Help Me Please!!

[Brenda]

See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?

As I look I see these thoughts appearing and disappearing. I do not see anything considering these options. I don't see anything doing any kind of control for these options.

Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

I do not see anything listing pros and cons. I just see thoughts appearing and disappearing.

Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?

I do not see anything that makes the thought appear. It just happens. I do not see anything controlling the thoughts.

Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

I do not see anything making the decision. It just happens.

Now, do according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

A thought appeared to eat the chocolate, and it was eaten. The body performed the action but it was not told to do it, it just happened. I do not see anything making the decision or controlling what happens, it just happens.

I watched all day and I see that "I" had no control of anything that happened. The day played out whether I was aware or not. I saw myself walking talking and moving about wether I was aware or not.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

You did a great looking.

I watched all day and I see that "I" had no control of anything that happened. The day played out whether I was aware or not. I saw myself walking talking and moving about wether I was aware or not.

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

[Brenda]

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

This is totally clear. I continue to watch things happen over and over. I am not choosing, and as I look, I cannot find a chooser. Things are just happening.

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.

Yes. This is clear. It is interesting.I remember in middle school I believed there so no such thing as free will. And I was continually told otherwise until I believed it. I see this is the contents of a thought, but I feel I have lied to myself my entire life.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

no

Does the body have a weight or volume?

no

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

no. In the actual experience the body does not have a shape or form. The shape and form are defined within the content of a thought, but not in the actual experience.

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

In actual experience there is no boundary between the body and clothing or the char.

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?

There is no inside or outside.

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

The word body or a label is just the content of a thought. So the label "body" would be an overlay of an experience.
When I look, I do not see a body, but an image (color), sensations, and the knowledge of a thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

there is no ACTUAL experience of a body, but there is an image or color, sensation, and knowledge of thought. But no ACTUAL experience of a body.

I find myself looking often and am still amazed at what and how things are happening. Like I never noticed before, or at least see it differently now.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Yes. This is clear. It is interesting.I remember in middle school I believed there so no such thing as free will. And I was continually told otherwise until I believed it. I see this is the contents of a thought, but I feel I have lied to myself my entire life.

This is very interesting. Your story shows that how much beliefs we take on from others, and after a while we internalize them and believe them to be our own.

there is no ACTUAL experience of a body, but there is an image or color, sensation, and knowledge of thought. But no ACTUAL experience of a body.

Yes. You did an excellent looking :)

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 and sensations 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.

Close your eyes, and scan through the body. Look for every sensation that is present right now. You will find, that as you scan the body, a visual thought ‘shows’ the location of attention, so to speak.

If you look very carefully, you’ll find that there are some parts where the sensations are really strong, but there are other areas where there is hardly any sensation going on, or even nothing. So even the sensations what are labelled as ‘body’ cannot be experienced as a whole. I mean you cannot feel all ‘parts’ of the body at the same time. There is only a constructed a visual thought and with the label ‘body’, and the belief that the body is a whole unit, always present, always available. But this cannot be further from the truth. Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?

When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all?

How many sensations are there? Is there one for the ‘hand’ and another one for the ‘table’?

What is FEELING the sensation?
Where is the FEELER of sensations?
Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?

Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea and/or a mislabelled sensation?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?
Yes

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?

I feel the sensation and the thought but there is nothing I see that suggests there is a hand or touching. I do not see anything "doing".
There is only the sensation plus the knowing of a thought.

When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all?

No. the experience is the sensation and the knowing of the thought. There is no hand or table.

How many sensations are there? Is there one for the ‘hand’ and another one for the ‘table’?

There is only one sensation. There is not a different sensation for a hand or a table as they are only contents of a thought.

What is FEELING the sensation?
Where is the FEELER of sensations?
Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?

I do not see a feeler of sensation nor an INHERENT FEELER.
The feeling of a sensation is just a knowing, an awareness.

Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea and/or a mislabelled sensation?

I see the feeler only in the content of thought. There is no feeler just a mislabelled sensation.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I do not see a feeler of sensation nor an INHERENT FEELER.
The feeling of a sensation is just a knowing, an awareness.

Is there an sensation + the knowing or awareness of the sensation?

Are these two things? Sensation + awareness?

