Hello, i am looking for help

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

I have been realizing how thoughts take possesion of feelings very fast and put lables on them, so we feel through thoughts i dont know what else to tell you.

This is a good observation. You're doing the investigation exactly how it needs to be done, and you're remaining true to direct experience very well.

It can seem like we feel "through thoughts" but if you look at direct evidence, but isn't the experience more like a thought shows up and a feeling follows it? Just like sometimes a sensation shows up and a thought follows it, or like a thought follows a thought. More like a stream of stuff just showing up, sometimes together and sometimes following other stuff.

I keep observing my true experience without the veil of thoughts. I feel a bit less worried about thoughts, trying not to see them as the enemy but as other things that appear.

Ok, now look carefully at your second sentence. Is there an "I" that feels less worried? Is there an "I" that could have thoughts as an enemy? Please rephrase your second sentence using only direct experiential evidence.

I observ my experiences while I am eating, walking, or when I am in a meeting. And I ask myself what is that sensation of an I . Where does it come from. I cant tell the I is in a particular part. It seems to be more in my head because it is there where we supposse the thoughts are, but the head is actually the idea, the thought of a head showing up.

This is excellent 'looking'. This is exactly what is required to see through the "I" thought.

Sometimes i find relaxing being in the direct experience and not in the though-experience. i ll keep observing

Is there ever really 'something' that isn't relaxed? Do thoughts really cause relaxation to be interfered with, or is the thought of 'something' not being relaxed just a thought?

Please answer each of my questions in this post - even if some of them seem to be repetitious.

[azabache88]

Hi John
Yes, many times a thought appears and a feeling follows it, and other times a thought follows other thought. One thing triggers the other.
If I rewrite the phrase witout I,: there is less worrisome and there is a seeing them not as enemies but as other things happening. Your deep question is : is there an I that can feel more or less worried? I think i cant answer that from direct evidence. I think i would be answering from thoughts, from learned knowledge. But that is the question I ask myself quite often. Is there a me ? What is this i call I? I hope to see there s no I some day, i dont know. It seems as if the me were a strong illusion, deeply rooted and difficult to remove though this is another thought appearing here.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

Yes, many times a thought appears and a feeling follows it, and other times a thought follows other thought. One thing triggers the other.

Ok, so do you see that "feeling through thoughts" is just an idea that can't be verified through any direct experience?

If I rewrite the phrase witout I,: there is less worrisome and there is a seeing them not as enemies but as other things happening.

Ok, so can you see that the idea that there is an "I" there that is more or less worried is not true? Can you see that it is just a thought that is following other thoughts and/or feelings?

Your deep question is : is there an I that can feel more or less worried? I think i cant answer that from direct evidence. I think i would be answering from thoughts, from learned knowledge.

Ok, well let's look at that as closely as possible then. Please try, trusting ONLY thoughts that can be confirmed with direct experiential evidence, to answer the question.

But that is the question I ask myself quite often. Is there a me ? What is this i call I?

And so far have you found any "I" in direct experience? Is there a single thought about an "I" that you have been able to confirm with direct evidence?

I hope to see there s no I some day, i dont know.

You're not trying to see anything or find something new here Manuel.

In fact just the opposite.

If you look closely you will discover something missing, not something new. Where is the "I" that you always thought was there? Can you find it anywhere outside of a thought that has NO correlate in direct evidence?

It seems as if the me were a strong illusion, deeply rooted and difficult to remove though this is another thought appearing here.

Is there a thinker of that thought? Is there ANY evidence in direct experience that can confirm that thought?

[azabache88]

Hi John
I have to answer all your questions saying No. i havent found in direct experience an absolute evidence of the existence of an I. There is the kind of feeling of an I, but I cant prove its existance, it is more like an assumption, but a verycompelling illusion, but there is no significative change. i am still living life the same way, with the sensation of having free will and choice and an independence from the rest of the world. i cant find an I but the I is still functioning.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi John
I have to answer all your questions saying No. i havent found in direct experience an absolute evidence of the existence of an I. There is the kind of feeling of an I, but I cant prove its existance, it is more like an assumption, but a verycompelling illusion, but there is no significative change. i am still living life the same way, with the sensation of having free will and choice and an independence from the rest of the world. i cant find an I but the I is still functioning.

Ok, let's look at free will then. Let's see whether there really is such a thing, or whether it (like the "I") is just an illusion.

What in direct experiential evidence tells you that there is free will. Remember that you've discovered that there is no thinker of thoughts.

When you say "the I is still functioning" what do you mean?

