Path or No Path

[pwsamadhi]

Ok. Do thoughts only come and go?

Yes.

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

Yes I'm clear now. Thought is just the thought experience. Any content or meaning, is a secondary indirect experience.

Direct Experience = sensory phenomenon (touch, taste, smell, see, hear, thought, emotion)

[Artst]

Peter,

Thank you.

Yes

Good,

Any content or meaning, is a secondary indirect experience.

How is it indirect?

I think I may have mislead you a bit. Content of thought is directly experienced. But content of thought is not "I" nor is it generated by a controller. Thoughts often contain the word "I." The word "I' in thoughts is a concept and it doesn't refer to anything real, unlike the thought "tree" which does refer to something real (real for our purposes - setting aside quantum physics but that's another story). Any dispute or confusion on any of this?

I apologize for diverging from the inquiry format here but it seemed the best way to provide clarification.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

How is it indirect?

I think I may have mislead you a bit. Content of thought is directly experienced. But content of thought is not "I" nor is it generated by a controller. Thoughts often contain the word "I." The word "I' in thoughts is a concept and it doesn't refer to anything real, unlike the thought "tree" which does refer to something real (real for our purposes - setting aside quantum physics but that's another story). Any dispute or confusion on any of this?

No confusion. I guess I should've said secondary experience instead of "indirect". Meaning all things we encounter in life are an experience of the five physical senses. The thought or emotion tied to the experience is a secondary experience due to it being content based. We give the experience meaning. However, the underlying experience of a thought, still only consists of a thought form, regardless of its content.

Conceptual "I" or the direct label like "tree", are both only words applied to objects within reality. Hence creating the duality of subject/object phenomenon. An "I" that sees that "tree". However, in true reality, there is only seeing, no "I", no "tree", although there is a physical one. So only what is seen. "Tree" is the concept used to describe plants with roots, branches, trunk, and leaves. "I" is a concept a each person uses to point to this unique human body/mind individual.

Explaining "tree" to a blind man won't do him any justice until he feels, touches, smells, or tastes the actual physical tree.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

We give the experience meaning.

So, there's an I controlling thought content?

Peter, here's an exercise I'd like you to do to clarify the nature of thought:

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without your doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to? 

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? 
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? 

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice -- is there an organized sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

We give the experience meaning.
So, there's an I controlling thought content?

No "I" controlling thought, I'm speaking from relative language. Just using pronouns for discussion sake.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Thoughts appear and thoughts disappear. From and to the unknown.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Thoughts arose and appeared on its own. Thoughts also subsided on its own.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No, we're not the controller of our thoughts.

Can you predict your next thought?

No.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

No. In deep meditation or during samadhi though, there are no thoughts for some time, but then it appears again on its own after awhile. So it cannot be prevented, only temporarily sustained.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, otherwise we'd be happy all the time.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No. From perspective of "I" or ego, it sure does seem like we can at times, but in reality they come and go on their own. The "I" does not exist and is an imaginary controller.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

No. There are techniques to quell thoughts and temporarily halt it, but regardless, it ultimately still appears on its own even if we don't want it to.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Well done! A few questions for clarification...

We give the experience meaning.
No "I" controlling thought, I'm speaking from relative language. Just using pronouns for discussion sake.

So no "I" giving experience meaning?

only temporarily sustained.

And is this controllable?

No, otherwise we'd be happy all the time.

DId you observe the impossibility of selecting from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Or come to this through logic/thought?

From perspective of "I" or ego, it sure does seem like we can at times, but in reality they come and go on their own. The "I" does not exist and is an imaginary controller.

You wrote conflicting info here. Does this "I" or ego actually exist?

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

So no "I" giving experience meaning?

No "I" giving meaning. An experience is either pleasant or unpleasant or neutral. Regarding the word "tree" referring to an actual tree, human beings gave that word "tree" meaning for communication.

And is this controllable?

No, thoughts ultimately come back on its own. The sustaining of thoughts is also a process happening on its own.

DId you observe the impossibility of selecting from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Or come to this through logic/thought?

This comes from experience. Knowing I don't choose to have unpleasant thoughts, but they still rise beyond my control. I've attempted to have only pleasant or positive thoughts in the past but unpleasant or negative thoughts not of my control can overwhelm any attempt to keep things positive.

Somehow though, through practice, the mind slowly is trained and evolved on its own to be less reactive and more responsive. So gradually, pleasant and positive thoughts become the norm while unpleasant and negative thoughts become less and less. However, since there's no-doer, this is all happening on its own. It's what got "me" here as well :)

You wrote conflicting info here. Does this "I" or ego actually exist?

No it doesn't exist. Just saying as humans interacting in the world, humans toggle into this other perspective to interact with one another. To recognize mine, his, her, we, them, so we don't go around violating everyone's personal space. I get that there's no inherent self, but humans still need these constructs to operate in the paradigm humans live in.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Nicely done.

I get that there's no inherent self,

Is there any self whatsoever?

but humans still need these constructs to operate in the paradigm humans live in.

Not important whether this thought content is true or not -- but intellectual knowledge is not relevant to whether or not "I" is an illusion, which is our topic. ;-)

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Is there any self whatsoever?

Nope, it cannot be found.

Not important whether this thought content is true or not -- but intellectual knowledge is not relevant to whether or not "I" is an illusion, which is our topic.