Where does the sensation ends and its knowing of is starts?

Can the sensation be separated from the knowing of it?

Can you peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?

Can there be a sensation without the knowing of it?

Can there be the knowing/awareness (of sensation) without the known (sensation)?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Is there an sensation + the knowing or awareness of the sensation?

Are these two things? Sensation + awareness?

Yes there is the sensation + the knowing of a thought (awareness).

Where does the sensation ends and its knowing of is starts?
there is no end and beginning. Both the sensation and the knowing just come and they just go. They are both part of the experience and can be simultaneously.
When there is a sensation, the contents of the thought usually labels it.

Can the sensation be separated from the knowing of it?
As I see a sensation, I see the knowing of a thought as well.

Can you peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?
no. I see a sensation and then the knowing of a thought. These both come and go. We don't do anything with them. There is no "putting" or "touching" anything. There is just a thought.

Can there be a sensation without the knowing of it?
This was the question we talked about a while back. There are times that there were sensations that I am not aware of.
For example, There may be a sound that I am experiencing with no thought associated with it and I am not aware of it. Then somebody may say "do you hear that"? or a thought may come up, but until that happens I do not "Know" a sound is being heard.
When the sensation is known there is also a knowing of a thought.
Another example, you are scratching an itch, and somebody will say "stop scratching that". I wasn't aware of the sensation until the thought arose.

Can there be the knowing/awareness (of sensation) without the known (sensation)?
If you mean can we know there is a sensation but not know what it is, then yes.
That is experience. If I do not acknowledge the content of the thought then I do not know what the sensation is.
As soon as I believe the content of the thought, then it is labelled.

I see sometimes thoughts label experience and sometimes thoughts tell a story of the experience.
Not that the thoughts have any intelligence or anything is "choosing" to do this, it just happens.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Please check what you has written before posting (as I suggested before), since you left out most of the quotations which makes hard to read the text both for you and me. Can we agree on this?

Yes there is the sensation + the knowing of a thought (awareness).
there is no end and beginning. Both the sensation and the knowing just come and they just go. They are both part of the experience and can be simultaneously.
When there is a sensation, the contents of the thought usually labels it.

This comment shows that there is a belief in an experiencer, in something that is knowing the thought.

Look for the one that is knowing the thought.
WHERE is the knower?
Where is this awareness?

V: Can the sensation be separated from the knowing of it?

B: As I see a sensation, I see the knowing of a thought as well.

Find the KNOWER of the sensation. Where is it?

Find the KNOWER of a thought. Where is it?

V: Can you peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?

B: no. I see a sensation and then the knowing of a thought. These both come and go. We don't do anything with them. There is no "putting" or "touching" anything. There is just a thought.

“We don’t do anything with them” – what does the word ‘we’ refer to in this sentence?

Please don’t just say that you don’t know how to write it differently. If you don’t know how to write it differently, it means that you cannot see it clearly. There is still a belief in an ‘I’ or a self, or awareness, or a knower, or something that is knowing the thought and the sensation.

Find this knower/awareness/I/self. Where do you look for it?

V: Can there be a sensation without the knowing of it?

B: This was the question we talked about a while back. There are times that there were sensations that I am not aware of.
For example, There may be a sound that I am experiencing with no thought associated with it and I am not aware of it. Then somebody may say "do you hear that"? or a thought may come up, but until that happens I do not "Know" a sound is being heard.
When the sensation is known there is also a knowing of a thought.
Another example, you are scratching an itch, and somebody will say "stop scratching that". I wasn't aware of the sensation until the thought arose.

This is a pure thought speculation, and it’s not coming from experience at all.

There is an assumption that when somebody asked ‘do you hear that?’, there was a sound there without being aware of it. This is nothing else than a thought speculation. This is not looking at experience.

When you refer back to a past (the moment before the question), that referring back happens only in THOUGHT.

It is only a thought SPECULATION saying that there MUST HAVE BEEN a sound without me being aware of it.

This based on the following beliefs:

- There is a me/I/self/awareness/knower/whatever what can be aware of things
- There can things, like sounds without me/I/self/awareness/knower being aware of it.

This is mere thought phantasy, and it has nothing to do with experience.