[azabache88]

Hi John
When I say the I is still functioning I mean that I have the same feeling of being aseparated individual though in direct experience I cant find the evidence of an I but I do feel "my identity"
I feel I can choose this or that, not always it is possible but in certain circumstances I feel that if I think properly, my decision will be better than if I dont. I know that toughts show up by themselves but I have the sensation of being able of doing this or not. I dont have a clear experience of seeing there is no me and there is not free will.

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

When I say the I is still functioning I mean that I have the same feeling of being aseparated individual though in direct experience I cant find the evidence of an I but I do feel "my identity"

The feeling of being a separated individual is because of the belief that there are "other individuals". It seems like there are "other awarenesses" staring out of the eyes of "others" but there is no other awareness anywhere. Neither Manuel nor the person who apparently typed this sentence, have any awareness at all, and they never have had.

The ONLY awareness ANYWHERE, and the only awareness that has EVER been aware of ANYTHING is that which is aware of this sentence right now.

I feel I can choose this or that, not always it is possible but in certain circumstances I feel that if I think properly, my decision will be better than if I dont. I know that toughts show up by themselves but I have the sensation of being able of doing this or not. I dont have a clear experience of seeing there is no me and there is not free will.

Please rewrite the sentence above using only direct experiential evidence, and without using the "I" (which you have already seen is just a thought). So you would begin the sentence as follows:

"There is the feeling that choosing can be made between this or that, not always....." etc, etc.

After doing that, please tell me why you originally used the "I" in that sentence. Was it habit, and belief, or was it direct experience? Which of the two most closely described direct experiential evidence?

[azabache88]

Hi, John

When you say there is only one awareness, not my awareness or your awareness, I dont know, that is very impressive. I have read that sentence several times. It is difficult to see that but it is very suggestive (interesting)
I will rewrite the sentence:"there is the feeling that choosing can be made between this or that, sometimes there doesnt seem to be possible, but in certain circumstances it seems that there is a right decission if the right thought is chosen among other thoughts. There is a thought that says the process happens by itself, but also shows uo the thought that there is an I which thinks that thought, and the two thoughts clash into each other and the result is confussion.
I dont know if it is expressed properly, but there seem to be two kinds of thoughts: fixed thoughts or permanent thoughts and passing? thoughts, perhaps the I thought is more permanent than others. It may be the reason I use the I in that sentences.

[Empty Mirror]

When you say there is only one awareness, not my awareness or your awareness, I dont know, that is very impressive. I have read that sentence several times. It is difficult to see that but it is very suggestive (interesting)

Well it's important not to think of awareness as a 'thing' that you can ever find separate from anything else. I'm saying that the "universe" that appears 'here' - a universe of thought, sensation, emotion, people, etc - is one utterly indivisible whole, and that it is self-aware.

And more importantly I'm saying that the 'universe' is ONLY what appears 'here' right now. There is nothing outside of what is experienced right 'here' ('here' being what is experienced by that which is aware of this sentence appearing right 'here') and right now.

The moon does not exist unless it is showing up in direct experiential evidence right now. There are NO experiences outside of what 'you' ALONE are aware of. There are no other thoughts anywhere else aside from the ones that "you" know of. And the "you" I speak of is not a person, '"you" are this self-aware "universe".

There are no other "universes" that are self-aware. There is only this "universe" that is aware of itself, and 'you' are 'this' in it's entire, indivisible, seamless, wholeness. Without 'you' here 'this' could not be because you are 'this'.

I am really saying that the only awareness that exists anywhere is the awareness that 'this universe' has of itself, and that 'this universe' is right now aware of the reading of this sentence.

I will rewrite the sentence:"there is the feeling that choosing can be made between this or that, sometimes there doesnt seem to be possible, but in certain circumstances it seems that there is a right decission if the right thought is chosen among other thoughts. There is a thought that says the process happens by itself, but also shows uo the thought that there is an I which thinks that thought, and the two thoughts clash into each other and the result is confussion.

Well you could have been more accurate if you had said "there are thoughts which say" instead of "it seems", but in general you have described direct experience.

Ok, so now when you read your sentence above, is it not MUCH closer to a description of direct experience? Can you see that there really is nobody and no thing that is confused? When you read the sentence above can you see that the report is ABOUT confused thoughts, but the report is not confused?

So confused thoughts show up in 'this' self-aware "universe" but is the "universe" confused by them, or do confused thoughts just show up in 'this universe'?

