I have tried to reply the best I could not really understanding the question.Please read my above questions again. Do you see that you haven’t replied my questions?
I think that with your answers last time we spoke clicked something in me... I was going around explaining my thoughts.. you made it clear that thoughts and ideas are not necessary and actually are an obstacle. I see that now.Can you see that your above comment is just an intellectualization?
Can you see that this kind of reasoning is useless with this investigation?
Am i wrong in thinking that the answers you want from me are even before thougths are formed, before ideas are formed.. just the plain, simple asnwering of a question.,?
I think I got what you are trying to say now.. but it is hard to explain things without using thought..At this stage, it is important to realize that looking and thinking is not the same.
So what is the difference between experience and thinking?
Experience is direct, thinking is imagining..is not direct is fantasy..
this is really hard but I am 100% with you on this one now.. from now on I am just going to reply from my direct experience.In this work you need to look in your experience and forget all you know, all you think is true, all you heard or read.
yes that is true.. but its so easy to believe it.. and keep th story going..But if something cannot be found in experience, then it isn’t clear that something is just thought of, just imagined? That it’s just made up? Just a fantasy?
YOU know thoughts? On what evidential bases do you make the statement that “I know thoughts”?
don't I know thoughts? thoughts appear - that is direct experience - but they don't appear to an entity, they simply appear..
nowhere to be found.. experience only is..Where is this “I” you are talking about?
there is no knower of thoughts.. there is thoughts appearing only..Where is the knower of thoughts? Where?
Love
Claudia