Find this me/I/self/awareness/knower that could be aware of things?
Where is it this awareness?
Is this inside the body?
Inside the head?
Behind the eyes?
Or where exactly?

V: Can there be the knowing/awareness (of sensation) without the known (sensation)?

B: If you mean can we know there is a sensation but not know what it is, then yes.

Thinking, thinking and thinking and NOT LOOKING. This is just a speculation.

Are there objects (like sounds, sensations, thoughts) that are waiting in the background for this awareness to be aware of them?

If you say yes, then how do you know that experientially?
Not by thought speculation (just as above) but experientially?

Where is this waiting-bay where sounds, sensations, thoughts are standing in lines waiting for awareness to be aware of them?

How can it be known that there is a sensation present, if the presence of the sensation is not known?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Please check what you has written before posting (as I suggested before), since you left out most of the quotations which makes hard to read the text both for you and me. Can we agree on this?

yes

Look for the one that is knowing the thought.
WHERE is the knower?
Where is this awareness?

I do not see anybody or anything that is knowing the thought. The thought just arises and there is an experience of knowing there is a thought.
I do not see any knower anywhere.
I do not see awareness anywhere. I was using awareness as a replacement word as knowing there is a thought.
There is not an awareness that I can see or pin point in any place.

Find the KNOWER of the sensation. Where is it?
Find the KNOWER of a thought. Where is it?

There is no KNOWER of sensation to find. It just is there. There is nothing to find.

There is no KNOWER of a thought. It doesn't exist anywhere. Thoughts just appear. there is no knower or anything making it appear.

V: Can you peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?
B: no. I see a sensation and then the knowing of a thought. These both come and go. We don't do anything with them. There is no "putting" or "touching" anything. There is just a thought.
“We don’t do anything with them” – what does the word ‘we’ refer to in this sentence?

Let me reword. I feel a sensation and a knowing of the thought. There is no doing or putting or touching taking place, the experience just appears. I do not see it coming from anywhere, it just happens.

Please don’t just say that you don’t know how to write it differently. If you don’t know how to write it differently, it means that you cannot see it clearly. There is still a belief in an ‘I’ or a self, or awareness, or a knower, or something that is knowing the thought and the sensation.

I did not realize I said that I don't know how to write it differently, but ok, I won't say that.

Find this knower/awareness/I/self. Where do you look for it?

I look for this "I" over and over. I look inside, I look outside. I look behind the eyes, in front of the eyes, in every part of my body. The knower/awareness/I/self cannot be found.

There is an assumption that when somebody asked ‘do you hear that?’, there was a sound there without being aware of it. This is nothing else than a thought speculation. This is not looking at experience.
When you refer back to a past (the moment before the question), that referring back happens only in THOUGHT.
It is only a thought SPECULATION saying that there MUST HAVE BEEN a sound without me being aware of it.

Point well taken.
As I look, when I feel a sensation there is a knowing of a thought.

Find this me/I/self/awareness/knower that could be aware of things?

I look and look and look and do not see anything that is aware of anything.

Where is it this awareness?
Is this inside the body?
Inside the head?
Behind the eyes?
Or where exactly?

I was referring to awareness as a knowing of a thought. Maybe that is the wrong wording.
There is nothing inside my body, head, eyes, or anywhere else that I see that is doing anything.

V: Can there be the knowing/awareness (of sensation) without the known (sensation)?

no.

Are there objects (like sounds, sensations, thoughts) that are waiting in the background for this awareness to be aware of them?

no, there is nothing waiting in the background. There is no "Awareness" waiting. I do not see this anywhere.

Where is this waiting-bay where sounds, sensations, thoughts are standing in lines waiting for awareness to be aware of them?

no, there is nothing waiting anywhere. There is no "Awareness" waiting. I do not see this anywhere.

How can it be known that there is a sensation present, if the presence of the sensation is not known?

It cannot be known that there is a sensation if there is not a "knowing of a thought".

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

B: no. I see a sensation and then the knowing of a thought. These both come and go. We don't do anything with them. There is no "putting" or "touching" anything. There is just a thought.

V: “We don’t do anything with them” – what does the word ‘we’ refer to in this sentence?

