Take me away

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

So there SEEMS TO BE determination, intent, to be following your guidance. But that's thought, nothing more. The AE of it is you guiding, I following, that's that? 'Your' patience and 'my' determination are one movement? (I stop here; you asked me not to add)

This is just a story, a thought interpretation.

The AE of it is you guiding, I following, that's that?

Are you sure about this?
Is there an AE of ‘Vivien guiding you’?
Is there an AE of ‘you following her guiding’?

How guiding as such is experienced?
How following as such is experienced?

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?
Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?
If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.

Let’s start to investigate the body and sensations. The illusion of the self is not just simply coming from thoughts, but also from the belief that “I am the body” or “I have a body” or that this or that sensation is ‘me’ or the location of the ‘me’, or that this or that sensation is happening to ‘me’. So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating a ‘sense of self’.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on verbal or visual thoughts:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.

Vivien

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

The AE of it is you guiding, I following, that's that?
Are you sure about this?

Not at all.

Is there an AE of ‘Vivien guiding you’?

There is no AE of you or you guiding me.

Is there an AE of ‘you following her guiding’?

There is no AE of I or my following you.

How guiding as such is experienced?

It is not experienced. Body sits, then stands, that's it.

How following as such is experienced?

It is not experienced. Body sits, then stands, that's it.

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?

Yes, but no. I can't say it's totally clear to me because it doesn't really come to me in experience, not spontaneously at least.

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?

Same. Yes and no.

If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.

There is a thought about typing four dots. Then there is a pause that lasts as I seemingly want it to. Then I see a finger press the key, four times, and I see four dots appear right here: .... Are there four dots? Yes. Why are there four dots: seemingly, in thought, because there was thought content labeled 'will' or 'intent' that there would be four dots, not three, not five, but four. Actually, in AE, all I see are fingers pressing keys but I cannot see what causes this to happen. So I dismiss all thoughts surrounding that finger action and dots as what they are, just stories, which don't effect anything anyway. What remains is the AE of .... And the rest is bla.

While I can look at it that way, I do also see those thoughts and their contents, and what seemingly led to those four dots. So it's not a spontaneous realization or just looking really. And I cannot say it's totally clear. I need to keep looking.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

When I rely on pure sensations, I don't feel a body. So its height would be unknown.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

It has no weight or volume.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No form or shape can be perceived.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, there is a sensation of clothing being felt but that doesn't feel like implying a body.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No, there is pressure felt but that could be well in the middle of nowhere.

Is there an inside or an outside?

It doesn't feel that way. It is as if body sensations just are. There is no boundary felt (even skin doesn't feel outside) and no side in or out.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

To perceptions/experience. Thoughts then translate those perceptions into a 'body'. If I understand the question correctly, the answer could be thoughts, ultimately.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

A bunch of perceptions/experience.

Ben

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

V: Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?

B: Yes, but no. I can't say it's totally clear to me because it doesn't really come to me in experience, not spontaneously at least.
While I can look at it that way, I do also see those thoughts and their contents, and what seemingly led to those four dots. So it's not a spontaneous realization or just looking really. And I cannot say it's totally clear. I need to keep looking.

Is there an expectation here that seeing through the self or chooser should happen 24/7 or more often, or not spontaneously? To get into a state of constant clear seeing?

Can you see EVERY time when you LOOK that there is no chooser or decider?

Seeing through the self/chooser means that EVERY TIME when LOOKING happens it is clearly seen that there is nothing behind the word ‘me’ or self.

So thoughts are ‘talking’ about the chooser, choice or free will, but these concepts/thoughts are not in line with experience.

And also thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser"....so look and see if thought is correct...look and see if you can find this chooser that thought keeps pointing to. Can you?

And although thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser “ - but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this?

No, there is a sensation of clothing being felt but that doesn't feel like implying a body.

How is it known that there is a clothing being felt?
What is the AE of a clothing being felt?

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘clothing being felt’? What do suggest this?

How many sensations are there: a sensation labelled ‘skin’ + another sensation labelled ‘clothing’?
Are there 2 sensations there?

V: What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

B: A bunch of perceptions/experience.