I dont know if it is expressed properly, but there seem to be two kinds of thoughts: fixed thoughts or permanent thoughts and passing? thoughts, perhaps the I thought is more permanent than others. It may be the reason I use the I in that sentences.

You have already noticed that the "I" thought is not permanently showing up. It also comes and goes. When you say "fixed" thoughts don't you just mean thoughts which are more 'regular', or more of a 'habit'?

[azabache88]

Hi, John

I see that the universe is not confused or not confused, confusion is related to thoughts. John I dont undérstand awareness. Am I right if I say thar awareness and that which awareness is aware of, are the same thing. Is there no difference between awareness and things? Am I right if I say that awareness is what I am?
When I say fixed thoughts, yes, could say more regular or more assumed thoughts.
I'd like to ask you. I am very anxious person, very nervous, I dont know how to explain in English. Does that mean that anxiety and the sense of an I, feeds each other? Who is anxious actually? Isnt that a symptom of an "individual and separated existance? Or better expressed, the thought of a separated existance.
And another question, is a believe a "permanent" thought. If I say I believe in God, is that the same "trut" as if I say I believe I am an individual or if I say I believe in free will? What is the relevance of that kind of toughts.
I am still thinking about your words of awareness
Thank you, John

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

I see that the universe is not confused or not confused, confusion is related to thoughts. John I dont undérstand awareness. Am I right if I say that awareness and that which awareness is aware of, are the same thing.

Well so long as you don't think of awareness as something that has any existence as a separate 'thing' I suppose that you could say that everything is awareness. Most people think of awareness as a separate kind of "substance" which is used to make sense of the world. But really awareness is completely inseparable from what it is aware of. There can be no "universe" without the awareness of it, and there can be no awareness without something to be aware of.

To even speak of awareness and something that awareness is aware of is to create a separation which is not there at all. There is not awareness and stuff that awareness is aware of, there is just this "universe" (of thoughts, sensations, emotions, people, chairs, etc) which is self-aware. And even to think of the "universe" as made up of different things like people, and emotions and sensations is to create divisions that are not there. Thoughts takes 'this' utterly indivisible, and self-aware 'whole', and divides it up, and labels it, and conceptualizes it, and builds thoughts stories upon thought stories.

Is there no difference between awareness and things? Am I right if I say that awareness is what I am?

As I have just pointed out there is not "awareness and things", there is only "this" indivisible and self-aware 'whole'. There is no "you" there is just this utterly indivisible, and self-aware, 'whole'. When you say "I" there is nothing to refer to other than "this" utterly indivisible, and self-aware, whole.

So 'you' can be nothing other than "this", nor can 'you' be in any way separable from "this". No 'you' = no 'this'. No 'you' = no "universe". The self-awareness of "this" utterly indivisible whole is the ONE AND ONLY, and very same, awareness that is aware of this sentence right now.

But we're getting this the wrong way around Manuel, I'm supposed to be asking you the questions :)

These are things that become more clear with time, but the first step is being able to TRULY see through the idea of a separate "I". So let's get back on track and find out whether there is really such a thing as an "I", or any separate individual in 'this'.

When I say fixed thoughts, yes, could say more regular or more assumed thoughts.

Ok, so then what you are saying is that there are regular self-referencing thoughts about an "I". But in direct experience you can not find any "I" that these thoughts refer to. So the "I" thought isn't "fixed" it's just a habit of thought.

I'd like to ask you. I am very anxious person, very nervous, I dont know how to explain in English.

How about testing that against direct experiential evidence? Are you really a person? Is there really an "I" that is nervous? Next time these anxious or nervous feelings show up, check very closely with direct experiential evidence and see whether there really is an "I" there, or whether there are just thoughts and feelings showing up in 'this'.

Does that mean that anxiety and the sense of an I, feeds each other?

Notice for yourself. See whether emotions follow thoughts and see how thought generates other thoughts about emotions. And always stay very clear on whether there really is a thinker of those thoughts, or whether they just show up in 'this', and whether there really is an "I" which feels emotions, or whether emotions also just show up in 'this'. Please report back on what you find when you do this, and remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence.

Who is anxious actually?

This is a great question to ask yourself. Is there really an individual there who is anxious, or are there just thoughts saying so? Check this with direct evidence next time anxiety shows up.

Also, importantly, check whether there is any need for the anxiety to not be there, or is it just thought which says that the anxiety shouldn't be there?

Isnt that a symptom of an "individual and separated existance? Or better expressed, the thought of a separated existance.