B: Let me reword. I feel a sensation and a knowing of the thought. There is no doing or putting or touching taking place, the experience just appears. I do not see it coming from anywhere, it just happens.

When I ask you a question, I’m not asking you to reword your comment. That is utterly useless. With ALL my questions and comments, I am asking you to LOOK to a certain direction, to LOOK for the we/I that thoughts are referring to.

With EVERY SINGLE questions I am asking you to ACTIVELY LOOK and SEARCH.
I never ask you to think, or reword your comment.

It’s the CONSTANT ACTIVE SEARCHING, searching and searching and not finding brings about the realization.

So you have to look hundreds or thousands of times again and again and again….

Is this totally clear that with ALL my questions and comments I’m asking you to ACTIVELY SEARCH for an entity, and not just believe me, or just think about it, or analyse it, or speculate?

V: There is an assumption that when somebody asked ‘do you hear that?’, there was a sound there without being aware of it. This is nothing else than a thought speculation. This is not looking at experience.
When you refer back to a past (the moment before the question), that referring back happens only in THOUGHT.
It is only a thought SPECULATION saying that there MUST HAVE BEEN a sound without me being aware of it.

B: Point well taken.

What do you mean by ‘point well taken’? Did you just accept what I wrote? Or did you ACTUALLY LOOKED at where my comments are pointing to, and investigated them in experience?

I do not see anybody or anything that is knowing the thought. The thought just arises and there is an experience of knowing there is a thought.
I do not see any knower anywhere.
I do not see awareness anywhere. I was using awareness as a replacement word as knowing there is a thought.
There is not an awareness that I can see or pin point in any place.

Now, look for the one that do not see anybody or anything that is know the thought.
Look for the SEER. Where is this seer?

Where is the one that is looking for the ‘I’?
What is it that is looking for the ‘I’?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Is this totally clear that with ALL my questions and comments I’m asking you to ACTIVELY SEARCH for an entity, and not just believe me, or just think about it, or analyse it, or speculate?

This is totally clear.

What do you mean by ‘point well taken’? Did you just accept what I wrote? Or did you ACTUALLY LOOKED at where my comments are pointing to, and investigated them in experience?

What I meant by point well taken was that I realized I fell back into thought with that comment about of "when somebody tells me something that I did that I was not aware of". I continue to look, but still get tricked back into believing the thought sometimes.
So I as I look again, when I feel a sensation there is an experience of the sensation with the knowing of thought. I do not see the thought as having any control, it just arises with the content of what the sensation is.

I do not see a sensation with out a knowing of a thought. That is not to say every sensation comes with a thought, but I do not see a sensation without also a thought. I do not see how they come, or if they come together. They just appear.

You were asking if I can peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?

As I look at the sensation, I cannot separate the sensation from the knowing of a thought. They both just appear. The sensation just appears, and the knowing of the thought just appears. I don't see them attached. they just arise.
When I look for the feeler of the sensation, I cannot not find one. I do not see where these sensations come from or why they come just as I do not see where the thoughts come from.
I also do not see why the thought arises when it does or how they chose to come.

I do see the contents of my thoughts saying one thing and then the next thought saying something else. The more I look, the more clear it becomes that it is just a story.

As I see or feel a sensation, I also see that the knowing of a thought appears, but if I don't believe the contents, then it is just an actual experience. But that brings me back to who decides to believe in the contents of a thought? I look and look, and don't see a decider, it just happens when I am not aware.
So that brings me to the question where is this awareness but I don't see awareness either.
I then look for the "I" that is not aware, and I cannot find the "I". It all appears to just happen but then the thought comes up how is it decided which thought is believed and I am back to the beginning of the circle which is where I feel stuck.
Next question: Where is this feeling of "stuck" in my body, but I cannot find it. As I look for this "feeling", my awareness goes to my heart, but I don't see "stuck" there.

I feel this is rambling but I want you to see my process and can correct it as you see fit.

Now, look for the one that do not see anybody or anything that is know the thought.
Look for the SEER. Where is this seer?

Where is the one that is looking for the ‘I’?
What is it that is looking for the ‘I’?