There is NO AE of perception.

Color and shape is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of color only.
The visual thought labelled ‘body’ is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of a thought only.
Sensations are NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensations only.
The appearance of movement is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of colors only.
There is ZERO AE of body.

Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct, nothing else.
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of colors, sensations and thoughts. Can you see this?

Vivien

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

Is there an expectation here that seeing through the self or chooser should happen 24/7 or more often, or not spontaneously? To get into a state of constant clear seeing?

I see why you're asking, but no, I don't think there is such an expectation. I just need more evidence, more refutation, more looking, that's all.


Can you see EVERY time when you LOOK that there is no chooser or decider?

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

(I must have hit submit by mistake, hence that earlier post. Since I don't cause anything, I won't apologize ;)

Is there an expectation here that seeing through the self or chooser should happen 24/7 or more often, or not spontaneously? To get into a state of constant clear seeing?

I see why you'd be asking, but no, I don't think there is such an expectation. I just need more evidence, more refutation, more looking, that's all. I'm a slow processor.

Can you see EVERY time when you LOOK that there is no chooser or decider?

Not always but nor do I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

And also thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser"....so look and see if thought is correct...look and see if you can find this chooser that thought keeps pointing to. Can you?

I can say that I haven't found a chooser or decider outside thought.

And although thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a chooser “ - but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this?

Yes, clearly.

How is it known that there is a clothing being felt?

I used 'clothing' as word but, clearly, that label is not being felt in AE?[/quote]

What is the AE of a clothing being felt?

Contact or, better, there is a sensation of touch.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘clothing being felt’? What do suggest this?

Only thought suggests such thing: this is clothing. Pure sensation is pure sensation only.

How many sensations are there: a sensation labelled ‘skin’ + another sensation labelled ‘clothing’?
Are there 2 sensations there?

One sensation of touch (hence contact is imprecise).

There is NO AE of perception.

Otherwise we'd be back to witnessing.

Color and shape is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of color only.
The visual thought labelled ‘body’ is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of a thought only.
Sensations are NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensations only.
The appearance of movement is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of colors only.
There is ZERO AE of body.

Well noted. Nothing to disagree with.

Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct, nothing else.
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of colors, sensations and thoughts. Can you see this?

Yes, I do. In my earlier post, I referred to it as a bunch of perceptions and thought, ultimately. Notwithstanding my very clumsy, loose and imprecise statements, they sought to express the same you just broke down for me.

Thank you.
Ben

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

(I must have hit submit by mistake, hence that earlier post. Since I don't cause anything, I won't apologize ;)

Nice :)

I see why you'd be asking, but no, I don't think there is such an expectation. I just need more evidence, more refutation, more looking, that's all. I'm a slow processor.

All right. It’s the constant looking, looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.

V: Can you see EVERY time when you LOOK that there is no chooser or decider?

B: Not always but nor do I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

What do you mean by this?
That although the self or the chooser cannot be found, it’s not enough evidence for you that it’s not there? Or what exactly?

I can say that I haven't found a chooser or decider outside thought.

If you haven’t found it, then what makes you belief that there might be a chooser or decider somewhere?

Contact or, better, there is a sensation of touch.
One sensation of touch (hence contact is imprecise).

But how is it known that the sensation is a touch?
How is it known that there is a contact?

In order to say that there is a contact (between clothing and skin) you would have find both things.
One sensation for the skin.
Another sensation for the clothing.
And there also have to be an EXPERIENCE of contact between those two sensation.
Can any of these be found? – look very carefully

Is there an AE of contact? How contact as such is experienced?

Yes, I do. In my earlier post, I referred to it as a bunch of perceptions and thought, ultimately. Notwithstanding my very clumsy, loose and imprecise statements, they sought to express the same you just broke down for me.

Good :)

Vivien

[Bengo]

Hi Vivien!

V: Can you see EVERY time when you LOOK that there is no chooser or decider?

B: Not always but nor do I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

V: What do you mean by this?
That although the self or the chooser cannot be found, it’s not enough evidence for you that it’s not there? Or what exactly?