Gotcha :D

This thought occurred earlier. The practice of labeling/noting, if you're familiar with it. It appears now that labeling occurs on its own as well, considering it's a thought. And the source of these thoughts come from the seed planted by some teacher as a practice. So our thoughts seems to be randomly generated events based on the environment and circumstances encountered in one's life.

[Artst]

Hi Peter,

Nope, it cannot be found.

Woo hoo!

It appears now that labeling occurs on its own as well, considering it's a thought.

Right. Direct experience or reasoning - 'considering it's a thought?'

And the source of these thoughts come from the seed planted by some teacher

This is useful for looking at how 'I' got planted.

as a practice.

What's do you mean, 'as a practice?'

You're clear there's no thought controller.

How about actions? Any controller of actions?

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Right. Direct experience or reasoning - 'considering it's a thought?'

Oh, the label itself, is a thought. E.g. in the practice of labeling/noting, when we notice a particular experience we label it.

e.g. See In/See Out, Hear In/Hear Out, Feel In/Feel Out or Anger Arising, Jealousy Arising, or Happy, Happy, Happy.

It's Mahasi style meditation technique that many masters employ. Shinzen Young, Culadasa, etc...

What's do you mean, 'as a practice?'

Meaning we somehow by chance in life, come across a teacher who instills/teaches a practice. And by chance, that influences the way our life proceeds or continues to unfold. E.g. your inquiry will forever influence how I see things from here on out.

You're clear there's no thought controller.

Yes. We are the net product of happenings based on causes and conditions encountered.

How about actions? Any controller of actions?

Same as thought. They just happen and unfold on its own.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Oh, the label itself, is a thought. in the practice of labeling/noting, when we notice a particular experience we label it.

Do you realize that in back-to-back sentences, you are expressing that thought is independent of a controller and then that there is one? Which is it?

your inquiry will forever influence how I see things from here on out.

Where and what is this "I?"

Yes

. Ok.

We are the net product of happenings based on causes and conditions encountered.

Is this something learned? Or report of fresh thought content?

Same as thought. They just happen and unfold on its own.

ok.

Peter, it's important to distinguish between actual direct experience and the contents of thought. There is a consistent back-and-forth in your answers. Are thoughts generated by an "I?" If it's clear that the answer is 'no,' what is going on that you keep reporting them as though they are?

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Do you realize that in back-to-back sentences, you are expressing that thought is independent of a controller and then that there is one? Which is it?

I'm just saying the label itself is a thought. For example "tree" for the physical object tree.

And I'm just describing to you the practice of labeling/noting if you're not familiar with it.

I can speak in 3rd person if it makes things clearer. The practice of labeling/noting is when a meditator pays attention to an experience and labels the experience objectively. There is a controller in this sentence, the meditator. But if you want to speak in absolute no-doer terms, then there's just practicing, noting, meditating, paying attention, and experiencing.

I think we're past the part that thought is not an independent controller. Everything else is just english :)

your inquiry will forever influence how I see things from here on out.
Where and what is this "I?"

It's a thought. How else can I speak/type with you without using pronouns. It comes off weird. There's no "I" yet you also keep calling me a "you" or "you're". How can I be an "you" if there's no "I".

Is this something learned? Or report of fresh thought content?

It's learned from direct experience. I can see how things encountered in life generate types of thought. Or in absolute terms, the seeing and encountering of experiences life generate thought experiences.

Peter, it's important to distinguish between actual direct experience and the contents of thought. There is a consistent back-and-forth in your answers. Are thoughts generated by an "I?" If it's clear that the answer is 'no,' what is going on that you keep reporting them as though they are?

Thoughts are not generated by an "I". That's already well established.

I'm not reporting that they are. I'm just using english pronouns to communicate as you are with "you" and "you're". If there's no-self, then how can there be a "you" or an "I". It's because "we" are using language to communicate, even if they're just thoughts.

In absolute non-doer terms, there's sentences and words being typed and read. A dialogue exchanged. Learning occurring. Thoughts arising on its own.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Yes, it's almost impossible to completely avoid the pronouns as place-holders. I get that you're frustrated. What appears to be nit-picking will be worth it. <3

But if you want to speak in absolute no-doer terms

This isn't a question of semantics. It's that there IS no doer. That there is no "I" is not an abstract idea that can be one way to look at life. I is an illusion and doesn't exist.

Peter, let's try this:

If you look for the I, what is there? Can you describe what you find?

Have you experienced a shift from where you were when we started? If so, please describe it.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Yes, it's almost impossible to completely avoid the pronouns as place-holders. I get that you're frustrated. What appears to be nit-picking will be worth it. <3

Haha, okay. It's all for wisdom anyway! :D

If you look for the I, what is there? Can you describe what you find?

I cannot find it. If I ask myself the question, "where, or what is I? or who am i?". I'm left with awareness. If I internally say the word "I", all I can experience is a thought.

Have you experienced a shift from where you were when we started? If so, please describe it.

It's not so much a shift per se, but a much deeper understanding.

What is interesting though, I just had a horrible meditation session then I followed it up with a 15 minute walking meditation. But in the bad sit, I definitely realized I have no control over my thoughts. They came and went as it pleased. At times the mind would drift, then at times the mind would remember to focus.

Even during a short walking meditation session, thoughts just came popping about even in my attempt to focus on the soles of my feet.

I know I just used a bunch of self referencing personal pronouns, but from the experience I see that I'm not in control.

What appears to be occurring is a lot of spontaneous thoughts, actions, and happenings.