I do not see a SEER or the one that is looking for the "I", but I do feel a sensation, a sensation that a thought appeared, like an awareness.
When I look for this sensation or awareness, I cannot find it. It just appears, and I have a sensation it is there, but I cannot put a location to it.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I feel this is rambling but I want you to see my process and can correct it as you see fit.

Yes, thank you for sharing this with me, this helps a lot to see where are the stumbling blocks. I see lots of contradictions in your comments. With one sentence it seems that you can see something clearly, but you negate it with your following sentences.

And most of them are seem to be the same issues we addressed before, so there are definitely things that is not clear.

What I meant by point well taken was that I realized I fell back into thought with that comment about of "when somebody tells me something that I did that I was not aware of". I continue to look, but still get tricked back into believing the thought sometimes.

Yes, this is very common, and it doesn’t happen just with you. But it’s very important to keep an eye on this tendency; to listening to thoughts instead of what can be known without thought right here, right now, in experience.

I do see the contents of my thoughts saying one thing and then the next thought saying something else. The more I look, the more clear it becomes that it is just a story.

You have to pay close attention to this thought story, since your confusion is coming from listening to thoughts, instead of looking at experience directly. Can you see this?

So I as I look again, when I feel a sensation there is an experience of the sensation with the knowing of thought.

What do you mean by ‘there is an experience of the sensation with the knowing of thought’?
That there are two happenings there: sensationknowing + thought “here is a sensation”?
Or are you saying that the thought knows the presence of the sensation?

I do not see the thought as having any control, it just arises with the content of what the sensation is.

Or are you saying that there is: sensationknowing + thought “this is an unpleasant”?
Does the thought 'this is unpleasant' is NEEDED to know the presence of the pure/raw sensation?

I do not see a sensation with out a knowing of a thought. That is not to say every sensation comes with a thought, but I do not see a sensation without also a thought.

This statement doesn’t come from looking at experience.

Are you saying that you cannot be aware of the presence of a sensation without a thought?
Are you saying that a thought is needed to know that there is a sensation present?

You were asking if I can peel off the sensation from the knowing of it, and putting the sensation at left sand the awareness at the right without ‘touching’ each other?
As I look at the sensation, I cannot separate the sensation from the knowing of a thought.

This is a BIG misunderstanding here.

It seems that you believe that the knowing the presence of a sensation is coming from a thought.
That the presence of a sensation cannot be known without a thought talking about the presence of a sensation.
But this is NOT in line with experience.

Put one of your hands onto a table. Close your eyes. Pay attention only to the sensation.
Does a thought is needed to know that there is a sensation?
And if there is no thought commenting on the sensation then there is no sensation at all?

Imagine that all thoughts are muted completely. If thoughts were muted, would the sensation disappear?

Are you 100% sure that without a thought, the presence of ‘the hand on the table’ sensation cannot be known?
If you say yes, then it would mean that without thought there is no experience whatsoever. But is that so?

Listen to the sounds in your surrounding.
Does a thought is needed to know that there is a sound present?
Or the sound can be there (the presence of the sound can be known) regardless of thoughts?

As I see or feel a sensation, I also see that the knowing of a thought appears, but if I don't believe the contents, then it is just an actual experience.

This sentence is very confusing.

As I see or feel a sensation,

Can a sensation be SEEN?
Can a sensation be known any other way then FEELING it?

But that brings me back to who decides to believe in the contents of a thought? I look and look, and don't see a decider, it just happens when I am not aware.

This sentence is based on the belief that there is a ME/I that is sometimes aware and sometimes not, and things can happen behind ‘me not being aware of it’. But this is a pure belief.

What is the experience of deciding happening ‘when I am not aware’?
What is the experience of deciding happening ‘behind or outside of my awareness’?

So that brings me to the question where is this awareness but I don't see awareness either.
I then look for the "I" that is not aware, and I cannot find the "I". It all appears to just happen

Yes, there is neither an ‘I’ nor an ‘awareness’. But they don’t happen.
What doesn’t exist cannot happen.
It’s just ASSUMED or INFERRED to happen. But just in fantasy, but not in reality.

As I look for this "feeling", my awareness goes to my heart, but I don't see "stuck" there.

How can you say that ‘my awareness goes to my heart’ if it’s clear that there is no ‘I’, nor ‘awareness’?