Not every time I look I see clearly that there is no chooser, because the whole setup of thoughts--the circumstantial evidence, so to say--is very tricky and difficult to see through at times. But I don't take this as compelling evidence to counter the AE of no chooser being found, so I'll continue looking until it gets crystal clear.

If you haven’t found it, then what makes you belief that there might be a chooser or decider somewhere?

Well, it's easy being deceived: when one first thinks about and seemingly wills a finger to move and then observes it actually moving, one may be forgiven (hmm, maybe not) to get the impression that thought or will are determinant. Amid the fog of thoughts, the AE (of no direct causality) is not that clear cut all the time to me. That said, let me emphasize again that I do not believe that there is a mover or decider as I have no actual evidence in support; all I want is to see more clearly.

In order to say that there is a contact (between clothing and skin) you would have find both things. [...] Can any of these be found? – look very carefully

Neither skin nor clothing are directly experienced. Skin and everything body is all thought construct, I see that clearly.

Is there an AE of contact? How contact as such is experienced?

No AE. Right now, I experience contact (clothes on skin) as warmth, thus a pure sensation, not an AE of contact.

Ben

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

Not every time I look I see clearly that there is no chooser, because the whole setup of thoughts--the circumstantial evidence, so to say--is very tricky and difficult to see through at times. But I don't take this as compelling evidence to counter the AE of no chooser being found, so I'll continue looking until it gets crystal clear.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Skin and everything body is all thought construct, I see that clearly.

Great. We will come back to look further with the body later.

That said, let me emphasize again that I do not believe that there is a mover or decider as I have no actual evidence in support; all I want is to see more clearly.

Yes, this is very important to see clearly that there is no chooser whatsoever. I mean seeing it clearly EVERY TIME when there is LOOKING. But it doesn’t mean the illusion won’t reassert itself when not looking. But upon each looking it has to be totally clear that there is no such thing as a chooser, choice, control, controller, free will, intention, etc.
We will investigate this topic as long as we need to. We don’t have to rush.

So I will post you the exercises on control again. Please do them again, and watch like a hawk! Do everything very slowly, so you can observe more closely what is going on.

Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?

Also, when you are not doing the exercise, observe how choosing happens in your everyday life as often as you can remember.
Let me know what you find.


Vivien

[Bengo]

Vivien, here is an afterthought, which I'd like to share with you:
Ben seems attached to will, perseverance, determination because that's been big throughout his life, a lifeline of sorts, also during these latter years. Having shed almost everything else, there may be some subconscious clinging to this last bastion of self. And he's terribly slow in his head.
Ben

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

I will reply later for your last post. But have you see that I replied back to your previous comment about redoing the exercises of control?

Vivien

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?

Here's the sequence:
Thought: I had strong coffee not too long ago, so it's got to be tea.
Thought: what tea is it going to be? Oolong, green, maybe just some hojicha.
Action, not thought: opening the cabinet, looking at tea, eyeing some Pu'er teas and 'deciding' (i.e. out of the blue, without pondering) to have the best one of those. Observation: the actual choice of tea was not predetermined by thought.
Thought: hmm.. it's been a while I haven't had Pu'er, oh this one was a gift, how did I use to prepare Pu'er tea? Where is the right tea pot?
Action: body opens cabinets, walks around in search of the pot, finds it eventually. Observation: thoughts overlying body movements but no direct correspondence between the two.
Thought: I'll need water, let's put on the kettle.
Action: kettle to water dispenser (thought: it's nearly empty, I've got to refill), kettle back to base, turn on. Observation: thought overlay but movements are not contemporaneous to thought. Thoughts seem to decide or predict the action to follow.
Action: pour some water (Observation: 'automatic' how much water, when to stop)
Thought: soak the tea at first, then throw the water, then water again, let it soak for 10 seconds or so, then pour
Action: follows this process, more or less.
Action: get a cup, pour, oh no, it's too small, get another cup, not so nice, who cares, pours all tea. Observation: there is thought overlay but too slow for it to control all this.

Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?

I did not choose not to. It was known that Pu'er doesn't go with tea.

Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?

That decision (no milk) was like a given, involving not even a thought.

Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?

Everything leading up to it (coffee or tea), what tea, where's all the stuff is being thought about. While thought happens, tea is being made. The choice of tea happened spontaneously. The small cup first (for finer teas), and the larger one afterwards (for black tea), were chosen spontaneously. Everything is surrounded by thoughts but not under their direct, immediate control.

Can a chooser be located?

There's the chatter (I had coffee already) being listened to (ok, it's tea then), which sets up the stage for tea, not coffee. That's some evidence about choice forming in thought. Then there's the body moving in parallel to thoughts and going through the motions of getting everything set up. There is no evidence that those motions are controlled by thoughts but they are in line with the directives set out in thought: I don't see coffee being made.

But now it's time for the second pouring. I go back to the kitchen. I see kettle, pot, cup in front. I think: the second pouring is the best one. While I think: I notice hand turns on the kettle, moves kettle over to pour the water, pours the tea into cup. Observation: clearly, no thought doing any of this.

Just took another sip (no choice, just happenend). Earthy, delicious! (thought).

Can the chooser be located: never really; either it's thoughts, which have no location, or it's not even thoughts, just action observed. But, even though they can't be located, thoughts do have a bearing on some of the action to follow. Or, more likely, thoughts are formed on the basis of habitual patterns that anticipate, more or less accurately, the action to follow, thus giving the impression of a self in control, when in fact it is not. Yeah, that's it.

Ben

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

Action, not thought: opening the cabinet, looking at tea, eyeing some Pu'er teas and 'deciding' (i.e. out of the blue, without pondering) to have the best one of those. Observation: the actual choice of tea was not predetermined by thought.

“The actual choice of tea was not predetermined by thought” – all right. So it wasn’t done by thought.
And is there anything in the background that made that choice?
Is there anything making decision?

Observation: thought overlay but movements are not contemporaneous to thought. Thoughts seem to decide or predict the action to follow.

Are thoughts ACTUALLY deciding and predicting the action to follow, or only thoughts are ‘talking’ ABOUT deciding and predicting actions?
Is there an ACTUAL decider and predicter somewhere?
Is there an ACTUAL decision and prediction going on, or there are only thoughts ABOUT a decision and prediction?
Do the words ‘deciding’ and ‘predicting actions’ ACTUALLY point to something real?
Is there anything behind these words?

Action: get a cup, pour, oh no, it's too small, get another cup, not so nice, who cares, pours all tea. Observation: there is thought overlay but too slow for it to control all this.

And if the thoughts weren’t that slow then would that mean that the thoughts controlling actions?

There's the chatter (I had coffee already) being listened to (ok, it's tea then), which sets up the stage for tea, not coffee. That's some evidence about choice forming in thought.

Is it really?
Is there an ACTUAL choice forming in thoughts?
Is there such thing as choice?
Can THE choice itself be found at all?
How choice itself is experienced?
Does the word ‘choice’ point to anything? Anything at all?
Is there anything behind the word ‘choice’?

Can the chooser be located: never really; either it's thoughts, which have no location, or it's not even thoughts, just action observed. But, even though they can't be located, thoughts do have a bearing on some of the action to follow. Or, more likely, thoughts are formed on the basis of habitual patterns that anticipate, more or less accurately, the action to follow, thus giving the impression of a self in control, when in fact it is not. Yeah, that's it.

And do these thoughts know what the habitual pattern is, so they can comment accordingly?
In other words, how is it known exactly that thoughts are in accordance with the action?

Without a thought making the claim that ‘the thoughts formed on the basis of habitual patterns of actions’, how can it be known that there is any link or correlation between the thoughts and the action?

Ben seems attached to will, perseverance, determination because that's been big throughout his life, a lifeline of sorts, also during these latter years. Having shed almost everything else, there may be some subconscious clinging to this last bastion of self. And he's terribly slow in his head

“Ben seems attached to will, perseverance, determination” – all right, let’s investigate these.

How will is experienced?
How perseverance is experienced?
How determination is experienced?

What is the AE of ‘being terribly slow in the head”?

