Looking for a guide

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke,

I have been dealing with huge amounts of stress and I am ill..all of which brings a lot of self-centered thoughts, from which I find it super hard to disentangle from. I will sit with them today and wait for the 'gap' to be there. Any other tips welcome!

Val

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

I would suggest that you get well before we continue. This dialogue should not be another task to to if you have too much stress anyway! It's much nicer if it is at least a bit of fun to do it... Also it's a week before Christmas and (also for me) it is not easy to find time to answer every day. So I have the idea that we both reread the whole dialogue again. This is helpful to deepen the things we talked about. (If you like it's a good idea to do the exercises again as well.) Also we might get a hint where we should have a look at next...

We can contact each other at the beginning of the week again. Is that ok for you?

Love,
Luke

[Lucas369]

all of which brings a lot of self-centered thoughts, from which I find it super hard to disentangle from

...when it gets too heavy: Remember that there is no 'I' that has to (nor can) disentangle from anything! In such a moment: What, except the thought that is currently there, creates the feeling that there is an 'I'?

[You don't have to answer now, just LOOK, whenever it gets challenging...]

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke,

Feeling better now and willing to continue with renewed energy!

The gaps between thoughts, partly also because of less worries, seem to have widened. Apart from thoughts, to go back to your invite for reflection, there are only body sensations. The other interesting thing is that the thoughts are not so much 'I think', but 'I want'. That seems to be the real underlying quality. No wanting, no thoughts appear.

Love,

Val

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

Feeling better now and willing to continue with renewed energy!

That's good news!

Apart from thoughts, to go back to your invite for reflection, there are only body sensations.

Are they really "body" sensations?
When there is sound or colours or sensations - do they appear in a body?

The other interesting thing is that the thoughts are not so much 'I think', but 'I want'. That seems to be the real underlying quality. No wanting, no thoughts appear.

Next time (or much better: every time) the "wanting" pops up - break it down into peaces:
What is REALLY here?
Is there an 'I' inside the sensations?
Does the thought "I want" contain an 'I'?

Love,
Luke

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke

Are they really "body" sensations?
When there is sound or colours or sensations - do they appear in a body?

I've been staying with some difficulty, with what's going on at the moment. But I am not sure I get you mean. There are body sensations, the body is there and there are physical reactions, e.g. tensing in the muscles, headaches.
Can you explain a bit more?

Thanks!

Val

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

I'm sorry if I did not express myself clearly. What I was pointing to is this:

When you feel body sensations (perhaps it's easier with closed eyes) - do you experience them in a body, when you only relate to direct experience? Or is it rather a sensation AND a thought that interpretes this sensation as "body sensation"?

When you hear sounds (you can again close your eyes and listen) - do you hear the sound of the "wind", the "barking of a dog", the "voice of people" when you stay in direct experience? Or is it just sound AND thoughts that interprete these sounds as "dog", "wind", "people"?


Why am I always returning to direct experience? Why is it so important? Because the deep understanding of this will automatically open a space that makes it easier to see the illusionary substance of the 'I'.

So here is another exercise for this. I copied it from another guide because I can't put it as good in words as she did:



Have a look at the apple. When ‘looking at the apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at a red/green apple."
When touching the apple, there is sensation with thoughts saying"'this apple is hard and smooth".
When biting into the apple there is taste with thoughts saying "this tastes like an apple and it is sweet and juicy".
There is also sound, when biting into an apple with thoughts saying "this apple is crunchy".
When smelling the apple, there are thoughts saying "this smells like an apple".

What is known for sure? Colour is known, as is sensation, taste, sound, smell and thoughts are also known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT (ie content of thought) something…because that is only just more thought. In other words the ensuing thoughts of what an apple is and means is the content of thought. Actual experience is only sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and the face value of thought.


Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour, taste, sensation, smell, taste, sound and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
Beyond the story, can an apple be found to exist at all in actual (direct) experience?


While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Love,
Luke

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke,

What's different from the Apple though, is that the apple is readily "external". Whereas I embody my body, so how can I separate sensations from body sensations? It's much more difficult to separate experiencing from the "I" that experiences bodily feelings. I'd be interested to know what you think!

