The Gate

Ty,

A joke is a great example of thoughts influencing the body. I never thought of that. A joke starts as a thought and ends with laughter. Planning is another example. But note that most of the time the body acts quite happily without thoughts at all. For example, you can eat a whole plate of food angry at what someone said to you, and not think about the food once.

Note that many actions that seem to be caused by thought were really unconscious actions claimed afterwards by a thought. A lot of human behavior is rationalized. If you ask someone why they did something, they usually have no idea but will make something up after the fact and then really believe that it was the reason. The idea that "I" am in control is so important to the fictional identity that a person will lie to themselves to maintain it. Occasionally it's so obvious that they have no idea why they did something that they're forced to admit it, then everyone has a laugh about how that person is losing their mind.

By the way, there is a lot of neuroscience to back up the idea that the brain has no central control centre, in case that's helpful to you.

I'm gonna look at the rest of the questions later today. I really need to see clearly that there is no ME in any of this, but right now it's more intellectual. So I'm gonna sit with for awhile and get back cf k to u.

You're into it.


Steve

Ty,

Gah. Mobile phones. That should be "You're onto it."


Steve

Steve, it's definitely starting to look clearer now. Yes planning is definitely another one. I was thinking of a math problem for instance. Thinking never figures out the answer it only shows a pic of the problem to the brain and the brain either knows the answer from experience or it has the answers to smaller problems it then uses to find the larger answer.

I'm really starting to see that the thinking is only capable
of taking pictures and labelling things. What I'm looking at now is how this ME is part of the same prices.

Update u soon...tx
Ty

Ty,

Great! Stick at it and let me know what else you find, or ask if anything is unclear. There's all this stuff going on, but what's really there, and what is just claimed to be there by thought? Thoughts can be quite subtle.


Steve

Steve,

It's been a busy day but its starting to slow down and look. The one thing that continues to be unclear is that there is a dialogue that the head has with itself that feels like a ME. I know that it is a dialogue between thoughts but is there a way to not be sucked into this game?

Ty

Ty,

I'm sure you know it's the general rule that thoughts doesn't go away. The mind will continue to talk like a "me" for a long time to come because that's how it's currently programmed, and it takes a while to change. Even when the nature of what it says shifts, it will keep on talking... That's what it's for.

So how to not get sucked in? Basically not believing it has to come first. Attention goes to it because it's interesting, and it's interesting because it's "me". Also - like every other thing we've encountered that seems to be an obstacle - thoughts can be our friends. "Acceptance" is a magic word. Thoughts are part of the beautiful tapestry of "what is" and they're full of useful information.

So how do you not believe thoughts? Find out whether the contents of thought are real or not.

You could try this exercise. Really basic stuff, but it's all about looking. You have to *see* what thoughts are made of.

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine form, size, weight, temperature, keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.
Open your eyes; is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?
Then pick up a real spoon and compare the experience to the imagined one.

Variation: Imagine an apple, then eat a real one.


Steve

Steve,

Imagining to the spoon was a great exercise. Everything that had to be imagined from the spoons weight, how cold it was, it's shape and yh we feel of it all took an effort to accomplish. Imagination needed to happen in order to create the spoon. It was obvious that the same method of imagination is we hat creates a ME.

Ty

Ty,

Great observation!

Now, keep paying attention to real things. Look at everything. Really pay attention to sounds, touch sensations and tastes. Feel sensations in the body. (I find it good to do this when walking.)

Thoughts are real too. Of course you will sometimes focus on their content - this is what happens. Just go with it. But try to notice that they are thoughts.

Earlier you noticed that seeing didn't get labelled as quickly as the bodily action of reaching for a cup. Could it be that seeing is continuous, so the mind isn't so easily triggered to label it?

• When you look at a view, is there an "I" seeing, or is there just seeing?
• If you listen to a sound, is there an "I" listening, or is there just experience of sound?
• When you perform an action (reaching or a cup), is it "I am reaching" or is there the image of a hand moving + proprioception + touch + a sensation of weight when the cup is held + thought labels "I decided" + "I am doing this"?
• When you think, is there an "I" who is thinking or are there just thoughts? (...including the label "I am thinking")

In all of this, really notice the difference between what is there, and what thoughts say is there. You're not going to get rid of the second one - and there's no need to - but you can find out its meaning.

So, what is the meaning of experience?


Steve

Steve,

I got a little sidetracked today but I will focus tomorrow and have a reply.

Thanks,

Ty

Ty,

Catch ya tomorrow!


Steve

Steve,

I think you're right about the mind not labeling seeing quite as fast as a bodily movement, but I'm not seeing what the importance of that is. Also, I never thought of hearing like that but it seems you're right.

I really looked at the question u posed in blue. Thinking us just happening and the thinking happens on it's own without the need for a me. I was walking my dog and it was clear that appears that I need to focus for long periods of time or remember something important that if there was a ME doing it then I would be successful 100% of the time.

...it feels like this seeing is settling in but thinking, t km lights and effort are doing there own thing. Thanks where I'm at.

I don't think there is any meaning to experience at all except possibly training the mind to make good decisions in this physical world.

Tx
TY

Ty,

I think you're right about the mind not labeling seeing quite as fast as a bodily movement, but I'm not seeing what the importance of that is.

The reason why I said that is just that it might give another angle to view the mind-labelling from. The better you can see how it works/what it does, the clearer it'll be what's going on when you get a sense of "I'm choosing this" / "I'm doing this".

As for "what's the meaning of experience" I'm more trying to get you to ask yourself the question that find a particular answer. Seems like you've done that. Clearly we ascribe meaning to things that isn't there. If person X says "Y" then a body has spoken some words. Similarly if a thought says "Z" then it means a claim of "Z" has appeared of out nowhere. The meaning is not "Z".

It looks like you're at a stage where you've got the technique of looking and just need to keep applying it. So for now I'll throw a question at you:

Apart from the obvious fact that they have a different appearance, how are thoughts and the sense of sight different from each other?


Steve

Steve,

If I'm on track it seems like with thoughts and words being spoken that there is no meaning at all only the meaning that we give it.

As for you're last question I would say that the sense of sight is always on to just look. Sight itself doesn't add any meaning or label to anything...there's just looking. Thoughts seem to want to just get in the conversation. They want to label and throw their two cents in. What I'm seeing is that they will always do that.

Tx Ty

Ty,

Apart from the obvious fact that they have a different appearance, how are thoughts and the sense of sight different from each other?

...I would say that the sense of sight is always on to just look. Sight itself doesn't add any meaning or label to anything...there's just looking. Thoughts seem to want to just get in the conversation. They want to label and throw their two cents in. What I'm seeing is that they will always do that.

Cool... yes, thoughts are "saying" something and since that's what they do, they'll always do that. But isn't that just an interpretation? If you looked and saw a lion running towards you, you could ascribe meaning to that.

If you just look at them both (thoughts and sight) without ascribing meaning to them, just seeing them as "inputs" and ignoring the fact that their appearance is quite different,... How are they different from each other?


Steve