Vivien

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

It took me a little (told you I'm slow), but I'm not going to revise my replies:

And is there anything in the background that made that choice?
Is there anything making decision?

Nothing making the decision can be directly observed. But, obviously, had I not recognized Pu'er tea (packaging, taste) from past memory (i.e. thoughts), I would not have chosen it. To me, that would point to decision made out of or on the basis of thoughts.

Are thoughts ACTUALLY deciding and predicting the action to follow, or only thoughts are ‘talking’ ABOUT deciding and predicting actions?

The evidence is inconclusive. Thoughts seem to determine or correctly anticipate what (tea, not coffee) and when (now, not later) things get done. The procedure then seems to be relegated to muscle memory.

Is there an ACTUAL decider and predicter somewhere?

There seems to be, in the form of that voice (thought process) evaluating whether or not it'll be tea or coffee. It reaches a reasoned conclusion and l, surely enough, actions follow on line with that decision.

Is there an ACTUAL decision and prediction going on, or there are only thoughts ABOUT a decision and prediction?

Thought content is observed ABOUT a decision (tea, now), followed by observation of outcome aligned with that thought content. There is no observation that would support the contrary (coffee or later).

Do the words ‘deciding’ and ‘predicting actions’ ACTUALLY point to something real?

Pointing to thought content, these words are pointing to something that is not real.

Is there anything behind these words?

Not as such. They only serve the effort to unentangle the story about decision making these words and this exchange is focusing on.

And if the thoughts weren’t that slow then would that mean that the thoughts controlling actions?

Thoughts could equally be running ahead of the action observed, leading to this same conclusion. The observation that there is no direct, immediate correspondence between thoughts and action I take as validated.

Is there an ACTUAL choice forming in thoughts?

There are thoughts pondering alternative options, leading to an expression of preference of one over another. To me that's evidence of a decision being formed. Is it actual? Well, I see tea being made and I taste tea, not coffee.

Is there such thing as choice?

Tea vs. Coffee we are taking as a matter of choice.

Can THE choice itself be found at all?

It is observed as a thought process. If thought content is discarded as unreal and irrelevant a priori, then we are choosing not to find anything in there, but that would be a foregone, tautological conclusion.

How choice itself is experienced?

As a thought process, in the case of tea vs. coffee.

Does the word ‘choice’ point to anything? Anything at all?
Is there anything behind the word ‘choice’?

It would be the prospect (thought) of alternative outcomes, leading to the actual experience of either tea or coffee as color, taste, etc.

Actually, there is nothing behind the word choice and choice itself if we take the AE of coffee vs tea to be the same, since the distinction of color and taste is mere thought as well, so it doesn't really matter whether one or the other ultimately. Choice then is a (non)matter of thought (and your's is a trick question;). If that's what we're after in this exercise (I guess we are), stripping all thoughts away, we'll soon be left with preciously little to exchange about with words.

And do these thoughts know what the habitual pattern is, so they can comment accordingly?
In other words, how is it known exactly that thoughts are in accordance with the action?

Without a thought making the claim that ‘the thoughts formed on the basis of habitual patterns of actions’, how can it be known that there is any link or correlation between the thoughts and the action?

Based on the above conclusion, I'm having 'level confusion', attempting to answer these questions. There's no choice, because there's no options. Darn tricky and deceiving those thoughts, aren't they?

Vivien, why do you always have to ask these difficult questions? :)

How will is experienced?

Thought. Story of my life. Poor little Ben buhuuuu :)

How perseverance is experienced?

Thought.

How determination is experienced?

Thought.

What is the AE of ‘being terribly slow in the head”?

Sounds of chewing caterpillars, rainbow colors, cacophonous sounds, ...no AE really


Be n

[Vivien]

Hi Ben,

Nothing making the decision can be directly observed. But, obviously, had I not recognized Pu'er tea (packaging, taste) from past memory (i.e. thoughts), I would not have chosen it. To me, that would point to decision made out of or on the basis of thoughts.

What I’m seeing from your replies is that you have a look at experience, but after seeing, you are making all sorts of intellectual conclusions and reasoning about what has been seen.