I do not see a SEER or the one that is looking for the "I", but I do feel a sensation, a sensation that a thought appeared, like an awareness.

This sentence doesn’t make sense.

“I do feel a sensation, a sensation that a thought appeared” – Can a thought be FELT?
Are you saying that a thought is a sensation?

Vivien

[Brenda]

You have to pay close attention to this thought story, since your confusion is coming from listening to thoughts, instead of looking at experience directly. Can you see this?

Yes, Sometimes I do not realize I am even doing it. I will look closer.

What do you mean by ‘there is an experience of the sensation with the knowing of thought’?

Often when I experience a sensation, I also experience a thought whose content labels what I just felt.
I don't experience the label just that a thought appeared.

That there are two happenings there: sensationknowing + thought “here is a sensation”?

Yes when I experience a sensation, I also experience a thought has appeared.

Or are you saying that the thought knows the presence of the sensation?

I am not saying that the thought knows anything, I just see the thought appears and it's contents label the sensation. I do not experience the label, it is only the contents of the thought.

Or are you saying that there is: sensationknowing + thought “this is an unpleasant”?

As I try the example below, I see that there doesn't HAVE to be a thought. Discuss more below.

Does the thought 'this is unpleasant' is NEEDED to know the presence of the pure/raw sensation?

No, though I see thoughts continually arising.

Put one of your hands onto a table. Close your eyes. Pay attention only to the sensation.
Does a thought is needed to know that there is a sensation?

As I look and pay attention only to the sensation, I do see that a thought is not needed.
I have not had this experience up til now. As I "pay attention" to the sensation, the thoughts stop and I only experience the sensation.
When I just look and don't "pay attention" it seems as a thought arises.
I will look at this more tomorrow to become more clear.

And if there is no thought commenting on the sensation then there is no sensation at all?

When I look and pay attention to the sensation, no thought arises, so this statement is not true.
My confusion with this is when I am just looking and not "paying attention" to anything or any place. I need to look more at this to see it more clearly.

Imagine that all thoughts are muted completely. If thoughts were muted, would the sensation disappear?
My confusion with this, and you are pointing me to see it differently, but where I am stuck is that sometimes there may be a sensation that I don't notice at all. For example, if there was an itch, and I just itched it, with out "paying attention", then did I experience the sensation?

Are you 100% sure that without a thought, the presence of ‘the hand on the table’ sensation cannot be known?

I see that I can experience the sensation without a thought when I "pay attention", but who or what is the paying attention?

For example, I just had a thought my foot twitched. Without the thought, I did not "pay attention" to it, so I did not experience the sensation. But there is no "I", "I" is just the story, so it doesn't matter if I have a thought or a memory that it happened, it was still experienced. So in this case I see there are so many experiences that "I" has that are not remembered?
I know this paragraph is intellectual, but I feel I need to understand this.
I have been seeing "experience" as having to remember it happened and this is incorrect? Is this the belief that needs to be released?
I

If you say yes, then it would mean that without thought there is no experience whatsoever. But is that so?

No

Listen to the sounds in your surrounding.
Does a thought is needed to know that there is a sound present?
Or the sound can be there (the presence of the sound can be known) regardless of thoughts?

As I listen to the sounds in the room, I still see the same experience. If I zoom into the experience of the sound, no thoughts arise,
If I zoom out from the experience of the sound, the thought appears.

Can a sensation be SEEN?

no

Can a sensation be known any other way then FEELING it?

no, feeling only

What is the experience of deciding happening ‘when I am not aware’?

I do not see any experience here at all.

What is the experience of deciding happening ‘behind or outside of my awareness’?

I am not sure how to answer this. I will look closer

How can you say that ‘my awareness goes to my heart’ if it’s clear that there is no ‘I’, nor ‘awareness’?

I see this is an incorrect statement, I am not seeing something clearly, but I do not know what it is.

“I do feel a sensation, a sensation that a thought appeared” – Can a thought be FELT?

No a thought cannot be felt, it is just a knowing.

Are you saying that a thought is a sensation?

No, a thought is not a sensation.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

V: Does the thought 'this is unpleasant' is NEEDED to know the presence of the pure/raw sensation?

