Path or No Path

[pwsamadhi]

If there was never a separate self then who/what is the "we' that "arise based on causes and conditions of existence unfolding"? There is either a separate self or there isn't.

When ignoring the content, "we" itself is also a thought. A concept.

One thought outweighs the other then action takes fruition from that thought.
This is an interesting story. Action is caused by one thought outweighing another?

Yes, when observing thoughts. I see the illusory "I" thought weighing decisions. Should "I" do this, or should "I" do that. And at some point the "I" thought arrives to a choice and action springs forth.

But I'm aware both action and the perceiving of this "I" thought are not in my control.

Will you please provide a couple of examples from your experience, as asked in Question 5 about free will, choice, control?

It's similar to the ones mentioned previously. There are just happenings and experiences occurring. The senses in motion.

Peter, there's a common occurrence here -- it seems as if you answer from direct experience and then start expounding by sharing the content of thoughts on the subjects. :-)

In one moment, there's clarity that thoughts are thoughts -- in the next, it seems like thoughts are being considered as I. Are thoughts I?

LOL so true. As mentioned somewhere earlier, need to be more mature in my new understanding. Thoughts are not "I". Thoughts are just thoughts. In direct experience, there is only seeing, hearing, touch, thoughts, and emotions.

[Artst]

Dear Peter,

I apologize for my slowness -- I've been more busy than usual yesterday and today.

I promise to write more fully by late tonight (I'm in the Central Time Zone).

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

No worries. Take all the time you need. There's no rush.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Thanks for your patience.

need to be more mature in my new understanding.

Don't worry about understanding; look newly at DE for the answer to each question in this message.

Peter, I recommend you take your time. Please send just the final answers that you get from Direct Experience, not the thoughts that occur along the way; when you share all the thoughts, then write that you know that what you wrote is not the case, I can't tell whether or not 'you' see through the illusion.

When ignoring the content, "we" itself is also a thought. A concept.

Isn't "we" the content of a thought?

Yes, when observing thoughts. I see the illusory "I" thought weighing decisions.

Is it weighing decisions or is "Should I do this?" a thought also? Are thoughts "I?"

And at some point the "I" thought arrives to a choice and action springs forth.

This means that the "I" thought is the chooser. I is the content of a thought -- so this content is I?

But I'm aware both action and the perceiving of this "I" thought are not in my control.

What is it whose "I" thought is not in its control?

In direct experience, there is only seeing, hearing, touch, thoughts, and emotions.

Is there a separate experiencer?

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Peter, I recommend you take your time. Please send just the final answers that you get from Direct Experience, not the thoughts that occur along the way; when you share all the thoughts, then write that you know that what you wrote is not the case, I can't tell whether or not 'you' see through the illusion.

Got it, that makes sense.

Isn't "we" the content of a thought?

Yes. Although a thought is a thought, does not content exist too? Content provides meaning. I believe my dilemma is that I see both views. Thought as thought, but I also recognize content. That's how we communicate.

Is it weighing decisions or is "Should I do this?" a thought also? Are thoughts "I?"

It's all thoughts that are not in my control.

What is it whose "I" thought is not in its control?

It's just the coming and going of the "I" thought, is not in my control. It arises and passes like any other thought.

Is there a separate experiencer?

No, the experiencer and experience are one. There's only experiencing.

[Artst]

Peter, again I apologize for being slow. I will send a full reply to your last message later today.

Sending love,

Robyn

[Artst]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your patience. :)

When ignoring the content, "we" itself is also a thought. A concept.

Is 'we' ever anything other than the content of thought?

Although a thought is a thought, does not content exist too?

Of course it exists. Are the contents of thoughts 'I?'

Sending love,

Roibyn

[pwsamadhi]

Is 'we' ever anything other than the content of thought?

No, it is just content. The underlying sense phenomenon, it's still a thought.

Of course it exists. Are the contents of thoughts 'I?'

The contents of thoughts are not "I". Just meaning or interpretation of the mind. Not true nature of reality.

[Artst]

Hi Peter,

No, it is just content.

Yes!

The underlying sense phenomenon, it's still a thought.

I don't understand this. What is "underlying sense phenomenon?'

Just meaning or interpretation of the mind.

Is this something experienced directly?

Not true nature of reality.

What is not the true nature of reality - that thoughts are 'I?"

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

I don't understand this. What is "underlying sense phenomenon?'

Oh, just meant that 'we' or 'I' just a thought.

Is this something experienced directly?

Not directly. It's an experience added on top of the thought.

What is not the true nature of reality - that thoughts are 'I?"

True nature of reality of a thought, is just a thought experience. "I" is just the content.

getting there... =)

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

getting there... =)

Indeed!

Now, let's look at the 'doer'/'controller.'

You have seen that 'I' is just the content of thought.

1. What controls thoughts?

2. What controls ('your') actions?

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

1. What controls thoughts?
Thoughts are not controlled. They only come and go based on past and current causes and conditions of the universe (environment, surroundings, past experiences).

2. What controls ('your') actions?
Actions also just happen. Sometimes action occurs without thought. Sometimes the experience of action consists of the sequence of action followed by thought. Regardless, it all happens on it's own accord. Including every letter typed and each phrase being expressed this very moment. It's just flowing.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Great!

They only come and go based on past and current causes and conditions of the universe (environment, surroundings, past experiences).

Is this direct experience or theory (thought content)?

Sometimes action occurs without thought. Sometimes the experience of action consists of the sequence of action followed by thought.

What have we here? ;-)

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

They only come and go based on past and current causes and conditions of the universe (environment, surroundings, past experiences).
Is this direct experience or theory (thought content)?

As far as direct experienced is concerned, thoughts only come and go. The rest is theory.

Sometimes action occurs without thought. Sometimes the experience of action consists of the sequence of action followed by thought.
What have we here? ;-)

We have no-doer, no-self. :D

[Artst]

HI, Peter,

As far as direct experienced is concerned, thoughts only come and go. The rest is theory.

Ok. Do thoughts only come and go?

We have no-doer, no-self.

Ok!

Peter, are you clear on the difference between direct experience and theory/thought content without my prodding?

Sending love,

Robyn