Also, as it's Christmas, I will be travelling over the holidays to see my folks, and there'll be limited connection. I will try and write, but it may be more sporadic, until I come back home on 7th.

Love and Merry Christmas (if you celebrate it!),

Val

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,
also merry Christmas to you!
I also have little time during the holidays and can't answer you today ;-)
Have a nice time!!
Love,
Luke

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

I hope you had (and have) peaceful and relaxing Christmas holidays!

What's different from the Apple though, is that the apple is readily "external".

Is this really the case? Is the apple, the picture of the apple for example, 'external'? When you look in direct experience: Is there a separation line between internal and external?

Whereas I embody my body, so how can I separate sensations from body sensations? It's much more difficult to separate experiencing from the "I" that experiences bodily feelings. I'd be interested to know what you think!

In DE: Is there such a thing as a 'body'? Is there 'I'? Or is it just a picture, sensation, emotions, taste, sound, smell and thoughts?

Love,
Luke

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke,

Very Happy New Year1

I am back from holiday and have internet again. I hope you had a lovely break as well.

Is there such a thing as a 'body'? Is there 'I'? Or is it just a picture, sensation, emotions, taste, sound, smell and thoughts?

No there's nothing else. I had a clear experience of this yesterday. A friend had given me some weed to try. I couldn't stop from throughts arising, which were visually strong and totally bizarre. I could only witness them.

The sense of 'I' is still strong though. While I was away, I met with an ex, and soon afterwards the old feelings of resentment came back because 'I' had been hurt by someone.

So at the moment I am experiencing both, non-I (in the sense of all sensory information and thoughts) and I.

Love,

Val

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

also a happy New Year to you! I had lovely holidays for I did not have to stand up at 6am :-)

So at the moment I am experiencing both, non-I (in the sense of all sensory information and thoughts) and I.

It seems that this seesaw is the way most people experience this shift. Here it's the same: there are periods where the identification is strong and then, just like a reminder, the thought to LOOK appears. Then looking happens and it can be seen that there is no I. Seeing through the illusion does not prevent the "I-thoughts" to appear. And unfortunately it does not stop the identification with these thoughts immediately (although there might be people where this is the case). But the identification slowly starts losing power... What I try to say is that there is still a lot of "work" to do, but it is not done by a "someone", it just happens.

The sense of 'I' is still strong though. While I was away, I met with an ex, and soon afterwards the old feelings of resentment came back because 'I' had been hurt by someone.

When you look at it now, can you see that it's just a story?
Is the other person here right now? Does she really "exist"?
Anyway, does anything that is not here in direct experience, "exist"?
Is there an 'I' that had been hurt? Just now?
Is this feeling of resentment (assumed that it is there right now) felt by a someone?
Is there an 'I' that owns the memories?

(Please always answer all blued questions one by one.)

Love,
Luke

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke

When you look at it now, can you see that it's just a story?

I can with some events, but not for others. It seems that if something is particularly emotive, I see it as 'me'. For example I remember the last, painful conversation we had before we broke up, and I can't see a story there, I see a solid me. But when I read some diary entries about other stuff, or even re-reading poems I wrote years ago, they all feel like they happened to someone else. Some other person wrote them.

Is the other person here right now? Does she really "exist"?

Why "exist"? I am assuming you are pointing to the fact that there's no real "she" in as much as there's no real "me". But even though, "she" is the label applied to this being, made of thoughts and senses and there's enough of "she" in her today to remember the "she" of when we were together.

Anyway, does anything that is not here in direct experience, "exist"?

What I see, smell, touch, tastes exists. What I think doesn't. So she exists as a human being even though she's not in front of me right now. At the same time the "she" is not a "she" like the "me" is not a "me" - permanent, self.
Is there an 'I' that had been hurt? Just now?
No, there are painful thoughts! When I turn towards the question, all that happens is like thoughts on a screen, bizarre! There's identification and with that the "I" that is hurt emerges!
The "I" that is hurt also emerges if the thoughts are about memories of the past, it's almost like a film starts playing and rather than the spectator, I find myself in it as an actor.