B: No, though I see thoughts continually arising.

Yes, thoughts often label sensations. Then what? It doesn’t matter at all.
The presence or the absence of the labelling doesn’t matter at all.
Can you see this?

My confusion with this, and you are pointing me to see it differently, but where I am stuck is that sometimes there may be a sensation that I don't notice at all

This is simply impossible. It’s impossible to be there a sensation without noticing it.
But thoughts ‘tell’ a different story, just as your speculation bellow:

For example, if there was an itch, and I just itched it, with out "paying attention", then did I experience the sensation?
This is the same issue we talked about a few days ago.

There is a belief in time and cause and effect.

As I listen to the sounds in the room, I still see the same experience. If I zoom into the experience of the sound, no thoughts arise,
If I zoom out from the experience of the sound, the thought appears.

But the presence of a thought has nothing to do with how things are.
Thoughts doesn’t have to go away in order to know the presence of a sound.
Also, the presence of a thought is not required to know the presence of a sound.
To know the presence of a thought and to know the presence of a sound are totally UNRELATED.
Can you see this?

For example, I just had a thought my foot twitched. Without the thought, I did not "pay attention" to it, so I did not experience the sensation. But there is no "I", "I" is just the story, so it doesn't matter if I have a thought or a memory that it happened, it was still experienced. So in this case I see there are so many experiences that "I" has that are not remembered?
I know this paragraph is intellectual, but I feel I need to understand this.
I have been seeing "experience" as having to remember it happened and this is incorrect? Is this the belief that needs to be released?

You are relying on what thoughts are telling about the topic, instead of looking at the experience directly.

Since the belief in cause and effect, which is the belief in time, let’s start to investigate time and memory.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

V: What is the experience of deciding happening ‘when I am not aware’?

B: I do not see any experience here at all.

So if it cannot be experienced/known that deciding is happening ‘when I am not aware’, then how on what based have you came to this conclusion that ‘deciding happening when I am not aware’?

Can you see that this is nothing else than a thought speculation?
Can you see that you didn’t look at experience directly, rather you just wrote down your THOUGHTS ABOUT it?

V: What is the experience of deciding happening ‘behind or outside of my awareness’?

B: I am not sure how to answer this. I will look closer

The question is straightforward.
You made the claim that ‘deciding happening when I am not aware’.
So you are saying the deciding is happening outside of your awareness.

And now I am asking what is the experience of ‘deciding happening outside of awareness’?
I am asking if it is actually an experience, or is it just another thought speculation?

Vivien

[Brenda]

The presence or the absence of the labelling doesn’t matter at all.
Can you see this?

Yes, I see this now. Ty.

To know the presence of a thought and to know the presence of a sound are totally UNRELATED.
Can you see this?

yes

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?

I see a memory is just a thought.
When I look for a memory, I see the contents of a thought.

WHEN does the memory appear?

I looked for a memory and it just appeared as a thought.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

I do not see an exact difference. When I look for a memory it comes up as a visual thought that tells a story.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

I am not seeing how it is determined that it had already happened. Can you point me towards this ? I am not seeing how the thought connects time.

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

As I look for a future thought, it again appears as a visual thought, like a movie on a screen.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

I don't see WHEN the future thought appears. They just appear.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

I see "Future" thoughts as visual, where general thoughts are almost audible if that makes sense.
When I look at a general thought, it is like I am talking to myself.
When I look at a future thought, it still appears like I am taking to myself but I have a visual reference as well.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

I do not see the difference in thoughts to tell me if they are future thoughts or memories. It is as if I just know. I do not see where this is coming from.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

I cannot see the difference between thoughts of past and future. Intellectually there must be a difference, but I do not see it.

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

I do not see this difference.

So if it cannot be experienced/known that deciding is happening ‘when I am not aware’, then how on what based have you came to this conclusion that ‘deciding happening when I am not aware’?

I see now this was based on a thought story

Can you see that this is nothing else than a thought speculation?
Can you see that you didn’t look at experience directly, rather you just wrote down your THOUGHTS ABOUT it?

Yes I see this. It is amazing how real the thoughts are and how they cover the direct experience. I continue to look to break this pattern.