chair or my arms from the table.

Eyes closed. Turn your attention to your skin. Do you have Direct Experience of it being outside?

No, the inside/outside division is sight (and maybe sound) based.

Do we experience sensations or do we experience sensing? For us to experience a sensation it would have to be independently walking around. Do you experience a sensation inside another sensation? Do you experience a perception inside another perception? A sensation inside a perception, a perception inside a sensation?

It doesn't make sense to talk about a sensation on its own not being sensed. And even less about sensations inside other sensations, not sure what that would look/sound/taste/smell/feel like.

Do you experience a body in the world and a mind in the body? How can a body be in the world and a mind in a body? Do you experience a thought inside a perception or a sensation? How can you experience a thought inside a body or inside the world? Experience has no inside or outside – it is just experience seamlessly experiencing.

The body is in the world as much as everything else is in the world, but I guess by world you mean everything but the body, so the body is part of the world I would say. As for the mind, which is just thoughts, they are just experienced like all other sensations, like a sixth sense, I couldn't say where they are, like if you asked me 'Where is the sensation of sight', it just wouldn't make sense.

Yeah the body is just an experience like everything else, but it seems like the body is required for experience, which seems to suggest that there is a sensation inside a sensation, but is that just a concept? I mean, if I didn't have eyes, I wouldn't have the sensation of sight, so I guess this is what makes the body feel separate.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

Yeah big time, there are expectation thoughts all day long about this and how it will make things better. But to be honest, I don't see how anything can change now, thoughts come and go not doing/affecting anything, the body moves and thought claims the movements of the body and thought thinks that it can affect the body, the belief in this is just more thoughts, so the belief can't be changed, and yet, people go on youtube and write blogs claiming that awakening changed their lives and they 'died before they died' (which sounds so dramatic and transcendent).

OK – look at what you just wrote – expectations thoughts all day long………and yet there are people on youtube claiming transcendence!!!!! Do you see? Another thought expectation! Thought wants what ‘they’ have! Track that thought down! SEE it. Then what happens to it once it is seen?

No I can't separate the sensation of the bottom from the sensation of the chair or my arms from the table.

OK – so what is ‘other’?

No, the inside/outside division is sight (and maybe sound) based.

Is it or is it thought based? Check again and make sure.

Yeah the body is just an experience like everything else, but it seems like the body is required for experience, which seems to suggest that there is a sensation inside a sensation, but is that just a concept? I mean, if I didn't have eyes, I wouldn't have the sensation of sight, so I guess this is what makes the body feel separate.

How do you know you have sight? Do the eyes actually see? Do ears actually hear? Is this what is experienced? Can a face, hand or foot know or experience something? Can a face, hand or foot hear, taste, smell or see these words? Or are the face, hand and foot known and experienced along with everything else?

How does seeing the body differ from the seeing an object exercise? Our direct experience of the body is not the same as the idea we have about it. We only see fragments and we collect them together from memory to make a whole. Because we think it whole it gives us the impression of solidity, permanence and reality. But that is not our direct experience. The fragments also are never seen without an aspect of the world – e.g. I am writing this at a computer and I see my hands writing surrounded by desk, keyboard etc. The total visual field – one seamless whole, made only of seeing. It is thought that artificially divides. Just as the screen is one seamless whole. From the point of view of the object – all items are separate, but from the point of view of the screen there is nothing separate or independent object there is just the screen.
Test this.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

OK – look at what you just wrote – expectations thoughts all day long………and yet there are people on youtube claiming transcendence!!!!! Do you see? Another thought expectation! Thought wants what ‘they’ have! Track that thought down! SEE it. Then what happens to it once it is seen?

It passes on like all thoughts.

OK – so what is ‘other’?

It can't be answered from direct experience, only in concepts.

Is it or is it thought based? Check again and make sure.

If I go back to your original question:

"Eyes closed. Turn your attention to your skin. Do you have Direct Experience of it being outside?"

I would have to ask what you mean by outside, but assuming you mean outside of me, again, it doesn't really make sense when just looking at direct experience.

How do you know you have sight? Do the eyes actually see? Do ears actually hear? Is this what is experienced? Can a face, hand or foot know or experience something? Can a face, hand or foot hear, taste, smell or see these words? Or are the face, hand and foot known and experienced along with everything else?

It's true that I don't experience the eyes seeing or ears hearing and I'm not saying the eyes are seeing and the ears are hearing.....but.....it seems like they are catalysts for experience. And there is a belief that if the body was damaged, such as going blind, experience will lose a component, seeing can't happen without the eyes, and I know this is a belief or imagination, but it seems justified (and justification is also a belief).

How does seeing the body differ from the seeing an object exercise?

I see that experience doesn't happen to the body, that the body is experienced, but that seems primitive, like we're trying to go backwards, dismissing science and knowledge. And of course that's all thought-based, but anyway.

xx

[Sarah7]

Hi Daniel

OK – so what is ‘other’?

It can't be answered from direct experience, only in concepts.

How does other differ from looking at an object? For instance you experience one seamless seeing – yes? Now instead of a potted plant – or a table etc replace with a person. Is there is difference or is it still one seamless seeing happening? Where do you end and someone else starts? Does this make sense?

It's true that I don't experience the eyes seeing or ears hearing and I'm not saying the eyes are seeing and the ears are hearing.....but.....it seems like they are catalysts for experience. And there is a belief that if the body was damaged, such as going blind, experience will lose a component, seeing can't happen without the eyes, and I know this is a belief or imagination, but it seems justified (and justification is also a belief).

I
and

I see that experience doesn't happen to the body, that the body is experienced, but that seems primitive, like we're trying to go backwards, dismissing science and knowledge. And of course that's all thought-based, but anyway.

Not trying to go backwards – that would be story. Just trying to pinpoint exactly what is experienced – not what is thought. Do you see the difference? Do you actually experience science and knowledge outside of thought? Not saying there is no room for science and thought – but what we do here is look at what is actually experienced. Not saying they don’t exist – not saying eyes don’t exist – am simply asking what is experienced. Science actually agrees that eyes don’t see and ears don’t hear. So what you actually experience is seeing and the thought that eyes are the catalyst – yes?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Raweir]

How does other differ from looking at an object? For instance you experience one seamless seeing – yes? Now instead of a potted plant – or a table etc replace with a person. Is there is difference or is it still one seamless seeing happening? Where do you end and someone else starts? Does this make sense?

Yeah I can see what your saying, a person is just part of it, but it seems more complex because I can interact with a person more so than with an object. Although the interaction can be reduced to just the sense perceptions.

Where do you end and someone else starts?

This is difficult to answer. I don't really know what to say, all that comes to mind is non-dual cliches but I won't bore you with those.

So what you actually experience is seeing and the thought that eyes are the catalyst – yes?

Yeah in experience I don't know of 'eyes'. If I look in the mirror I see the colours of the eyes and the face (there is also no indication that the image in the mirror exists outside of the mirror, or that the image is a reflection). Then the belief that those particular colours are eyes and that if they are damaged there will be no more colours is thought, and of course I can't know that, it's just a future projection based on learned information.

xx