Is this feeling of resentment (assumed that it is there right now) felt by a someone?

No! That feels strangely clear, and there's joy with it!

Is there an 'I' that owns the memories?

This one instead feels like, yes, there's an "I". It feels like an umbilical cord that connects the memories together. So I know the answer should be no, but it doesn't feel like it. I get straight into identification. One memory plays in my head and the memory is a thought, I know, but it is also something that really happened. And feels like it happened to "me" that now remembers. I think this is the crucible for me, memories seems intrinsically linked to "I".

[Lucas369]

Hi Val,

well done! Thanks for your detailed answers. It is great that you really go so deep to find out what is true.

For example I remember the last, painful conversation we had before we broke up, and I can't see a story there, I see a solid me.

There is no solid "me". Where should it be? Have a closer look: Yes, there are emotions. There are thoughts that label these emotions as "unbearable". And there are memories that trigger the emotions and the thoughts. Now look at those memories, but stay rooted in the here-and-now! See that only present colours, sounds, thoughts, feelings are real. The memories are not real because they can be switched off by turning away and thinking about a pink elephant for example. If you think about a pink elephant, where is the "me"?

Another interesting question: If there were a "me" in the memories AND a "me" who is now looking at those memories - are there two "me's? Are they solid according to our definition that they are only real if they don't vanish when you stop imagining them?

Anyway, does anything that is not here in direct experience, "exist"?

What I see, smell, touch, tastes exists. What I think doesn't. So she exists as a human being even though she's not in front of me right now. At the same time the "she" is not a "she" like the "me" is not a "me" - permanent, self.

What I was pointing to is one simple but very elusive fact - and the very core of all we're talking about here. I remember the time when I started to realize this, it was like a new dimension opening up - or to be more accurate: The wide and complicated "world" melted down to an easy to handle "here and now", consisting only of what the senses present in this moment: colours, sound, emotions, sensations, taste, thoughts (without meaning). Very simple. Very easy to handle...

In other words: "Nothing exists except the sensations here and now". So if you think of your "ex" NOW, does she really "exist"? Can you see that this believe in an existence-beyond-what-the-senses-experience-right-now is just this: a belief...?

And this is also what the apple-exercise wants to point to: The apple does not EXIST beyond the senses. It does only exist within the picture and the sensations, but this idea of an 'apple' is not separated from all the rest. Only the thoughts label it as 'apple' but in fact it is an inseparable part of what-is-perceived-now. No apple anywhere...


Take an apple (or any other object) and LOOK if there is an EXISTENCE of this object outside the inseparable sensations!
Now hide the apple under a cushion (or in a cupboard). Does it still EXIST?

Love,
Luke

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Luke,

I feel like I am hitting the head against a brick-wall, but I'll try and answer as best as I can!

If you think about a pink elephant, where is the "me"?

There's no me attached to this memory. As all it is is perceiving that elephant. What comes to mind is that the memory has no emotional content. But then if I have a memory that is equally with no emotional relevance, say what I had for lunch today, the "me" pops up again. Because "me" is the center of that memory. Whereas in the pink elephant example, it is engrossed in seeing the elephant. The elephant if you like, is the center.

If there were a "me" in the memories AND a "me" who is now looking at those memories - are there two "me's? Are they solid according to our definition that they are only real if they don't vanish when you stop imagining them?

No, there are not two me's. There is nevertheless a sense of continuity. I want to say that the memory is part of a "my" past, a changing self, but I know that my under the definition is not real now. But it happened.

Can you see that this believe in an existence-beyond-what-the-senses-experience-right-now is just this: a belief...?

I really can't. See below...

Take an apple (or any other object) and LOOK if there is an EXISTENCE of this object outside the inseparable sensations!
Now hide the apple under a cushion (or in a cupboard). Does it still EXIST?

Here's why. True, I cannot see the apple, but the apple is still there. To give another example, if I fly over a city and throw a bomb, I will kill the people who live in that city. I don't have a direct sensory experience of them, but they are still real and my actions have an impact on them.

I really find it difficult to move away from this point of reality/non-reality, Luke!

Love,

Val