You are mixing looking with thinking. And you cannot get anywhere if you mix intellectual reasoning into looking. If you want to see through the illusion, you have to rely on experience purely. After the seeing, use words to describe the experience as precisely as you can, without adding any extra.

If after this you are trying to analyse and find pros and cons and making conclusions then you are NEGATING what you have seen before, since you are back to the analytical thinking again. Can you see this?

So with your above comment, you made thought conclusions based on the belief of cause and effect, is based on the belief in memory and thus time. We will look at these beliefs later.

To me, that would point to decision made out of or on the basis of thoughts.

This statement is simply a thought conclusion, it has nothing to do with experience. This is a dead end.

You cannot see through the illusion by thinking and reasoning. Since thoughts are the main cause for the illusion. You cannot use the same tool which creating the illusion in the first place.

You have to put aside all learned knowledge, all thoughts and look at experience directly. But after seeing it, you cannot go back to analysing it and making thought deductions. Otherwise you are back to the same illusion-making tool.

Thought will always ‘want’ to understand and intellectualize everything, this is what thoughts are ABOUT: analysing, interpreting, and putting everything into categories or into order, and most of all, conceptualizing the actual experience.
And it’s not problematic in and of itself. But for this investigation we have to stick to the pure experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

Why? Because the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. The self is just a concept. It’s not a real thing. It’s a fantasy. It’s a mirage in the desert. For a newborn baby, there is no concept of self. For the newborn there is only pure experiencing. And just later, when language is introduced, the concept of a self emerges, out of the thin air. It’s just a fabrication, but with time this fabrication is taken as reality. And what is the problem with that? It’s suffering. Only a self could suffer.

So for the infant there is only pure experiencing. Sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation. She is in direct contact with experience. But as cognition develops she starts to conceptualize her experience. Putting everything into categories, labelling the experience, etc. And of itself it’s not problematic. But this conceptualization is overlaying the experience, and it gets thicker and thicker. And at some point she hardly can access her direct experience, since she can only see the conceptual overlay. Like seeing everything through a pink tinted glass. At some point pinkness gets so natural (used to), that she even stops knowing/seeing that everything is just coloured pink, but not in reality. And at that point this conceptual overlay is believed to be THE TRUTH. Pink becomes the ultimate truth. The pinkness distorts our perception of what is really going on.

Whatever thoughts ‘say’, is the truth/reality from now on. This is how humans live their lives. We hardly can connect with our immediate experience since we believe that the overlaying thought concepts are all there is. And of course concepts are very useful when solving a problem, building a bridge or a house. But concepts/thoughts are just tools. But for humans the tool itself is overthrown what is really happening and creating all sorts of problems. This tool cannot be turned off. It’s like having a hammer as tool. The hammer is very useful for hitting the nail into the wall, but it’s not so useful for making dinner. But for humans, thoughts (the hammer) cannot be switched off, and we hammer everything with thoughts.

Thoughts, as a tool, has its place and value when a problem needs to be solved, but when the task is done, we should be able to put the tool (thoughts) down and just rest in the natural peace of experience. But thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay in and of itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.

This is why we have to stick to our immediate experience while doing this investigation. Not to devaluate thoughts and concepts, but rather to see what is really going on ‘behind the scenes’. When investigating the nature of reality and the self we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself on the first place.

So, from now on, please try to put aside all doubting thoughts, and just trust the process. Trust your immediate direct experience. Trust that this process will yield result. If you stay with the actual experience and just keep looking and looking, you will be able to distinguish what is really happening and what is just a fabrication. At the end, many of your intellectual answers will be answered by your direct experience.

It’s the process of looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about of the realization.

So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?

The evidence is inconclusive. Thoughts seem to determine or correctly anticipate what (tea, not coffee) and when (now, not later) things get done. The procedure then seems to be relegated to muscle memory.

This is only thought reasoning again.

“the procedure then seems to be relegated to muscle memory” – thought concussion; it’s not coming from looking!

What is the AE of ‘muscle memory’?

V: Is there an ACTUAL decider and predicter somewhere?

B: There seems to be, in the form of that voice (thought process) evaluating whether or not it'll be tea or coffee. It reaches a reasoned conclusion and l, surely enough, actions follow on line with that decision.