EXACTLY - the second sentence is much better expressed. It is a symptom of the THOUGHT of a separated existence :)

And another question, is a believe a "permanent" thought. If I say I believe in God, is that the same "trut" as if I say I believe I am an individual or if I say I believe in free will? What is the relevance of that kind of toughts.

There is no such thing as a permanent thought or a permanent belief - as you've seen, even the "I" thought is not permanent.

Thoughts change and beliefs change - they're like passing clouds in the sky. Once thoughts are "seen through" beliefs quickly fall away to reveal what has always been. Continue to verify thoughts against direct experience and the thought-illusions of free-will, and of an individual "I", will be seen through.

Ok, I've given you a few answers to your questions, and I've left you with one or two questions and exercises.

It's important that we keep this to a format in which I ask you questions and you answer. It's important that you find your own answers, so from now on I will be turning your questions back on you because you already know all of the answers, you just need to continue your investigation and stay true to direct evidence.

[azabache88]

Hi, John

Thoughts say anxiety should not be there, but becausei it is perceived as a discomfort or painfull. Thoughts imagine a better situation in which there is no pain, no anxiety. Circumstances trigger this axiety. I can see this has a lot to do with thoughts. Thoughts are trigger by circumstances, especially hostile circumstances. A lot of times thoughts are the source of pain and anxiety. i can see that. And i can see there is no way of stopping thoughts. But now I see that there is a separation a gap between thoughts and the I, which is another thoughtb but I cant go beyond. I guess the question is : is there a me whom thoughts are happening to? Is the I a thought among other thoughts happening to no one? I think it is but it must be an intellectual thing because nothing change, there it is that annoying sense of an I, of a center which things are happening to.
While there is an I looking for something, or making an effort to reach something, there is a strong feeling of an I trying to get something. It is like crashing into a wall

[Empty Mirror]

Hi Manuel

Thoughts say anxiety should not be there, but becausei it is perceived as a discomfort or painfull. Thoughts imagine a better situation in which there is no pain, no anxiety. Circumstances trigger this axiety. I can see this has a lot to do with thoughts. Thoughts are trigger by circumstances, especially hostile circumstances. A lot of times thoughts are the source of pain and anxiety.

Is there ANY time EVER that thoughts are not the source of pain and anxiety?

And are you the thinker of those thoughts?

And i can see there is no way of stopping thoughts. But now I see that there is a separation a gap between thoughts and the I, which is another thoughtb but I cant go beyond.

Please explain, to the best of your ability, this "gap" that you see "between thoughts and the I".

I guess the question is : is there a me whom thoughts are happening to?

Yes that is EXACTLY the question. When you look at direct evidence is there a "me" that thoughts are happening to, or are they just popping up in this?

Is the I a thought among other thoughts happening to no one?

Yes again.

Check with direct evidence and see whether there is an "I" except in thought.

I think it is but it must be an intellectual thing because nothing change, there it is that annoying sense of an I, of a center which things are happening to.

Ok, when this "annoying sense" shows up, is there an "I" that is annoyed or is there just an "annoying sense" showing up in this?

Don't worry about whether something changes, or is changing, continue to stay true to direct evidence. Whenever you find that you are getting caught up in thoughts take a good look and see whether you are the thinker of those thoughts.

While there is an I looking for something, or making an effort to reach something, there is a strong feeling of an I trying to get something. It is like crashing into a wall

This is because you're not trying to find something. There is nothing to find. What we're trying to show you is that there is something EXTRA here that has been ADDED by thought, and we're trying to show you that there TRULY is not a thinker of those thoughts.

You're not going to find anything in this process Manuel, you're going to lose something that was ONLY ever here in thought.

It's the very "I" that is supposedly trying to find something which is that extra THOUGHT-ADDITION.

Thought is saying that it can't find a thought.

Can thoughts think?

[azabache88]

Hi, John
This is a sad day, because my grandmother has just passed away. I 'll try to observe thoughts and feelings arising and I'll tell you about. I guess this is a good moment to observe suffering if I am able to and i am not taken over? By grief.
Thank you, John

[azabache88]

Hi John
It's being difficult to deal with sad feelings. i 've been observing my feelings. Sad feelings related to memories, toughts...but sometimes i am not able to perceive a certain thought however sadness is rhere anyway. I guess there are subtle thoughts functioning without me realizing.
Storys created by thoughts are impossible to stop but sometimes It seems I can do something in order to not to allow thoughts take control, that I can choose to do something like thinking other thoughts or doing something completely different.
I know thre is no thinker of thoughts but I cant avoid to do something in order to be "more positive", or "more optimistic" I keep having the impression of a Me doing this or that, so I am in the same place