SEEMS! We talked about this before. Here is my previous reply to you:

This is just a thought story, not AE. And how can you know that? When a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” then it’s a sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy or speculation.

Can you see this?

My question was about LOOKING for an ACTUAL decider or predicter.
But you didn’t look.
Rather you wrote down the contents of thoughts.

A SEEMING decider is NOT an ACTUAL decider.
A SEEMING dinosaur projected onto the wall, is NOT an ACTUAL dinosaur.

Can you see that you HAVE TO FIND an ACTUAL DECIDER in order to make the claim that there is one?
Not just an ASSUMED one, not just a CONCLUDED one, not just a SEEMING one, but an ACTUAL ONE?

Thoughts could equally be running ahead of the action observed, leading to this same conclusion. The observation that there is no direct, immediate correspondence between thoughts and action I take as validated.

Yes! This is coming from looking!

V: Is there an ACTUAL choice forming in thoughts?

B: There are thoughts pondering alternative options, leading to an expression of preference of one over another. To me that's evidence of a decision being formed. Is it actual? Well, I see tea being made and I taste tea, not coffee.

But this is reasoning only. This is just a thought conclusion. It’s not coming from looking.

You have to LOOK for an ACTUAL choice forming in thoughts.
If you cannot find it, then it means that choice is an empty word, doesn’t point to anything.

There is NO such thing as choice, there is ONLY thoughts ABOUT choice!
But a thought ABOUT choice is NOT a choice, but a THOUGHT ONLY.
Can you see this?

V: Is there such thing as choice?

B: Tea vs. Coffee we are taking as a matter of choice.

This is thought conclusion again.

Ben, do you have a resistance looking at experience only?
Is there a resistance to leave thought interpretations behind, and look at pure experience only?
If yes, could you please explain why?

V: Can THE choice itself be found at all?

B: It is observed as a thought process. If thought content is discarded as unreal and irrelevant a priori, then we are choosing not to find anything in there, but that would be a foregone, tautological conclusion.

Thinking, thinking, thinking and more thinking!

You are taking the contents of thoughts as ultimate truth.
You are looking through the pink-tinted glass.
But you are so used to it that you even forget that you look at everything through pinkness (through concepts).
Pinkness (contents of thoughts) has become the truth.

V: How choice itself is experienced?

B: As a thought process, in the case of tea vs. coffee.

Thought conclusion again.

Choice as such is NEVER EVER EXPERIENCED.
Thoughts about choice is NOT the AE of choice, but the AE of THOUGHTS ONLY.

And there is NOT even such thing as ‘thought process’.
What is the AE of thought process?
How many thoughts can be there at the same time?

V: Does the word ‘choice’ point to anything? Anything at all?
Is there anything behind the word ‘choice’?

B: It would be the prospect (thought) of alternative outcomes, leading to the actual experience of either tea or coffee as color, taste, etc.

You are simply not looking.

Ben, you either don’t see that you are looking everything through pink-glasses (thinking only) or you have a big resistance to looking at experience directly. Which one?

Actually, there is nothing behind the word choice and choice itself if we take the AE of coffee vs tea to be the same, since the distinction of color and taste is mere thought as well, so it doesn't really matter whether one or the other ultimately. Choice then is a (non)matter of thought (and your's is a trick question;). If that's what we're after in this exercise (I guess we are), stripping all thoughts away, we'll soon be left with preciously little to exchange about with words.

This is analytical thinking again. It’s not about that tea and coffee are the same since there is no distinction in color. This is just a reasoning!

It’s about SEEING that there is NO such thing as choice, or chooser. NONE.
It has nothing to do with coffee or tea being the same since both are just colors. Not at all.
And even this above sentence is not in line with experience, but this is a different topic.

V: And do these thoughts know what the habitual pattern is, so they can comment accordingly?
In other words, how is it known exactly that thoughts are in accordance with the action?
Without a thought making the claim that ‘the thoughts formed on the basis of habitual patterns of actions’, how can it be known that there is any link or correlation between the thoughts and the action?

B: Based on the above conclusion, I'm having 'level confusion', attempting to answer these questions. There's no choice, because there's no options. Darn tricky and deceiving those thoughts, aren't they?

No. This is a reasoning again. You make a conclusion from one thought to another. Belief upon belief.

The reason why there is no choice is NOT because there are no options.
But simply because there is no such thing as choice! Point. There is no because….
Choice is an illusion! Just as the self/me an illusion! Actually both are the SAME ILLUSION.
If one is seen through, the other is seen through simultaneously.

Vivien, why do you always have to ask these difficult questions? :)

Because it’s my job to guide you out of the huge web of beliefs (thoughts) and look at the simplicity of experience.

And it’s not difficult at all. It just SEEMS TO BE difficult only, because your trying to do the impossible: figure this out with thinking!

V: How will is experienced?

B: Thought. Story of my life. Poor little Ben buhuuuu :)

But a thought about will is NOT the AE of will, but the AE of thought only.

Will isn’t experienced as a thought! – Can you see this?
Only an arising thought as a phenomenon can be experienced as thought. Can you see this?
But the content of thought is NOT the AE of thought. – Can you see this?
And will is just the content, and the content of a thought is never ever experienced. Can you see this?

V: How perseverance is experienced?

B: Thought.

No. Perseverance is NOT experienced as thought. It’s impossible. Perseverance is just a fantasy.

Since perseverance is the content, and content of a thought is never ever experienced. Can you see this?

The only experience of a thought is when it is noticed that there is a thought.
But what the thought is about is never ever experienced. Is this crystal clear?

V: How determination is experienced?

B: Thought.

There is ZERO experience of determination.
There is no such thing as determination. It’s just a fantasy.

Vivien

[Bengo]

Dear Vivien,

If after this you are trying to analyse and find pros and cons and making conclusions then you are NEGATING what you have seen before, since you are back to the analytical thinking again. Can you see this?

I see what you are saying. I described thought content and the deductions that follow to describe how all this comes to be taken as a deciding element, leading to coffee.

So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?

Yes. I have been looking. I can refrain from describing anything pertaining to thoughts (content).

What is the AE of ‘muscle memory’?

No AE.

This is just a thought story, not AE. ,[...]
Can you see this?

Yes. It's just a thought story, but one I wanted to share.

But you didn’t look.

It may not reflect in my answers but, actually, I did look, and again and again.

Can you see that you HAVE TO FIND an ACTUAL DECIDER in order to make the claim that there is one?
Not just an ASSUMED one, not just a CONCLUDED one, not just a SEEMING one, but an ACTUAL ONE?

Yes, and I could not SEE a decider.

Ben, do you have a resistance looking at experience only?
Is there a resistance to leave thought interpretations behind, and look at pure experience only?
If yes, could you please explain why?

No.

What is the AE of thought process?
How many thoughts can be there at the same time?

AE ignores thought content and only notices thoughts come and go. By not looking into thoughts, a thought process would not be AE other than the usual stream of thoughts, whatever they are about. One thought at a time.

Ben, you either don’t see that you are looking everything through pink-glasses (thinking only) or you have a big resistance to looking at experience directly. Which one?

Neither, if you would allow for that possibility. I do see why you'd ask though.

Will isn’t experienced as a thought! – Can you see this?

Yes. My answer ('thought') was loosely stated. The extensive version would have read: will is not experienced. It is the content of thought.

Only an arising thought as a phenomenon can be experienced as thought. Can you see this?

Yes

But the content of thought is NOT the AE of thought. – Can you see this?

Yes

And will is just the content, and the content of a thought is never ever experienced. Can you see this?

Yes

Since perseverance is the content, and content of a thought is never ever experienced. Can you see this?

Just as the same as with will.

The only experience of a thought is when it is noticed that there is a thought.
But what the thought is about is never ever experienced. Is this crystal clear?

Yes.

So my AE of coffee vs. tea is that a decider cannot be detected (how could it be, unless it was experienced as color, taste, sound, smell, sensation, or a thought container.) There is thought content that predicts correctly what would happen and when, but that is to be ignored in this process of exploration.

Ben